U.S. Dept. of Defense Confirms UFO Research

[Vorg]

17 minutes ago, dirtierdragoon4 said:

In regards to the video showing a turning "object" on camera (not the other one that supposedly speeds away):

"This distinct change in turn rate seems consistent with a "reflection" hypothesis, but might just be coincidental." - Mike West (https://www.metabunk.org/nyt-video-of-u-s-navy-jet-encounter-with-unknown-object.t9333/)

Is there a way to protect from lens flare? For the image to stay so centered and synchronized with the jet gives me the impression that it is somehow part of the jet (camera artifact, etc.); but I don't fly or make videos, so...

I doubt that is lens flare. The thermal imaging from the Flir was switched from black hot to white hot. It was an object that forward looking infrared was showing, and the FA-18's tracking computer had a lock on.

[Inversion5]

14 minutes ago, South Alabam said:

I doubt that is lens flare. The thermal imaging from the Flir was switched from black hot to white hot. It was an object that forward looking infrared was showing, and the FA-18's tracking computer had a lock on.

How can you tell it had a lock on? I assume the fact that it had it front and center and following it in a synchronized way.

Edited December 17, 2017 by dirtierdragoon4

[Area201]

"Top of my list (right now) is that this is not a real object. Instead it's some kind of reflection. With the primary evidence being the way it flips orientation when it crosses the main axis of the plane." -Mike West Administrator of MetaJunk  

 

MetaJunk literally will come up with any bogus explanation in attempt to debunk anything.

2 hours ago, dirtierdragoon4 said:

In regards to the video showing a turning "object" on camera (not the other one that supposedly speeds away):

"This distinct change in turn rate seems consistent with a "reflection" hypothesis, but might just be coincidental." - Mike West (https://www.metabunk.org/nyt-video-of-u-s-navy-jet-encounter-with-unknown-object.t9333/)

Is there a way to protect from lens flare? For the image to stay so centered and synchronized with the jet gives me the impression that it is somehow part of the jet (camera artifact, etc.); but I don't fly or make videos, so...

 

 

[lost_shaman]

In response to the post above...

The Pilots were engaged with the object. They saw the object. It is the gun camera footage that was being evaluated. 

It is not like the F-18's were flying around and then some just randomly recorded gun camera footage and someone said OMG look it's a strange "reflection".

Edited December 17, 2017 by lost_shaman

[toast]

6 hours ago, seeder said:

when you quote people, do ensure you quote ALL they said....rather than just a line that appeals to YOU!  especially as J. Oberg is one of our members here.

In addition, his quote was manipulated/bended to the benefit of the story. There is a big difference between " “there could well be a pearl there” and " this could well be a pearl here".

[RAyMO]

6 hours ago, seeder said:

especially as J. Oberg is one of our members here

Yes, I have been waiting patiently on his response. It should shed some light as they say.

[seeder]

2 minutes ago, RAyMO said:

Yes, I have been waiting patiently on his response. It should shed some light as they say.

 

send him a PM... I havent seen him here much lately....but a PM may get him to come and have a look!

[Inversion5]

At 2:26, the "object" appears to jump off the center screen (after zooming in), but this is not in the analysis at the COI. Actually, the entire timeline does not correlate with the video - Hire more people dude!

At 2:28, the "object" again appears to jump off the center screen (again after zooming) - i think this is what the COI is referring to when " the object suddenly and instantaneously accelerates to the left."

How is this not consistent with it being the jet causing the effect and not the "object" in front of it?

Edit: So I started my stop watch when the actual ufo/uap occurrence starts (1:14) and 15 secs after that is when the COI's timeline starts, and is correct on what is happening. I do not know about the rest of the timeline yet. However, at the COI, they provide us the reason for the first "jump" at 2:26: " the sensor either breaks lock on the object or the object shifts rapidly. The sensor rapidly regains lock." They did not provide the same hypothesis in their last time stamp, even though we are seeing the same situation at 2:26.

 

Edited December 17, 2017 by dirtierdragoon4

[Inversion5]

I re-timestamped everything based on when the video starts and when the first timestamp is provided by the COI and just worked up from there. I can tell you that either I am really bad at on the spot math or someone is bad at math at the COI:

1:14 - Ufo/Uap video starts.

1:29 - At 0:15, the weapon sensor operator (WSO) changes the zoom from 1.0 to 2.0, making the object much larger on screen.

1:32 - At 0:18, the WSO changes to TV mode and the zoom resets to 1.0. At 19 seconds, the operator changes the zoom to 2.0. In the visual band, the object appears dark against the bright daytime sky and is clearly oblong shaped.

1:55 - At 0:41, the WSO changes the image back to IR mode and then resets zoom to 1.0.

2:06 - At 0:52, the sensor either breaks lock on the object or the object shifts rapidly. The sensor rapidly regains lock.

2:15 - At 1:11, the WSO changes zoom several times.

2:18 - At 1:14, the object suddenly and instantaneously accelerates to the left, out of view of the sensor at....

At 2:15 the COI's timestamp inconsistencies really starts. Also, when the "object" "accelerates to the left", I am surprised I do not hear the pilot exclaim some obscenities.

Edited December 17, 2017 by dirtierdragoon4

[bison]

The same New York Times article that's linked at the top of this thread, appears on page one of my regional newspaper this morning, including a picture from the video of the 2004, San Diego encounter. 

[Inversion5]

8 minutes ago, bison said:

The same New York Times article that's linked at the top of this thread, appears on page one of my regional newspaper this morning, including a picture from the video of the 2004, San Diego encounter. 

Talk about catching headlines Tom apparently has one more "juicy" video left. Too bad no other substantiating documents (radar, satellite, cell phone, telescope, etc.). Which he states he is trying to get.

[Inversion5]

15 hours ago, South Alabam said:

I doubt that is lens flare. The thermal imaging from the Flir was switched from black hot to white hot....

Just as Mike West stated, their could be two things going on in the Gimbal video, including a lens flare. For me, there could be an object and then lens flare on top of it. Also, at the end, you can distinctly tell two oval-like "objects." It could be a lens flare on top, or a government redaction. Lastly, and to bring this point up again, but differently, when the camera moves the object seems to move with it. I narrowed it down to when you see the bouncing motion on the camera, the object bounces also, but it shouldn't since it is an object independent of the jet, or is it; meaning a video artifact? 

Edited December 17, 2017 by dirtierdragoon4

[toast]

34 minutes ago, dirtierdragoon4 said:

. Lastly, and to bring this point up again, but differently, when the camera moves the object seems to move with it. I narrowed it down to when you see the bouncing motion on the camera, the object bounces also, but it shouldn't since it is an object independent of the jet,

The vid was taken by an ATFLIR device. The cam of the device is gimballed, and not fixed to the A/C`s flight direction, and follow a target with high precision, means the target is always centered. In a nutshell: when the object bounce, the cam bounce at the same pattern.

[Merc14]

21 hours ago, toast said:

The vid was taken by an ATFLIR device. The cam of the device is gimballed, and not fixed to the A/C`s flight direction, and follow a target with high precision, means the target is always centered. In a nutshell: when the object bounce, the cam bounce at the same pattern.

What's missing is the is the pip indicating where the camera is pointing  https://theaviationist.com/2017/09/21/heres-the-video-of-the-syrian-su-22-fitter-being-shot-down-by-a-u-s-navy-fa-18e-super-hornet/

 

Edited December 18, 2017 by Merc14

[toast]

10 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

What's missing is the is the pip indicating where the camera is pointing  https://theaviationist.com/2017/09/21/heres-the-video-of-the-syrian-su-22-fitter-being-shot-down-by-a-u-s-navy-fa-18e-super-hornet/

Merc, if I remember correctly you flew on F18s so whats your judgement obout the vids, are they authentic?

[kartikg]

I think this as less to do with ufo and more to do with someone pocketing the money in the name of research.

[Merc14]

1 hour ago, toast said:

Merc, if I remember correctly you flew on F18s so whats your judgement obout the vids, are they authentic?

No, I flew in F-14A's and retired around the same time we started getting FLIR pods so I never used this type of gear.  We did use what was called a TCS which was basically a 10X television camera you could slave to the radar for visual ID's.  Like this system the target was always in the middle of the scope and a crosshair showed you where it was actually pointing.

[Inversion5]

"Interview with Nick Pope on Pentagon UFO Study"

Why is the gun camera footage fascinating Nick? at 2:42

Edited December 18, 2017 by dirtierdragoon4

[Inversion5]

37 minutes ago, seanjo said:

It's a fake! USAAF pilots calling each other dude on OP's is a big clue. This is made up by people that have watched too many movies.

So the the audio was superimposed? I am unable to find the chain-of-custody documentation to see if the audio, or even the video, is from the DOD, so you might be correct. I only see a redacted report here: (Delonge's COI) https://coi.tothestarsacademy.com/nimitz-report - I would post the report here, but... someone else can if they want.

Edited December 18, 2017 by dirtierdragoon4

[Erno86]

Special thanks to John Podesta and the CIA...for partially letting the 'cat out of the bag' --- so to speak --- The spooks over at Langely, Virginia must be so infuriated with the Trump/Pence oligarchy, that the had to disclose at least some UAP military jet camera footage, in order to turn some heads at the White House and Congress; by trying to influence the nuclear button wannabe pusher in the White House that he's no longer 'Top Gun' around here!!!

[Dejarma]

Quote from article:

A video shows an encounter between a Navy F/A-18 Super Hornet and an unknown object. It was released by the Defense Department's Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program.

utter BS! 

if this were real (as in something the authorities don't want us to see) then there's no way we would be seeing it!

[Inversion5]

1 hour ago, Dejarma said:

...if this were real (as in something the authorities don't want us to see) then there's no way we would be seeing it!

There appears to be a smudge on the "real object" found in the video on post 17. So maybe that's why it makes it more real.

Edited December 18, 2017 by dirtierdragoon4

[Merc14]

3 hours ago, seanjo said:

It's a fake! USAAF pilots calling each other dude on OP's is a big clue. This is made up by people that have watched too many movies.

It's supposedly a US Navy aircraft but another telltale is how the pilot discusses the wind, "it's going against the wind, the wind is 120 miles to the west"  First, the statement makes no sense and second he would've used knows, not "miles" unless things have changed drastically in the last twenty years..

[Vlawde]

2 hours ago, Erno86 said:

Special thanks to John Podesta and the CIA...for partially letting the 'cat out of the bag' --- so to speak --- The spooks over at Langely, Virginia must be so infuriated with the Trump/Pence oligarchy, that the had to disclose at least some UAP military jet camera footage, in order to turn some heads at the White House and Congress; by trying to influence the nuclear button wannabe pusher in the White House that he's no longer 'Top Gun' around here!!!

Haha, I see you are also on ATS, just read the same comment there!

[Vlawde]

It seems that some are not realizing what a big deal this all is. Official government videos of several encounters that remain unexplained. And at least to an extent, an exoneration of Tom Delonge, after promising to start releasing evidence but kept getting it delayed. This was all timed to coincide with the NYT (and now most other news organizations) story from last week.

It may be that Skinwalker Ranch activity and the UAP phenomena are the same thing, and that Robert Bigelow is associated with both. As a matter of fact, look for George Knapp to tie all those things together later this week.

I've always felt the various activity reported at the ranch is from the same source as UFO's. Interdimensional? Time travelers? Military experiments? I think those are more likely than aliens from other planets, but I guess we will eventually find out. If not soon, later. If I'm right, the truth may actually be too much for the general population to handle