-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
From The NY Times: The Pentagon's Secret UFO Program
- Thread starter IsaacKoi
- Start date
Free episodes:
I was looking at the wording above they used for the FLIR1 video, which doesn't actually say they have CoC documents, but rather it's almost as if documentation and confirmation of originality would somehow follow just from the fact that it is a product of military sensors. To me that wording looked a bit suspicious.
But here's the equivalent bit for the GIMBAL video:
GIMBAL VIDEO
That seems to be quite clear that there's actual solid official documentation for both clips. So... yeah... where is it?
SRL+
Paranormal Adept
Lost in the field of dreams?
SRL+
Paranormal Adept
I don't recall where UFOs & counterintelligence walked hand in hand with positive results for the UFO community.
Ezechiel
Paranormal Adept
Complex field of dreams.
DOD (Defense) admits it ran a secret UFO investigation but then the DIA (Information) tries to backtrack. DIA is part of USD (Intelligence), so is the NSA which are both 'Combat Support Agencies'.
So when they say the DOD admits ... it means it had a program but doesn't disclose it's purpose ?
SRL+
Paranormal Adept
The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency is way up there in the food chain. Just under the NSA.
Why it is that Luis Elizondo and/or Christopher Mellon would not consider what you have presented before going in front of the American public in releasing the video?
You are aware of Christopher Mellon and his prior role in the military.
Why it is that Luis Elizondo and/or Christopher Mellon would not consider what you have presented before going in front of the American public in releasing the video?
You are aware of Christopher Mellon and his prior role in the military.
little to no comments on GC
I posted on page 15 with a link to a Dec 23 (UT post date ) CG and UT post.
Hollywood Tomfortas
Paranormal Adept
Thanks Mike! The secret to being a Cat Butler or any other human-feline service role is to always remember this mantra:I havent met a cat butler yet who didnt have a great sense of humour
“Dogs have owners; cats have staff.”
A couple of questions someone can hopefully clarify to me:
Paco Chierici, the author of that Fightersweep article, has stated on Twitter that:
What report? Is he talking about the leaked log or something else?
Then in the Nimitz report they state that the jets were originally launched at 1200 EST and re-vectored towards the ufo at 1230. EST is UTC-5.
2004 USS NIMITZ PILOT WRITTEN REPORT
That event log however specifies that the re-vectoring happened 1410L and the ufo was spotted at 1430L and it also mentions "RAVEN" seeing a couple of boats at 1415L and 1430L.
Fighter Jet UFO Footage: The Real Deal, page 9
Those are times, right? What timezone are they? According to this it would be "Lima Time Zone", which means military timezone that is UTC+11, which is nowhere close to that sighting and can't be right:
List of military time zones - Wikipedia
That page also mentions "Letter "L" is commonly mistaken for "local"", so would that be PST then? Which is UTC-8, which is still far apart. That Fightersweep article only mentions the time the next crew (that took the FLIR video) launched, that was 1500. I'm guessing TTSA messed up something with the timezones. Have you seen specified times on other sources?
Paco Chierici, the author of that Fightersweep article, has stated on Twitter that:
What report? Is he talking about the leaked log or something else?
Then in the Nimitz report they state that the jets were originally launched at 1200 EST and re-vectored towards the ufo at 1230. EST is UTC-5.
2004 USS NIMITZ PILOT WRITTEN REPORT
That event log however specifies that the re-vectoring happened 1410L and the ufo was spotted at 1430L and it also mentions "RAVEN" seeing a couple of boats at 1415L and 1430L.
Fighter Jet UFO Footage: The Real Deal, page 9
Those are times, right? What timezone are they? According to this it would be "Lima Time Zone", which means military timezone that is UTC+11, which is nowhere close to that sighting and can't be right:
List of military time zones - Wikipedia
That page also mentions "Letter "L" is commonly mistaken for "local"", so would that be PST then? Which is UTC-8, which is still far apart. That Fightersweep article only mentions the time the next crew (that took the FLIR video) launched, that was 1500. I'm guessing TTSA messed up something with the timezones. Have you seen specified times on other sources?
SRL+
Paranormal Adept
There have been a few new postings @ METABUNK
Post #84 may interest you.
2004 USS Nimitz Tic Tac UFO FLIR footage
Raytheon is conditionally taking advantage of the video release
Raytheon: The UFO spotter - Navy pilots used Raytheon tech to track a strange UFO
"Even so, the video images are not definitive proof that the jet pilots were chasing an actual UFO.
To really be sure, we would need the raw data,” said Dr. Steve Cummings, vice president of Technology Development and Execution at Raytheon Space and Airborne Systems. "Visual displays alone are not the best evidence.”
Post #84 may interest you.
2004 USS Nimitz Tic Tac UFO FLIR footage
Raytheon is conditionally taking advantage of the video release
Raytheon: The UFO spotter - Navy pilots used Raytheon tech to track a strange UFO
"Even so, the video images are not definitive proof that the jet pilots were chasing an actual UFO.
To really be sure, we would need the raw data,” said Dr. Steve Cummings, vice president of Technology Development and Execution at Raytheon Space and Airborne Systems. "Visual displays alone are not the best evidence.”
Last edited by a moderator:
Looks like they are mostly concentrating on finding discrepancies on estimated sizes, accelerations etc. which I wouldn't expect to be too accurate in the first place. After all, it happened more than a decade earlier, and they no doubt had a lot in their minds at the time. The same of course applies to exact times, but what sort of accuracy should we expect from an event log, assuming it is real and original?
I didn't see much of interest there except for that link to an article where that production company in Germany denies having anything to do with the clip, except that it was on their server. And that was what I already expected, as the video was said to have been in YouTube and circulated in various forms among some. Most likely that just happened to be one of those places, so either someone there had some contacts where they got it from, it was copied from YouTube by some employee, or their site contained some kind of public uploading functionality, as the op of that ATS thread claimed. Interestingly both of those ATS posters who had access to that data tried to make it clear that the production company had nothing to do with it. So maybe they were connected to it somehow. It would be also interesting to know if they got the event log from the same place or somewhere else. And also what that PowerPoint document was that they were talking about.
It seems that the confusion about who shot that video and what it actually shows also continues in the media and elsewhere. As far as I understand it, the "Source" in that TTSA report is Jim Slaight, who was then the pilot of the plane that looked at the events higher up, made notes afterwards and was furious colleagues didn't take the event seriously enough. OK-1 is his WSO. OK-2 is David Fravor who made a copy of his gun tape afterwards (that would be interesting to see). OK-3 would be his WSO. All of them then were in the same room discussing about it. I hope Fravor's WSO also speaks out at some point, because he would have seen the same up close.
OK-4 and OK-5 are the pilot and WSO from a jet that took off sometime after (among others), and the first one that had FLIR on board, and that was the one that took the video. So the video was made well after the events Fravor described. But that is not in the log, right?
So if I got this about right and the information that is given in those documents is mostly true, there probably isn't much significant additional FLIR videos but there might be some very interesting gun tape footage, if only someone dares to make it public, and if that was actually directed towards the object at right times. And of course the radar recordings would be very valuable, at least if some outside experts could investigate them, but that probably won't happen considering how sensitive the data about those radar capabilities probably is. So I'm afraid we can't expect to get that much more real evidence even if the investigation reports were published.
Yes, that one is interesting, and I saw it earlier somewhere. I wonder if they could actually get access to that raw data they would need if they just tried. Or maybe they do, but we probably wouldn't hear about that. After all, they are an important instrument supplier and it could be valuable information for both of those parties to understand how that instrument works in those circumstances and if they could identify some issues that may cause incorrect results and so on.
marduk
quelling chaos since 2352BC
He doesn’t tweet about his hair, either. And there’s video evidence of that problem, too.
I decided to check what the size estimates were as they seemed to be the kind of details those at Metabunk are looking at, and based on the latest postings there, they seem to have had confusion who was who in which document (Mick for example thought Kurth was "Source"). Someone there has now posted similar understanding about the sources a bit later I did here. Looks like they also may not take into account how the different documents contain estimates from several different people at different altitudes:
Fightersweep article:
"Cheeks" Kurth in a Hornet, flying above 10K estimated whitewater area of water to be about 50-100 meters.
Dave thought the whitewater was the size of a 737 when he was above 20K, and the tic-tac to be fighter-sized or about 46 feet.
TTSA report:
"Source" (=Jim?), who stayed higher up, estimated turbulent water to be approximately 60x80 feet and the object to be 30-40 feet.
Event log:
One of the pilots (doesn't specify which one) described whitewater area resembling downed airline and to be much larger than a submarine. Log indicates jets were above 24K then. Object was described to be 25-30 feet.
I don't see much discrepancies there when you take that into account. Even less if you consider those estimates about that area of water may not be about the dimensions of some object but just an area that has turbulence for whatever reason, which can have variance in size depending on when you happened to look at it. Estimates of speed and acceleration are of course even harder if you don't have clear reference points or instruments to measure it.
Btw. The O'Hare ufo was estimated by different eye witnesses to be 22-88 feet in diameter, which also shows how much estimates vary even in a case where those how saw it were supposedly much closer to it and each other. Interestingly in these two cases the estimates overlap just like the descriptions of a roundish mostly featureless object hovering silently without any visible propulsion and shooting straight up with very high speed. So if it was a real object in both of those cases, is there any reason it couldn't be the same?
Fightersweep article:
"Cheeks" Kurth in a Hornet, flying above 10K estimated whitewater area of water to be about 50-100 meters.
Dave thought the whitewater was the size of a 737 when he was above 20K, and the tic-tac to be fighter-sized or about 46 feet.
TTSA report:
"Source" (=Jim?), who stayed higher up, estimated turbulent water to be approximately 60x80 feet and the object to be 30-40 feet.
Event log:
One of the pilots (doesn't specify which one) described whitewater area resembling downed airline and to be much larger than a submarine. Log indicates jets were above 24K then. Object was described to be 25-30 feet.
I don't see much discrepancies there when you take that into account. Even less if you consider those estimates about that area of water may not be about the dimensions of some object but just an area that has turbulence for whatever reason, which can have variance in size depending on when you happened to look at it. Estimates of speed and acceleration are of course even harder if you don't have clear reference points or instruments to measure it.
Btw. The O'Hare ufo was estimated by different eye witnesses to be 22-88 feet in diameter, which also shows how much estimates vary even in a case where those how saw it were supposedly much closer to it and each other. Interestingly in these two cases the estimates overlap just like the descriptions of a roundish mostly featureless object hovering silently without any visible propulsion and shooting straight up with very high speed. So if it was a real object in both of those cases, is there any reason it couldn't be the same?
Im assuming the report is the ones doing the rounds and of which there is a copy at TTSA.
The comments section is a gold mine though. From 6 months ago
Do you mean this one:
2004 USS NIMITZ PILOT WRITTEN REPORT
It definitely isn't that, as that seems to be a report of the interview TTSA had with "Source" (Jim?) on September 7, 2017. I wonder if they did that report on purpose to look like an actual navy report from years back, as I certainly mistook it as such when I first looked at it.
That's interesting, so that poster you quoted knows just the person I would like to hear from, Fravor's WSO (OK-3). Hopefully someone has managed to contact him. At least according to that poster he supports Fravor's testimony.