• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

New Super Hornet UFO video from 2015

RanulfC

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
879
Reaction score
331
nothing remains Top Secret forever
Those various things may not be "top secret" forever, but they may as well be, when organizations and companies lose all records for a project/program and all the principles and stakeholders die, what's left? Maybe the item comes out of storage somewhere or pictures show up, and nobody knows what the hell it is, or who worked on it or paid for it. For example....
That topic pretty much checked all those boxes on the first page :)

And my point is still valid because 'forgotten' doesn't, as you note, always apply to "Top Secret". Specifically Top Secret knowledge DOES tend to get propigated since not doing so does nothing to advance the art. Just because it's not shouted from the rooftops at the time doesn't mean its 'surpressed' either as has been noted "need-to-know" is a thing as well. (Like knowning that RAF Vulcan bombers were getting close enough to overfly American cities before NORAD managed to "find" and "intercept" them. Quite embarassing for some folks :) )

Randy
 

sublight is back

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
Messages
758
Reaction score
44
Secret knowledge DOES tend to get propagated since not doing so does nothing to advance the art.
But it doesn't. If an SPF member had never accidentally come across that pic, then to this day, nobody would have known that project existed. That is not an isolated case.
 

edwest

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
950
Reaction score
203
The start of public knowledge of UFOs began in 1947 when a private pilot named Kenneth Arnold claimed to have sighted nine objects traveling at high speeds near Mount Rainier in the state of Washington. None of them were circular. Eight were shaped like the blade of a shovel, the ninth was a crescent with a triangular projection in the back middle. He claimed they flew like a flat stone being skipped across the water. They were not saucers. A photo of Kenneth Arnold holding a painting of the ninth, crescent-shaped object was published long ago. In the Spring of 1948, the first issue of Fate magazine appeared (it contained 'true stories of the strange and unknown'), with an article by Kenneth Arnold titled The Truth About Flying Saucers. The cover painting shows objects unlike what he claims he saw. Again, they were not saucers. One does not take a saucer used under a coffee cup and skip it across the water, a flat stone, yes. Arnold would publish his story in a paperback titled The Coming of the Saucers, again using the same cover art, in 1952. A Mr. Ray Palmer is included in the credits as Editor and Publisher.

So, from day one, not the truth. This would soon be followed by the contactees who claimed to have met the pilots of what they called spacecraft. This would also include a book titled The White Sands Incident by Dr. Daniel Fry, where a flying saucer took him from the 'rocket-testing ground' at White Sands, New Mexico to New York and returned at 8,000 mph. Of course he spoke with the pilot and had answers for the questions millions were asking - according to the cover. That book came out in 1954.
 

RanulfC

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
879
Reaction score
331
Secret knowledge DOES tend to get propagated since not doing so does nothing to advance the art.
But it doesn't. If an SPF member had never accidentally come across that pic, then to this day, nobody would have known that project existed. That is not an isolated case.
Uhm the patents existed, the work existed and frankly as had been pointed out the knowledge was the basis of later work so SOMEONE knew. And in context the people looking into and trying to find more information only grows by the day even if most of them, (unlike Scott :) ) wouldn't have clue to look at the context and actual information, (like the date) or jump to the wrong conclusions the 'secret' still gets out. You are correct that institutional knowledge can be lost and misplaced, especailly from earlier times but at the same time, (litterally in this case the early 60s) it was becoming clear that ultra-comparmintalization of information was working against progress and advancment so it was drastically cut back and the 'papertrail' made more important. That itself took about decade to filter out of the Top Secret community but it did for a very good reason. We litterally couldn't afford to continue wasting effort and time repeating someone elses work over and over again.

People complain about the amount of 'secret' information that gets out from under but really that's how you know the general system is working.

Randy
 

RanulfC

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
879
Reaction score
331
The start of public knowledge of UFOs began in 1947
1944 actually when US news sources began reporting odd sighting by airman over Europe that were being attributed to new Nazi super-weapons though actual official reports can be dated back as far as 1942/43 of strange airborne objects encountered by Allied airmen it didnt' get much pickup outside Europe till after the V1 and V2 attacks began. And of course if you check the history there were 'waves' prior to the Wright Brothers where "mystery airships" were reported around the world.

...when a private pilot named Kenneth Arnold claimed to have sighted nine objects traveling at high speeds near Mount Rainier in the state of Washington. None of them were circular. Eight were shaped like the blade of a shovel, the ninth was a crescent with a triangular projection in the back middle. He claimed they flew like a flat stone being skipped across the water. They were not saucers. A photo of Kenneth Arnold holding a painting of the ninth, crescent-shaped object was published long ago. In the Spring of 1948, the first issue of Fate magazine appeared (it contained 'true stories of the strange and unknown'), with an article by Kenneth Arnold titled The Truth About Flying Saucers. The cover painting shows objects unlike what he claims he saw. Again, they were not saucers. One does not take a saucer used under a coffee cup and skip it across the water, a flat stone, yes. Arnold would publish his story in a paperback titled The Coming of the Saucers, again using the same cover art, in 1952. A Mr. Ray Palmer is included in the credits as Editor and Publisher.
Palmer apperantly wrote most of the book, and the articles and it seems convinced Arnold to agree with them being 'saucers' because of the interest being seen for disk shaped aircraft as being 'high performance' aircraft. Arnold claimed the vehicles he saw were 'skipping' or moving up and down in an oscillating pattern much as a flat stone skipps over the water yes. But keep in mind he initially said he didn't get a very clear view of the vehicles because he estimated their distance as pretty far away WHICH he also used to estimate their speed as he assumed his distance prediciton was accurate. When pressed he described them as 'shovel' shaped and later refined this to the crescent shape with a black "canopy" on the top and no visible aerosurfaces.

So, from day one, not the truth. This would soon be followed by the contactees who claimed to have met the pilots of what they called spacecraft. This would also include a book titled The White Sands Incident by Dr. Daniel Fry, where a flying saucer took him from the 'rocket-testing ground' at White Sands, New Mexico to New York and returned at 8,000 mph. Of course he spoke with the pilot and had answers for the questions millions were asking - according to the cover. That book came out in 1954.
No, probably not the 'truth' as we know it but people since the middle ages have seen things in the sky they try to explain with what they know even if they really have no clue what they are seeing. People talked to the airmen in the early "mystery airship" wave and the press had about as much 'fun' with that as they did the more current "flying saucer" wave. But very often you will have a credible and believable observer who saw "something" they didn't understand but feel the need to try and explain. Plenty of people around New Mexico during the early 50 saw unexplained lights in the sky and assumed they were rocket tests. Oddly enough people who were WORKING on those rocket tests would often see lights and KNEW there were no tests going on, so assumed a different source for the lights. But more often than not those people would take their infered knowledge of what it could NOT be, (airborne testing of some sort) and then infer from their with the knowledge they had and like Arnold probably came to the wrong conclusion from incorrect assumptions.

Randy
 

edwest

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
950
Reaction score
203
No dice. I have seen the Air Force report and a note that included Dr. Hynek's observations. The aircraft Arnold saw were described as having a low-aspect ratio when seen from the side. How Arnold got the plan view is not explained. One of the eight spade-shaped objects was drawn in outline by Arnold (side and plan view with arrow indicating direction of flight). This is what the Air Force got. Dr, Hynek concluded the objects were not traveling as fast as Arnold estimated. So this was not the Middle Ages. The Air Force investigated and got the story and drawing from Arnold.
 
Last edited:

Hood

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
1,719
Reaction score
951
Don't forget the spate of Swedish sightings of UFOs/rockets in 1946-47, the Swedish AF used a couple of Ju 86s as ELINT platforms to try and discover their whereabouts, it seems likely they might have been V-2 tests from Soviet-occupied Eastern Germany but not ever confirmed at the time.

I don't think its any coincidence that UFOs have tended to follow the shape of what most people would consciously know as aircraft; airships from pre-Wright times, 'Foo fighters' resembling balls of tracer/AA fire over Germany in WW2, rocket-shaped after the V-2 was public knowledge, disc-shape in the sci-fi culture from comics and films of the 1940s-50s, black triangles once stealth technology was public knowledge.
Either aliens can't decide what shape to use or decided to use every aerodynamic shape known for some obscure reason or people have seen something and the brain has processed the image referring to what it knows a likely thing in the sky would be. Even a small child's helium balloon let loose on a sunny day or Chinese lanterns at night can seem 'spooky' enough.
Things like the Rendlesham Forest incident often have an embarrassing number of people owning up to doing it, from US Military Police pranksters to the SAS getting revenge after one of their buddies got beaten up after a security infiltration exercise.
 

edwest

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
950
Reaction score
203
The so-called Ghost Rockets over Sweden were first called meteors but reports from the ground became too numerous. Eventiually, "tests by a foreign power" were as close to an explanation as would be given.

I think it's no coincidence that attempts to cover up the sighting of solid objects with defined shapes has also followed a pattern that has lasted for decades. A child's balloon would be hard to follow as opposed to a vehicle with its own propulsion system.
 

r16

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Apr 27, 2007
Messages
377
Reaction score
10
the first recorded Foo Fighter event is one of those Schweinfurt attacks during which one of them bodily smashed into the tail of a B-17 piloted by a high ranking officer . Though apparently the day was more memorable for the German flown P-47s . Source ? Some Michael Caidin book , ı guess .
 

edwest

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
950
Reaction score
203
The Foo Fighters were never explained.
 

r16

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Apr 27, 2007
Messages
377
Reaction score
10
unfortunately am not the man to prove them either . Have been online for 15 years now and ı have never managed to convince that if ı was one worth examining , ı would have nothing on any computer ı ever touch . Though it helps to know that my previous post would be referenced as a link to early German ideas . Foo Fighters might have been seen by RAF fliers in 1941 but that German document (supposedly seen back in the days before ı was born) would have a "Leutnant" Sheridan on the margins , no doubt learned through torture of POWs , who would say anything for the interrogation to end . Rumours from a pseudoexpert , not exactly fitting for the requirements of the forum which ı certainly respect fully and support . Because ı lack the academic discipline and we are not yet at a situation where the proof of something happening is simply "Beacuse r16 says so." Because it would get livelier here on , with a yet unproveable claim that the Germans thought Foo Fighters did not follow planes but would show them the way , as much as markers used by RAF for night bombing . And that they were deployed by "mothership" P-47s , hence that Sheridan person . If ı was to add that the venerable What If Forum booted me out for talking too much and deleted every post of mine , but insisted on keeping one about the armoured , ground attack Bomberbolt with a passably capacious bomb bay (despite my request here that it should have gone too and ı failed to make that because it was possibly good) there would be riots .
 

edwest

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
950
Reaction score
203
It doesn't matter as far as the internet. My own research shows they were seen by American night fighter pilots and then memoralized by them shortly after the war in an article. I have all the evidence I need. As reported in the American press: Floating Mystery Ball is New Nazi Air Weapon. New York Times, December 14, 1944.
 

dan_inbox

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2006
Messages
724
Reaction score
237
It doesn't matter as far as the internet.
My own research shows ...
I have all the evidence I need.
Hmm. Don't those words sound exactly like those used by the crackpots and fanatics?
 

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
3,707
Reaction score
1,265
How about the UFO invasion over Washington in 1952 ?
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,119
Reaction score
1,181
Joe Rogan podcast is really excellent btw
I just wish PT Barnum over there would have kept his mouth shut more. Steven Hawking he ain't.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,119
Reaction score
1,181
Just pretend the 3rd wheel doesn't talk and listen to Joe and the pilot.
 

galgot

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2006
Messages
827
Reaction score
713
Website
galgot.com
Lost my interest when he started quoting Bob Lazar.
Yeah, funny thing with Lazar is that he keep saying he doesn't like attention and talking , but yet a film as been made of his story and he talks on podcasts... Ect...
So i suppose he is not a bad guy, but he just has a small buziness to run selling his own story stuffs, and i suppose that is how he makes a living.
Surprised J.Rogan didn't noticed this.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,119
Reaction score
1,181
Lost my interest when he started quoting Bob Lazar.
Yeah, funny thing with Lazar is that he keep saying he doesn't like attention and talking , but yet a film as been made of his story and he talks on podcasts... Ect...
So i suppose he is not a bad guy, but he just has a small buziness to run selling his own story stuffs, and i suppose that is how he makes a living.
Surprised J.Rogan didn't noticed this.
On the one hand it's easy to automatically dismiss what he says, because it's so far out there, but on the other what if he's telling the truth? Do we just automatically throw the BS flag because he's basically a caveman trying to explain an F-35B to the rest of his cavemen buddies? But if he's telling the truth how is it he's never faced any legal action from his former employer (AFAIK)?

The Commander sounds credible but then he does laugh about pulling pranks on people to make them think they'd seen a UFO. (Then again that doesn't seem too out of the ordinary. :p) I did find the APG-73/79 detail interesting. But the obvious question is, "did they just not mess with the radar in the latter incident"?
 

galgot

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2006
Messages
827
Reaction score
713
Website
galgot.com
On the one hand it's easy to automatically dismiss what he says, because it's so far out there, but on the other what if he's telling the truth? Do we just automatically throw the BS flag because he's basically a caveman trying to explain an F-35B to the rest of his cavemen buddies? But if he's telling the truth how is it he's never faced any legal action from his former employer (AFAIK)?
Dunno... But then his narative is that he as been "erased" from all of his previous records, schooling, works... ect. So that fit with no former employer sueing him, cause it would confirm he would have worked somewhere.
Really, as soon as there is something to sell, a buziness or a film to promote, ect... Even very small one, cause peoples make their living how they can, that makes me suspicious about these stories.

The Commander sounds credible but then he does laugh about pulling pranks on people to make them think they'd seen a UFO. (Then again that doesn't seem too out of the ordinary. :p) I did find the APG-73/79 detail interesting. But the obvious question is, "did they just not mess with the radar in the latter incident"?
Typical Fighter pilot kind of stuff, Can't blame him :D
 

RanulfC

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
879
Reaction score
331
No dice. I have seen the Air Force report and a note that included Dr. Hynek's observations. The aircraft Arnold saw were described as having a low-aspect ratio when seen from the side. How Arnold got the plan view is not explained. One of the eight spade-shaped objects was drawn in outline by Arnold (side and plan view with arrow indicating direction of flight). This is what the Air Force got. Dr, Hynek concluded the objects were not traveling as fast as Arnold estimated. So this was not the Middle Ages. The Air Force investigated and got the story and drawing from Arnold.
So have I. The aircraft that Arnold described fit into being low aspect ratio aircraft but their flight pattern did not which was noted. (He explained he got the pan view as they were bobbing and weaving "like the tail of a Chinese kite") Yes the Air Force investigated the story and followed up with him again when he changed on of the "aircraft" in design over a month later. That he used that changed design as "validation" to "confirm" an obvious hoax encounter claim a year later was also not lost on the Air Force.

No it's not the Middle Ages but you still have observers who have their own biases and assumptions which may or may not be accurate or correct with which they interpret the data :)

Randy
 

edwest

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
950
Reaction score
203
No dice. I have seen the Air Force report and a note that included Dr. Hynek's observations. The aircraft Arnold saw were described as having a low-aspect ratio when seen from the side. How Arnold got the plan view is not explained. One of the eight spade-shaped objects was drawn in outline by Arnold (side and plan view with arrow indicating direction of flight). This is what the Air Force got. Dr, Hynek concluded the objects were not traveling as fast as Arnold estimated. So this was not the Middle Ages. The Air Force investigated and got the story and drawing from Arnold.
So have I. The aircraft that Arnold described fit into being low aspect ratio aircraft but their flight pattern did not which was noted. (He explained he got the pan view as they were bobbing and weaving "like the tail of a Chinese kite") Yes the Air Force investigated the story and followed up with him again when he changed on of the "aircraft" in design over a month later. That he used that changed design as "validation" to "confirm" an obvious hoax encounter claim a year later was also not lost on the Air Force.

No it's not the Middle Ages but you still have observers who have their own biases and assumptions which may or may not be accurate or correct with which they interpret the data :)

Randy

Alright, Arnold aside. What about other observers, including those trained to differentiate Russian bombers from flocks of birds and other aerial phenomena? Those given warnings via JANAP (Joint Army Navy Air Publication) about the situation which actually existed? Arnold is not a one off event.
 

RanulfC

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
879
Reaction score
331
Alright, Arnold aside. What about other observers, including those trained to differentiate Russian bombers from flocks of birds and other aerial phenomena? Those given warnings via JANAP (Joint Army Navy Air Publication) about the situation which actually existed? Arnold is not a one off event.
It depends? :) See an observer will tend to 'see' what they are trained and expecting to see and when they don't they will then try and interpret what they see AS something they are trained and are expecting to see. And quite often during that process they will interpret what they see, especially if they haven't managed to fit the observed object into a frame of reference, they will then ascribe aspects and attributes to the object that in fact don't match the object but do rationalize a pattern in their own mind.

Specifically this can be a problem when someone is told to look for something or "watch" for something from an official source and they then go out looking for what they were told to look for. It's not a Russian bomber so it must be something else, what else is the question and the thing is it might in fact BE a flock of birds, just in a way the observer has never seen them before.

Example:
Now I'm not a trained observer but have both a fascination and interest in aircraft and enough military training to be able to rapidly identify and categorize aircraft and things that fly.

Getting out of my car near the local college campus (I had a class to attend) in clear, broad daylight near a semi-busy street. Something causes me to look up at the mountains in the background of the collage and I see something floating against them. Air is still with no breeze, and the air is still and cool with some frost still on the ground, but not on the streets or sidewalks even though it's moving towards mid-afternoon. It appears to be a balloon as it is a large white envelope but it appears to be moving far to fast for a balloon given its apparent size and relative motion against those backdrop mountains. It is maintaining level flight and speed but it seems to square for a standard balloon envelope and there is no basket or structure under it. Runaway balloon maybe? Then note that the envelope has two hanging segments, maybe three and is slowly rotating. Still doesn't explain the rapid speed it is moving and I can make out some red almost translucent markings on the side...

SNAP

It's a plastic shopping bag floating along somewhere between the sidewalk and the campus, possibly lifted by hot air and travelling by being pushed by an above street breeze, (I can see the upper branch leaves now) My original scale was false as was my speed estimation and the bag is slowly dropping in altitude but for about five minutes there, (actually more like two I checked by car clock) it was a real UFO.

Now imagine that "snap" never happens and the observations continue trying to 'explain' and then justify what and how you are seeing the object. Now extend that to other observational media like radar images and video or computer storage. The storage media doesn't "lie" but the data has to be interpreted by humans so often is, and not always correctly :)

Of course this doesn't "explain" everything and it shouldn't as there are real phenomenon out there that need to be explored and studied. But "unexplained" usually simply means "we can't explain it at the moment" not that its aliens or flying saucers per-se :)

Randy
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,119
Reaction score
1,181
But "unexplained" usually simply means "we can't explain it at the moment" not that its aliens or flying saucers per-se :)

Randy
Stating the obvious. That doesn't change the fact that, in this case, there are multiple trained witnesses, sensor data, video footage, multiple events and locations over a period of a decade plus. Whatever they're all seeing, it ain't a floating plastic bag.
 

edwest

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
950
Reaction score
203
Alright, Arnold aside. What about other observers, including those trained to differentiate Russian bombers from flocks of birds and other aerial phenomena? Those given warnings via JANAP (Joint Army Navy Air Publication) about the situation which actually existed? Arnold is not a one off event.
It depends? :) See an observer will tend to 'see' what they are trained and expecting to see and when they don't they will then try and interpret what they see AS something they are trained and are expecting to see. And quite often during that process they will interpret what they see, especially if they haven't managed to fit the observed object into a frame of reference, they will then ascribe aspects and attributes to the object that in fact don't match the object but do rationalize a pattern in their own mind.

Specifically this can be a problem when someone is told to look for something or "watch" for something from an official source and they then go out looking for what they were told to look for. It's not a Russian bomber so it must be something else, what else is the question and the thing is it might in fact BE a flock of birds, just in a way the observer has never seen them before.

Example:
Now I'm not a trained observer but have both a fascination and interest in aircraft and enough military training to be able to rapidly identify and categorize aircraft and things that fly.

Getting out of my car near the local college campus (I had a class to attend) in clear, broad daylight near a semi-busy street. Something causes me to look up at the mountains in the background of the collage and I see something floating against them. Air is still with no breeze, and the air is still and cool with some frost still on the ground, but not on the streets or sidewalks even though it's moving towards mid-afternoon. It appears to be a balloon as it is a large white envelope but it appears to be moving far to fast for a balloon given its apparent size and relative motion against those backdrop mountains. It is maintaining level flight and speed but it seems to square for a standard balloon envelope and there is no basket or structure under it. Runaway balloon maybe? Then note that the envelope has two hanging segments, maybe three and is slowly rotating. Still doesn't explain the rapid speed it is moving and I can make out some red almost translucent markings on the side...

SNAP

It's a plastic shopping bag floating along somewhere between the sidewalk and the campus, possibly lifted by hot air and travelling by being pushed by an above street breeze, (I can see the upper branch leaves now) My original scale was false as was my speed estimation and the bag is slowly dropping in altitude but for about five minutes there, (actually more like two I checked by car clock) it was a real UFO.

Now imagine that "snap" never happens and the observations continue trying to 'explain' and then justify what and how you are seeing the object. Now extend that to other observational media like radar images and video or computer storage. The storage media doesn't "lie" but the data has to be interpreted by humans so often is, and not always correctly :)

Of course this doesn't "explain" everything and it shouldn't as there are real phenomenon out there that need to be explored and studied. But "unexplained" usually simply means "we can't explain it at the moment" not that its aliens or flying saucers per-se :)

Randy


Long and elaborate. I certainly don't believe there are any aliens. Are you familiar with the Ground Observer Corps from World War II? How about their Korean War version?
"The second Ground Observer Corps,[3] with programmatic aims and methodologies similar to the first, was organized in early 1950, during the Cold War. Operating as an arm of the United States Air Force Civil Defense service, the second GOC supplemented the Lashup Radar Network and the Permanent System radar stations.[4] Observations were telephoned directly to filter centers[3][5] and the information was in turn relayed to Air Defense Command ground control interception centers.[6] By 1952 the GOC program was expanded into Operation Skywatch, consisting of 750,000 volunteers aged 7 to 86 years old working in shifts at over 16,000 posts and 73 filter centers.[7][8] Extant examples of observation platforms used by GOC/Skywatch volunteers include the Cairo Skywatch Tower;[9] another tower exists in Soda Springs, Idaho.[10]"

Untrained? False positives? How about film from Askania cinetheodolites?
 

RanulfC

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
879
Reaction score
331
Stating the obvious. That doesn't change the fact that, in this case, there are multiple trained witnesses, sensor data, video footage, multiple events and locations over a period of a decade plus. Whatever they're all seeing, it ain't a floating plastic bag.
No but the point was it could very well be different things at different times with rather reasonable explinations :)

Long and elaborate. I certainly don't believe there are any aliens. Are you familiar with the Ground Observer Corps from World War II? How about their Korean War version?
"The second Ground Observer Corps,[3] with programmatic aims and methodologies similar to the first, was organized in early 1950, during the Cold War. Operating as an arm of the United States Air Force Civil Defense service, the second GOC supplemented the Lashup Radar Network and the Permanent System radar stations.[4] Observations were telephoned directly to filter centers[3][5] and the information was in turn relayed to Air Defense Command ground control interception centers.[6] By 1952 the GOC program was expanded into Operation Skywatch, consisting of 750,000 volunteers aged 7 to 86 years old working in shifts at over 16,000 posts and 73 filter centers.[7][8] Extant examples of observation platforms used by GOC/Skywatch volunteers include the Cairo Skywatch Tower;[9] another tower exists in Soda Springs, Idaho.[10]"

Untrained? False positives? How about film from Askania cinetheodolites?
Trained people can generate false positives and often do. It's not unusual which is why you have back ups. Haven't seen the films mentioned, link maybe?

Randy
 

Nigelhg

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 25, 2012
Messages
27
Reaction score
8
Lost my interest when he started quoting Bob Lazar.
Yeah, funny thing with Lazar is that he keep saying he doesn't like attention and talking , but yet a film as been made of his story and he talks on podcasts... Ect...
So i suppose he is not a bad guy, but he just has a small buziness to run selling his own story stuffs, and i suppose that is how he makes a living.
Surprised J.Rogan didn't noticed this.
On the one hand it's easy to automatically dismiss what he says, because it's so far out there, but on the other what if he's telling the truth? Do we just automatically throw the BS flag because he's basically a caveman trying to explain an F-35B to the rest of his cavemen buddies? But if he's telling the truth how is it he's never faced any legal action from his former employer (AFAIK)?

The Commander sounds credible but then he does laugh about pulling pranks on people to make them think they'd seen a UFO. (Then again that doesn't seem too out of the ordinary. :p) I did find the APG-73/79 detail interesting. But the obvious question is, "did they just not mess with the radar in the latter incident"?
A different perspective on this.

 

edwest

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
950
Reaction score
203
Stating the obvious. That doesn't change the fact that, in this case, there are multiple trained witnesses, sensor data, video footage, multiple events and locations over a period of a decade plus. Whatever they're all seeing, it ain't a floating plastic bag.
No but the point was it could very well be different things at different times with rather reasonable explinations :)

Long and elaborate. I certainly don't believe there are any aliens. Are you familiar with the Ground Observer Corps from World War II? How about their Korean War version?
"The second Ground Observer Corps,[3] with programmatic aims and methodologies similar to the first, was organized in early 1950, during the Cold War. Operating as an arm of the United States Air Force Civil Defense service, the second GOC supplemented the Lashup Radar Network and the Permanent System radar stations.[4] Observations were telephoned directly to filter centers[3][5] and the information was in turn relayed to Air Defense Command ground control interception centers.[6] By 1952 the GOC program was expanded into Operation Skywatch, consisting of 750,000 volunteers aged 7 to 86 years old working in shifts at over 16,000 posts and 73 filter centers.[7][8] Extant examples of observation platforms used by GOC/Skywatch volunteers include the Cairo Skywatch Tower;[9] another tower exists in Soda Springs, Idaho.[10]"

Untrained? False positives? How about film from Askania cinetheodolites?
Trained people can generate false positives and often do. It's not unusual which is why you have back ups. Haven't seen the films mentioned, link maybe?

Randy

You obviously know some things about historical UFOs/flying saucers but continue to ignore what was actually happening in 1947.


23 September 1947​


SUBJECT: AMC Opinion Concerning "Flying Discs"
TO: Commanding General
Army Air Force
Washington 25, D.C.
ATTENTION: Brig. General George Schulgen
AC/AS-2



1. As requested by AC/AS-2 there is presented below the considered
opinion of this command concerning the so-called "Flying Discs." This
opinion is based on interrogation report data furnished by AC/AS-2 and
preliminary studies by personnel of T-2 and Aircraft Laboratory, Engineer-
ing Division T-3. This opinion was arrived at in a conference between
personnel from the Air Institute of Technology, Intelligence T-2, Office,
Chief of Engineering Division, and the Aircraft, Power Plant and Propeller
Laboratories of Engineering Division T-3.

2. It is the opinion that:

a. The phenomenon is something real and not visionary
or fictitious.

b. There are objects probably approximating the shape of a
disc, of such appreciable size as to appear to be as large as man-made
aircraft.

c. There is a possibility that some of the incidents may be
caused by natural phenomena, such as meteors.

d. The reported operating characteristics such as extreme
rates of climb, maneuverability (particularly in roll), and motion which
must be considered evasive when sighted or contacted by friendly air-
craft and radar, lend belief to the possibility that some of the objects
are controlled either manually, automatically or remotely.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,119
Reaction score
1,181
Lost my interest when he started quoting Bob Lazar.
Yeah, funny thing with Lazar is that he keep saying he doesn't like attention and talking , but yet a film as been made of his story and he talks on podcasts... Ect...
So i suppose he is not a bad guy, but he just has a small buziness to run selling his own story stuffs, and i suppose that is how he makes a living.
Surprised J.Rogan didn't noticed this.
On the one hand it's easy to automatically dismiss what he says, because it's so far out there, but on the other what if he's telling the truth? Do we just automatically throw the BS flag because he's basically a caveman trying to explain an F-35B to the rest of his cavemen buddies? But if he's telling the truth how is it he's never faced any legal action from his former employer (AFAIK)?

The Commander sounds credible but then he does laugh about pulling pranks on people to make them think they'd seen a UFO. (Then again that doesn't seem too out of the ordinary. :p) I did find the APG-73/79 detail interesting. But the obvious question is, "did they just not mess with the radar in the latter incident"?
A different perspective on this.

That reads like a, "Moon Landing was faked" site.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,119
Reaction score
1,181
Stating the obvious. That doesn't change the fact that, in this case, there are multiple trained witnesses, sensor data, video footage, multiple events and locations over a period of a decade plus. Whatever they're all seeing, it ain't a floating plastic bag.
No but the point was it could very well be different things at different times with rather reasonable explinations :)
Sure. And they probably do have. I have to think the gov would be WAY more concerned if they actually thought they were LGM buzzing around in flying saucers. Still. . .if the pilots are being honest, it's strange. These aren't birds, "clouds of bugs", or weather balloons.
 

RanulfC

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
879
Reaction score
331
You obviously know some things about historical UFOs/flying saucers but continue to ignore what was actually happening in 1947.


23 September 1947​



SUBJECT: AMC Opinion Concerning "Flying Discs"
TO: Commanding General
Army Air Force
Washington 25, D.C.
ATTENTION: Brig. General George Schulgen
AC/AS-2


1. As requested by AC/AS-2 there is presented below the considered
opinion of this command concerning the so-called "Flying Discs." This
opinion is based on interrogation report data furnished by AC/AS-2 and
preliminary studies by personnel of T-2 and Aircraft Laboratory, Engineer-
ing Division T-3. This opinion was arrived at in a conference between
personnel from the Air Institute of Technology, Intelligence T-2, Office,
Chief of Engineering Division, and the Aircraft, Power Plant and Propeller
Laboratories of Engineering Division T-3.

2. It is the opinion that:

a. The phenomenon is something real and not visionary
or fictitious.

b. There are objects probably approximating the shape of a
disc, of such appreciable size as to appear to be as large as man-made
aircraft.

c. There is a possibility that some of the incidents may be
caused by natural phenomena, such as meteors.

d. The reported operating characteristics such as extreme
rates of climb, maneuverability (particularly in roll), and motion which
must be considered evasive when sighted or contacted by friendly air-
craft and radar, lend belief to the possibility that some of the objects
are controlled either manually, automatically or remotely.
Let me ask you what you think happened here? Keep in mind that the historic background is that for one thing the (new) US Air Force is now its own service with priorities and programs and while it is currently at the "top" of the heap for funding due to Truman's fiscal policies that's still not very much money. They are mostly making do with WWII equipment and some new stuff that was in the poduction pipeline before the war ended but really the policy makers are not overly worried about any Terrestrial "threat". So beside pushing the USSR as a threat it would make sense to keep interest up about a possibly more advanced threat that "could" be from the USSR but maybe...

Randy
 

RanulfC

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
879
Reaction score
331
A different perspective on this.

That reads like a, "Moon Landing was faked" site.
SkepticdotCom, or the publishers of "Skeptic" magazine sound like a "The Moon Landing was Faked" site?

Randy
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,119
Reaction score
1,181
A different perspective on this.

That reads like a, "Moon Landing was faked" site.
SkepticdotCom, or the publishers of "Skeptic" magazine sound like a "The Moon Landing was Faked" site?

Randy
Pretty sure that's what I said.
 

RanulfC

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
879
Reaction score
331
Pretty sure that's what I said.
And I was wondering how you got there since they are one of the main "go-to" information sites for debunking the landings were faked arguments and disinformation...

Randy
 

galgot

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2006
Messages
827
Reaction score
713
Website
galgot.com
Hu ? Do they mention the moon landing as being faked on their site ?

edit: missed RanulfC post.
 

edwest

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
950
Reaction score
203
You obviously know some things about historical UFOs/flying saucers but continue to ignore what was actually happening in 1947.


23 September 1947​



SUBJECT: AMC Opinion Concerning "Flying Discs"
TO: Commanding General
Army Air Force
Washington 25, D.C.
ATTENTION: Brig. General George Schulgen
AC/AS-2


1. As requested by AC/AS-2 there is presented below the considered
opinion of this command concerning the so-called "Flying Discs." This
opinion is based on interrogation report data furnished by AC/AS-2 and
preliminary studies by personnel of T-2 and Aircraft Laboratory, Engineer-
ing Division T-3. This opinion was arrived at in a conference between
personnel from the Air Institute of Technology, Intelligence T-2, Office,
Chief of Engineering Division, and the Aircraft, Power Plant and Propeller
Laboratories of Engineering Division T-3.

2. It is the opinion that:

a. The phenomenon is something real and not visionary
or fictitious.

b. There are objects probably approximating the shape of a
disc, of such appreciable size as to appear to be as large as man-made
aircraft.

c. There is a possibility that some of the incidents may be
caused by natural phenomena, such as meteors.

d. The reported operating characteristics such as extreme
rates of climb, maneuverability (particularly in roll), and motion which
must be considered evasive when sighted or contacted by friendly air-
craft and radar, lend belief to the possibility that some of the objects
are controlled either manually, automatically or remotely.


Let me ask you what you think happened here? Keep in mind that the historic background is that for one thing the (new) US Air Force is now its own service with priorities and programs and while it is currently at the "top" of the heap for funding due to Truman's fiscal policies that's still not very much money. They are mostly making do with WWII equipment and some new stuff that was in the poduction pipeline before the war ended but really the policy makers are not overly worried about any Terrestrial "threat". So beside pushing the USSR as a threat it would make sense to keep interest up about a possibly more advanced threat that "could" be from the USSR but maybe...

Randy



What I "think" happened here? It's obvious. The Commanding General of the Army Air Force made a request to Air Materiel Command, Wright Field, Dayton Ohio and this is the answer he got after their intelligence and engineering people weighed in. A threat to national security is about as serious as it gets. In August 1947, the Russians displayed the Tu-4, a reverse engineered B-29. That would be followed by the Tu-16 in 1954. No, there is no "new" Air Force here. National defense means you get the money you need.

The "new" Air Force would contract with the University of Colorado about 20 years later, and give the US public many of the the same, and in this case, also some of the least credible answers to the UFO problem in 1968. By January 1969, UFOs officially were no longer an Air Force concern. Decades later, nothing has changed.
 

RanulfC

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
879
Reaction score
331
Sure. And they probably do have. I have to think the gov would be WAY more concerned if they actually thought they were LGM buzzing around in flying saucers. Still. . .if the pilots are being honest, it's strange. These aren't birds, "clouds of bugs", or weather balloons.
I'd say the pilots, (and the other witness' that have come forward) are being honest with stating what they think they saw. And it wasn't anything they were familar with or coud relate to a previous experiance. The thing is the behavior of the objects itself is a bit bizzare to say the least. I doubt they would be birds or weather balloons but I'm also not convinced they are not something natural given the behavior.

RAndy
 

edwest

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
950
Reaction score
203
Sure. And they probably do have. I have to think the gov would be WAY more concerned if they actually thought they were LGM buzzing around in flying saucers. Still. . .if the pilots are being honest, it's strange. These aren't birds, "clouds of bugs", or weather balloons.
I'd say the pilots, (and the other witness' that have come forward) are being honest with stating what they think they saw. And it wasn't anything they were familar with or coud relate to a previous experiance. The thing is the behavior of the objects itself is a bit bizzare to say the least. I doubt they would be birds or weather balloons but I'm also not convinced they are not something natural given the behavior.

RAndy

The behavior of the objects has been purposely conveyed the wrong way by the US Air Force. They were in the driver's seat. They could say two, or more, contradictory things at the same time. The UFOs are nothing. The UFOs are something but we don't know what. The Americans and British were overflying Eastern European and Soviet airspace. They were shot down. They crashed. After the start of NEPA in 1946, the Russians had a need to know.
 
Top