New Super Hornet UAP video from 2015

sublight is back

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
Messages
851
Reaction score
155
This is laughable. We live in an age of 80 megapixel video cameras with high dynamic range and nightvision cameras that look like daytime, and the best they can do in these "UFO" stories is a grainy blob of poo? The people that photographed hubcaps were putting in more effort than this. Sad. Low energy.
 

sublight is back

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
Messages
851
Reaction score
155
Via the Drudge Report:


The real mystery here is why the US Navy is so afraid of calling out these Chinese UAV/ELINT/SIGINT incursions that they set up a department, complete with an idiot (Luis) on top, to leak them as "UFO" reports..... They (Navy) were so effective at not mentioning China, that the idiot still believes they are aliens.

Aliens that happened to be interested in ships that just came out of Refueling and Complex Overhaul (RCOH) And were fitted with new technology.

These same ships were part of carrier strike groups taking part in exercises to test its new Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) and Naval Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air (NIFC-CA) architecture. The Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) uses all the data from various assets, the latest E-2D Advanced Hawkeye radar, SPY-1 radars on cruisers and destroyers, Sensors and Radars on Super Hornets, and presents it all as a unified picture of the battlefield.
 
Last edited:

dannydale

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
May 13, 2007
Messages
513
Reaction score
339
Yeah, this is the Chicoms.

I don't think Beijing has any plans for the 21st century that don't involve starting a very large war against the United States. None at all.
 

Arjen

It's turtles all the way down
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
2,920
Reaction score
930
It is notoriously difficult to prove the non-existence of things
- Bertrand Russell's teapot
- The Invisible Pink Unicorn
- Alien infestation of UFOs
 

archipeppe

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
1,914
Reaction score
963
Premised that I never been an UFO's fan, I see that there is a change of communication paradigm:
- in past authorities tried to deny any off nominal aerial phenomena especially when connected with possible little green men
- today such phenomena are acknowledged even if (correctly) no further explanation is provided, leaving the door open to all possible speculations.

The point is more than 80 years that accountable eyewitnesses (pilots, military people, policemen etc.) spot off nominal aerial phenomena, all those people has nothing to gave and everything to loose reporting an UFO encounter. Indeed since the "Foo Fighters" during WWII (and maybe even earlier), all the same categories of objects are spotted.

Spheres, cylinders, triangles and other more or less geometrical shapes are seen above the sky or the sea, most of them have alsways the same aerodynamical uncoventional behavior (speed, maneuvers and accelerations that not are in accord with current TRL) and this is clearly showed off also in the Navy's recent videos.

What or who they are?
Honestly I don't know and I don't want to fulfill the easy equation: UFO/UAP=Aliens, but they are for real we now know it.
At least are real what military entities see and record.

Since such strange and off nominal aerodynamic behaviors are recorded by since I would exclude (for historical reasons) USSR/Russia and China.
This not exclude that some of such phenomena couldn't belong to China for instance but not enterity of them.
 

Justo Miranda

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2007
Messages
5,072
Reaction score
4,184
Website
www.amazon.com
Balloons, balloons, balloons...
 

Attachments

  • H7337305ebe3244b798d12c0b756c32903.png
    H7337305ebe3244b798d12c0b756c32903.png
    267.1 KB · Views: 10
  • journalists-guide-to-aircraft-identification-cessna-cessna-cessna-cessna-cessna-31896830.png
    journalists-guide-to-aircraft-identification-cessna-cessna-cessna-cessna-cessna-31896830.png
    183.7 KB · Views: 9
  • dpa-Ballon-20091016-DW-Vermischtes-Denver-jpg.jpg
    dpa-Ballon-20091016-DW-Vermischtes-Denver-jpg.jpg
    102.8 KB · Views: 7
  • ballon-2teaser-DW-Kultur-Berlin-jpg.jpg
    ballon-2teaser-DW-Kultur-Berlin-jpg.jpg
    84 KB · Views: 5
  • ballon-4-DW-Kultur-DENVER-jpg.jpg
    ballon-4-DW-Kultur-DENVER-jpg.jpg
    49.6 KB · Views: 13
  • 2af86f5a873a75c596e253db46e4b315.jpg
    2af86f5a873a75c596e253db46e4b315.jpg
    48.2 KB · Views: 15
  • Balloon Size.jpg
    Balloon Size.jpg
    44.4 KB · Views: 13
  • Size-Comparison.jpg
    Size-Comparison.jpg
    30.2 KB · Views: 8
  • ros_fig.gif
    ros_fig.gif
    28.5 KB · Views: 8

sublight is back

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
Messages
851
Reaction score
155
We do the exact same recon/ELINT against their defense systems, so its not a real shocker the Chinese military learned to do it as well.

But here is another "what if": What if we have been using some kind of cloak/projection/spoofer/whatever technology for the recon missions, and now the Chinese military through their espionage have stolen that technology? They would be using it for recon missions, and the Navy brass would be stuck in a corner. How do you report your adversaries use of your stolen highly classified technology?
 
Last edited:

edwest2

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
1,977
Reaction score
1,186
"No evidence... but can't rule it out" The definition of double-speak.

Yes, Justo, balloons were used in some cases.

And creating tension? Sure, why not? Russian? Chinese? I mean a circular aircraft could never be built much less fly.

An exercise in creating nothing out of nothing. But they can't rule out anything... Yawn.

No qualified observer after sighting a solid, unexplained object lost anything, just the ability to talk about it. Various JANAP directives were published in the early days. These Joint Army Navy Air Publications just kept widening the circle of people who were told to not say anything, including commercial pilots.
 
Last edited:

Flyaway

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
6,579
Reaction score
5,439
Even if they were aliens what are people expecting the US government to do about it. If someone is advanced enough to seemingly get around the laws of the universe to get here it’s not like we could do anything about it.
 

edwest2

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
1,977
Reaction score
1,186
Well, when they started using beam weapons to destroy cities... Oh wait. That never happened. Never mind.
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
4,492
Reaction score
3,903
I think that the right way to start a comprehensive analysis of the phenomenona comes by starting to understand that we have a variety of objects assimilated under one common name.
We should began by putting in place a classification, starting by their means of observation. Was it through a sensor? That sensor was visual or radar? Was there some kind of physically unexplained acceleration? What way was the progression of that acceleration relatively to the observer mean ?
Etc...

IMOHO, most but not all are seen through optical sensors. Most with image analysis software behind. And perhaps most acceleration are perpendicular to the focal axis or parallel to the vector velocity of the hosting airframe.
Also, of interest, most object sightings are at a distance where the overerall resolution of the sensor is fairly low...
 

edwest2

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
1,977
Reaction score
1,186
This has all been covered before. Early reports have UFOs being spotted by highly trained persons and filmed using Askania equipment. And early film of alleged UFOs has been released over the years. In 1947, a request was sent to Air Materiel Command at Wright Field asking for an assessment of the "flying discs." The conclusions were published and further detailed study was recommended. As far as anyone knows, this never happened. If it did, and the purpose of Air Technical Intelligence was to prevent "technological surprise," then there is no reason to believe that constant monitoring, and classification, of UFO reports dates to at least that time and continued uninterupted.
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
4,492
Reaction score
3,903
Ah sorry, I was only considering the latest events that took place. Not all the history of it.
 

sublight is back

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
Messages
851
Reaction score
155
Where were the shock cone or vortices? Where was the hypersonic boom? Where was the absolutely undeniably violent turbulence caused by this object? If a 747 leaves a wake of turbulence so powerful that it knocks other planes right off their flight path, what do you think a hypersonic object will do?

And none of this ever occurred to the professional Naval Aviators? That just seems very odd....
 
Last edited:

archipeppe

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
1,914
Reaction score
963
Ah sorry, I was only considering the latest events that took place. Not all the history of it.
I think is not possible to divide the current events by the past ones. Since se are facing the same catalogue of shapes with the same range of fairly odd aerodynanic behaviour. Take for instance a 50's report and take a current one, despite the obvious difference of language the substance of facts remain the same...
 

Flyaway

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
6,579
Reaction score
5,439

edwest2

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
1,977
Reaction score
1,186
AI? There is no such thing as Artificial Intelligence. Humans program computers which are then linked to detection systems. They had better be near 100% reliable. Humans can never be removed from the equation.
 

edwest2

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
1,977
Reaction score
1,186
Extraterrestrials? Surely you jest. Since 1947, the US government has published nothing credible about UFOs, including bad to very bad denials/explanations.
 

Flyaway

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
6,579
Reaction score
5,439
I don’t know why people expect governments to know any more than anyone else what these are. I have always preferred the term UAP as these could just as easily be unknown atmospheric phenomena as anything else.
 

edwest2

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
1,977
Reaction score
1,186
UAP? This is an old idea. And it would apply to a defined number of aerial phenomena. It does not apply to solid, metallic objects that can maneuver.

Governments are tasked with air defense. The average person would not be manning a radar station or be part of air intelligence in general.
 

kcran567

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
668
Reaction score
22
Here's a sobering thought, If the ET's exist, they decided to side with some other foreign power or China rather than the USA, hence all the focus on US Navy ships and equipment.

Maybe helps their ultimate goals of? some sort of relations or open contact at some point.

Wasn't that what the Pentagon said in so many words?
 

Flyaway

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
6,579
Reaction score
5,439
I don’t think it’s hard to imagine a race capable of relativistic speeds say 99.99% of the speed of light sending out machine intelligence probes to survey other planets. Its only what we already do just with more advanced technology. There’s no need to break the laws of physics either. It’s just the idea of these things being full of little grey aliens with big black eyes that’s silly.

 

sublight is back

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
Messages
851
Reaction score
155
At least one UFO watcher isn't convinced the UFO explanation isn't the real story.
Maybe the USN are overplaying the act? Deception needs to be subtle to be believable.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...s-and-i-dont-believe-the-alien-hype-heres-why
I dont really think the Navy is deliberately trying to be deceptive, I think they are just stuck in the current situation and unable to directly attribute this to the PLA Navy for whatever extremely bizarre reason. Just like the Air Force and everyone else wont go farther than naming "Advanced persistent threat". That is until they start hacking SPF forum and then Paul starts censoring. :D
 

martinbayer

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 6, 2009
Messages
817
Reaction score
352
Here's a sobering thought, If the ET's exist, they decided to side with some other foreign power or China rather than the USA, hence all the focus on US Navy ships and equipment.

Maybe helps their ultimate goals of? some sort of relations or open contact at some point.

Wasn't that what the Pentagon said in so many words?
In my view the focus on harassing the USN points more towards the USAF...
 

sublight is back

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
Messages
851
Reaction score
155
Here's a sobering thought, If the ET's exist, they decided to side with some other foreign power or China rather than the USA, hence all the focus on US Navy ships and equipment.

Maybe helps their ultimate goals of? some sort of relations or open contact at some point.

Wasn't that what the Pentagon said in so many words?
In my view the focus on harassing the USN points more towards the USAF...

Uh, did you miss this part?

Each of these encounters happened when Navy ships came out of Refueling and Complex Overhaul (RCOH) And were fitted with new radars and other technology.

After RCOH these same ships joined a carrier strike group to test its new Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) and Naval Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air (NIFC-CA) architecture. The Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) uses all the data from various assets, the latest E-2D Advanced Hawkeye radar, SPY-1 radars on cruisers and destroyers, Sensors and Radars on Super Hornets, F-35, and presents it all as a unified picture of the battlefield.

And when you buzz this strike group with your ELINT drones you can gather intel on how the Navy's new system works, so you can blow it all up later.
 

martinbayer

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 6, 2009
Messages
817
Reaction score
352
I probably should added a smiley (at least in parentheses) to my not completely serious (but then again, not completely unserious either) comment, but assuming that somebody outside the USA actually has aerospacecraft with the described performance capabilities, spying on a presumably technologically vastly inferior perceived opponent in preparation of a potential future attack would seem like a waste of time, given the apparently huge disparity in TRLs.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Top