Several US Navy pilots have reported encounters with UFOs. Image Credit: US Navy
A new documentary airing tomorrow will feature footage captured by US Navy pilots of unidentified objects.
These inexplicable encounters, which occurred during training flights from 2014 to 2015, were not only observed by seasoned pilots but also recorded on video and picked up on radar as well.
In some cases the unknown objects were observed moving at seemingly impossible speeds at altitudes of up to 30,000ft without any apparent means of propulsion.
A total of six pilots stationed aboard the U.S.S. Theodore Roosevelt reported such encounters.
"[They had] no distinct wing, no distinct tail, no distinct exhaust plume," said Lt. Danny Accoin, one of the pilots who witnessed the objects.
"It seemed like they were aware of our presence, because they would actively move around us."
Now a new History Channel documentary series is set to lift the lid on these encounters by featuring interviews with the pilots as well as footage of the objects themselves.
Entitled Unidentified: Inside America's UFO Investigation, the show will "reveal newly authenticated evidence and footage, interviews from eyewitnesses and former military personnel who have never spoken out before, and extensive breakthroughs in understanding the technology behind these unknown phenomena in our skies."
You can catch the premiere on Friday May 31st at 10pm ET / 9pm CT.
The only surprising thing is you pretending to be superhuman with a whimsical event you garnish with superhuman laughable behavior. Please continue and make me laugh even harder harder.
Just post the link to the actual data in question, then I'll be happy to ask a radar expert to take a look. Or is this just another LS handwave? That was a rhetorical question, of course it IS a handwave. This is how LS operates. For anyone not familiar with the tactic, let me explain... The link in post 87 (LS conveniently, wisely, refrained from giving the actual link - read on for why he did that...) is just a general information link about the radar. IT CONTAINS NONE OF THE DATA/SCREENSHOTS/REPORT EXTRACTS for any of the events being referred to here. What's more, the person who post... [More]
I see, LS did make a token effort, so I half apologise. But really, what follows counts as debate? I don't understand your point - are you saying the figures DO show massive G-forces? Quote those numbers... And where did 'that guy' (Elizondo) get his claim about excess G-forces *from*, if not this case? If it's from somewhere else, then POST THE CITES. I made an effort and showed an example of where the 'massive' g-forces were NOT shown. If you say that's wrong, show me the numbers. If you say it came from somewhere else, point out where. Otherwise, all you are doing is wasting th... [More]
Well, I'm so glad I asked all those questions above. Thanks for ignoring them, Lost - but I think I can see what the reason is... So, is there ANYONE who can justify, in a reasonable way, Elizondo's claim about G-Forces? If that one is now put to bed (and it is OVER if no-one can show the source data and the calculations - Lost Shaman has now conceded he can't),... we could move onto the other false claims... Indeed, does ANYONE have ANY particularly compelling actual EVIDENCE / SOURCE DATA that relates to these complete wastes of time 'cases'? After all, these are supposedly high tech ... [More]
The video clearly shows that this is a training mission in the case of the little white blob that is likely a weather balloon. The operator of the FLIR is surprised at the finding. That does not mean that the operator is unable to identify the object, but is surprised and detection and tracking. This is all about learning and that is what exercises are all about.
So what, exactly, are you confused about in my post above, Cap'n? It seems the difference between 'omigod it's alienz' folks, and those who look at the actual evidence and research it properly, is... well ... we look at the evidence and research it properly. That's how we tell, for example, that Elizondo and Delonge are incompetent (or deliberately misleading) when they don't notice a zoom setting changed and make a false claim based on 'calculations' based on a blindingly obvious error. Not only does the screen display SAY the zoom changed, for anyone familiar with this type of equipment... [More]
Please Login or Register to post a comment.