Pentagon releases UFO footage

[Felon]

So basically, yet again it’s just your extreme confirmation bias playing up.

You said that they had zero connections.

I just proved that false, by linking a video of three of them having a nice chat about flying saucers 5 months ago, on Jeremy Corbells YouTube channel.

This isn’t difficult to do, it’s bleedin’ bloody obvious to anyone with brain cells and a pulse, that these people are all in cahoots.

 

[keyser van someone]

So does he explain away the problem with the heat signature and how it doesn't match a balloon?

The balloon will be a different temperature to the sea, so the camera will be able to show those differences.

Does he explain how the object appears to react and start to take evasive actions against the active target lock?

It's not an object reacting, it's a balloon popping. That also explains it accurately hit the object, but wasn't designed to go off for balloons, or it may not have had a payroll as it was a test.

 

[Pottsey]

You said that they had zero connections.

I just proved that false, by linking a video of three of them having a nice chat about flying saucers 5 months ago, on Jeremy Corbells YouTube channel.

This isn’t difficult to do, it’s bleedin’ bloody obvious to anyone with brain cells and a pulse, that these people are all in cahoots.

Yes I did and you found 1 minor connection between one of them that I wasn't aware off and that connection tuned out irrelevant to your point. They still have zero connections in relation to your UFO scam book for cash idea. You say its bleedin’ bloody obvious that they are all in cahoots, but that's just your confirmation bias. Your unable to provide a decent explanation to explain away all the solid evidence not only are they not all in cahoots. But even if some of them are in cahoots which is to be expected, all the evidence points towards them being real whistle-blowers not part of some UFO books scam. Yes some of the whistle-blowers are working together but that's perfectly normal for whistle-blowers.

You cannot even answer a single one of the points in my post, we all know why. Its because your idea is nonsense and goes against the facts and evidence. Its pretty simple if there where in cahoots and was making it all up. Then the independent IG IG investigation would have picked that up. Plus the independent SKIFs would have picked that up. But you conveniently keep ignoring that critical fact.

How do you explain away the real UAP departments with the real staff working inside and the real whistle-blowers? Are you saying they are all in cahoots with the usual suspects and somehow setup a fake UAP department within the government with fake evidence and fake staff all funded by the government? Somehow they managed fake there way past all the SKIFS and IG IC investigations and somehow managed to implant fake evidence within the most highly classified military database in the world? Or perhaps they not only infiltrated all these departments but somehow also infiltrated the SKIFs and IG IC as well? All to sell a few UFO books? Using your words, do you not realise how bleedin bloody deluded your idea sounds? For your idea to work it would be pretty much impossible to pull off. For your idea to work everyone would have to be on it, Congress, IG IC, everyone in the SKIFS, all the UAP taskforces.

How do you even work the Japanese, Brazil, Russian and all the others governments into this crazy idea of yours? Or are you just going to conveniently forget about them and there UAP stuff?

As soon as we remove your confirmation bias and critically/logically look at your idea it just completely falls apart.

"I just proved that false, by linking a video of three of them having a nice chat about flying saucers 5 months ago, on Jeremy Corbells YouTube channel."

No you didn't prove that false. That's just a classic example of your confirmation bias. Chief Alexandro Wiggins, Dylan Borland, Joe Spielberger and all the others where not in that video. But you are trying to use that video as a way to write off Chief Alexandro Wiggins, Dylan Borland, Joe Spielberger and all the others. The one person who was in the video doesn't add any credence towards you scam idea. As that was a proper interview between a real journalist who does background checks and prefers facts, evidence and paper trails over belief. Which directly goes against your scam idea.

 

[Pottsey]

The balloon will be a different temperature to the sea, so the camera will be able to show those differences.


It's not an object reacting, it's a balloon popping. That also explains it accurately hit the object, but wasn't designed to go off for balloons, or it may not have had a payroll as it was a test.

That doesn't work for me as the object in the video looks to be running hotter then a balloon. Its running hot like a missile or drone not cool like a balloon. You keep saying its not an object reacting. But we can clearly see what looks like it reacting in the video. Just saying its not when we can clearly see a reaction doesn't convince me. The target lock hits and the object appears to right after target lock start moving in response. How do you explain that if its a balloon? It looks hot enough to be an enemy drone and is acting more like an enemy drone that notices its been locked and started to evade but wasn't fast enough. I am not 100% sure, but it looks more like a drone on drone battle to me then a balloon based on current evidence.

 

[Felon]

Yes I did and you found 1 minor connection between one of them that I wasn't aware off and that connection tuned out irrelevant to your point.

Oh!

It’s just 1 minor connection, that you weren’t aware of! Duh!!

How the hell do you even know it’s just a minor connection, when two posts ago you told me these people have zero connections??

It seems to me that all you’re doing it maximising the things you want to be true, whilst minimising and brushing under the carpet anything that casts doubt.

This is why you’ve been dragged into all of this crap hook, line and sinker.

 

[Felon]

Also @Pottsey I also found another interview from 4 months back with chief Alexander Wiggins, on Jeremy Corbells YouTube channel (you can imagine my surprise)

So I think it’s fair to say that these people are all involved together, are clearly connected and that raises serious questions with regard to the legitimacy of their claims.

 

[keyser van someone]

That doesn't work for me as the object in the video looks to be running hotter then a balloon. Its running hot like a missile or drone not cool like a balloon. You keep saying its not an object reacting. But we can clearly see what looks like it reacting in the video. Just saying its not when we can clearly see a reaction doesn't convince me. The target lock hits and the object appears to right after target lock start moving in response. How do you explain that if its a balloon? It looks hot enough to be an enemy drone and is acting more like an enemy drone that notices its been locked and started to evade but wasn't fast enough. I am not 100% sure, but it looks more like a drone on drone battle to me then a balloon based on current evidence.

The balloon shape may not be sphere in shape and it's just moving around in the wind and/or there could FLIR camera artifacts going on, the drone with camera is moving forwards but the object/balloon to over to it's right side* roughly 90 degrees, the camera is moving/spinning to track it and this also fits with the parallax effect.

*I think I got that correct but if not, left side

The drone is changing direction because they would need to continue to fly backwards and forwards to track the balloon carried by the wind since these drones are just planes, so it would track it, turn around and then the object would be on it's left side at 90 degrees or so. If we had longer footage we should see the background would appear to rotate until it was moving in the opposite direction. You can see this begin to happen at the start of the video the background is moving is one direction and then at the end it's moving in another, purely down to where the drone with camera is - parallax effect.

My guess is they have access to that longer footage but it shows too much information that would provide more evidence of the above, but they don't want to do that do they

Everyone do this experiment:
hold out finger and keep it still
track your finger moving your head from side to side
see which direction the background moves as your finger doesn't

 

[SexyGreyFox]

Oh!

It’s just 1 minor connection, that you weren’t aware of! Duh!!

How the hell do you even know it’s just a minor connection, when two posts ago you told me these people have zero connections??

It seems to me that all you’re doing it maximising the things you want to be true, whilst minimising and brushing under the carpet anything that casts doubt.

This is why you’ve been dragged into all of this crap hook, line and sinker.

Can i ask why you don't believe there are Government departments all around the World working on secret technology?

 

[Felon]

Can i ask why you don't believe there are Government departments all around the World working on secret technology?

Yeah sure - It’s a fact that there are government departments all around the world working on secret technology, and have been for centuries.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

Yeah sure - It’s a fact that there are government departments all around the world working on secret technology, and have been for centuries.

So why are you constantly arguing with Pottsey who believes the same thing?
He is 100% convinced these UAPs are of this World.

 

[Felon]

So why are you constantly arguing with Pottsey who believes the same thing?
He is 100% convinced these UAPs are of this World.

@Pottsey thinks that the whistleblowers (David Grusch, etc) are legit.

I’m arguing that they’re not, it’s all a load of baloney being cooked up by the people I referenced in previous posts.

In 6-12 months time, the merry-go-round will do another cycle and we’ll get the same crappy video showing nothing, with the same sham conference, alongside second-rate podcasts.

 

[Pottsey]

That’s not a gotcha you think it is. My point still stands.

“How the hell do you even know it’s just a minor connection, when two posts ago you told me these people have zero connections??”

I just explained that to you last night. George isn’t a grifter and its perfectly reasonable for him to do an interview. The fact its George that did the interview goes directly against your idea that its all grifters and the usual suspects. George doesn’t tend to interview random people without supporting evidence. George likes paper trails and solid evidence and would have checked these peoples backgrounds out and trying to find as much solid evidence as he reasonably could.

George and Jeremy work together that’s not secret and not some grifter scam. George and Jeremy interview real whistle-blowers again perfectly normal and doesn't fit your grifter scam idea.

“It’s just 1 minor connection, that you weren’t aware of! Duh!!”

I don’t watch every single UAP interview in existence. That fact there is one I missed doesn’t remotely matter for the point being discussed.
What you found is not a gotcha. The connection you found doesn’t prove your point. My point still stands firm.

Yes, I missed an interview and I admit I missed that interview. Doesn’t change the point your idea is total nonsense and full of massive nonsensical flaws that you have no answer too.

“So I think it’s fair to say that these people are all involved together, are clearly connected and that raises serious questions with regard to the legitimacy of their claims”

No it doesn’t raise serious concerns about the legitimacy of their claims. An entire batch of them are not connected which you keep ignoring and the connections you found are perfectly reasonable and don’t have any impact on the legitimacy of their claims.
In fact the opposite it boosts the legitimacy of their claims.

Have you even stopped to think about what you are saying? Its nonsense and another sign of confirmation bias.

Your trying to make a conspiracy theory where there is zero evidence of a conspiracy theory and all the evidence goes against your conspiracy theory.

 

[Pottsey]

@Pottsey thinks that the whistleblowers (David Grusch, etc) are legit.

I’m arguing that they’re not, it’s all a load of baloney being cooked up by the people I referenced in previous posts.

In 6-12 months time, the merry-go-round will do another cycle and we’ll get the same crappy video showing nothing, with the same sham conference, alongside second-rate podcasts.

Well they are legit! They actually are in the real life government whistle-blowers system. The IG IG or how ever you spell it, did a full investigation including interviewing all there colleagues, speaking to there line mangers, looking at the classified evdeince and concluded they are real. Senior officials responsible for overseeing the integrity and efficiency of military operations confirmed they are real. Its completely impossible for your usual suspects to be behind that.

That's the problem and where you are going wrong. We are well past that stage, as at this point we know they are real whistle-blowers. We know they really hold the jobs they said they did and really worked on what they said they did. They have been officially checked out and passed official government investigation like the IC IG and SKIFs. Its impossible for your usual suspects to have cooked that up and faked it.

To copy my other post that you still failed to answer. You say "its all cooked up by the people I referenced in previous posts."

That's just a conspiracy theory you made up. Not only is there zero evdeince for your conspiracy theory that your group of people are working together. But there are major flaws with them being behind all this.

"How do you explain away the real UAP departments with the real staff working inside and the real whistle-blowers? Are you saying they are all in cahoots with the usual suspects and somehow setup a fake UAP department within the government with fake evidence and fake staff all funded by the government? Somehow they managed fake there way past all the SKIFS and IG IC investigations and somehow managed to implant fake evidence within the most highly classified military database in the world? Or perhaps they not only infiltrated all these departments but somehow also infiltrated the SKIFs and IG IC as well? All to sell a few UFO books? Using your words, do you not realise how bleedin bloody deluded your idea sounds? For your idea to work it would be pretty much impossible to pull off. For your idea to work everyone would have to be on it, Congress, IG IC, everyone in the SKIFS, all the UAP taskforces."

Dont you realise the conspiracy theory you have created for it to work is right up there and as nonsensical as saying its aliens? Your coming across as one of those conspiracy theory types that are ignoring all solid evdeince and insisting there crazy conspiracy theory is right!

 

[Felon]

Well they are legit!

Ok so.

After 3 conferences and the following escapades;

• Nimitz tic-tac silliness (gofast/duck / gimble etc)
• David Grusch and the non-human biologics being recovered from 'space ships' (basically aliens)
• A video of an MQ9 shooting a hellfire missile at what appears to be a balloon or benign object.

What substantive conclusion has been reached?

Spoiler

Saying that a bunch of high ranking people with secret access to this and that, have all seen it in a closed room and nothing can really be shared, doesn't count as any substantive conclusion.

 

[Pottsey]

“What substantive conclusion has been reached?”

That the UAP departments are real, the illegally run SAP projects are real, that the whistle-blowers are real and actually worked where they said they worked and had access to the classified systems they say they had access to. That the whistle-blowers complaints are backed by evidence and the whistle-blowers reports have merit are credible and urgent.

You know all the things that directly go against your conspiracy theory nonsense idea that it’s all been arranged by the so-called usual suspects. So called suspects whom it would it have been impossible for them to set all this up.

It turned out to be so real that the Japanese version of there Congress setup there own briefings along with other counties. All which have nothing to do with your usual suspects.

On the other hand what substantive conclusion do we have for your conspiracy theory idea about the usual suspects? Absolutely zero evidence and a bunch of evidence that contradicts your idea.

 

[Felon]

That the UAP departments are real, the illegally run SAP projects are real, that the whistle-blowers are real and actually worked where they said they worked and had access to the classified systems they say they had access to. That the whistle-blowers complaints are backed by evidence and the whistle-blowers reports have merit are credible and urgent.

Ok.

So the so called “UAP department” is agreed as “real”.

Not sure about the rest, but what does that get us?

You’re claiming this is all “real” how are you coming to that conclusion?

What substantive evidence have you seen that can back up the claim that you make, that this is all real?

 

[keyser van someone]

Video without the moving background:

UAP Hearing New Video - Yemen Orb

I thought a table of the current differing opinions might be useful. Perhaps it can be added to. ExpertOpinion Key Reasoning Avi Loeb (Harvard Astrophysicist, UAP Researcher) Comparable with a Samad Drone See link in #133 Chris Lehto (Retired F-16 Pilot, UAP Analyst)"Obviously a...

www.metabunk.org

Most on Reddit say balloon/missile test. I look forward the next video, some time next year?

 

[Pottsey]

Ok.

So the so called “UAP department” is agreed as “real”.

Not sure about the rest, but what does that get us?

You’re claiming this is all “real” how are you coming to that conclusion?

What substantive evidence have you seen that can back up the claim that you make, that this is all real?

Well yes one such example the Investigative journalist found some of the many millions in “black money” that funded some of the UAP departments which they found by following the money paper trails which reviled some of those classified UAP departments as real. You do member that right? We have been over it enough times with links.


“You’re claiming this is all “real” how are you coming to that conclusion?”
How many times does this have to be explained. One case is the IC IG investigation division are responsible for investigation, allegations within the Intelligence community. They specialise in classified data.

The IC IG went in an interviewed the whistle-blowers, interviewed all their colleagues, spoke to everyone in there department, spoke to there line manager, looked at all the evidence did a full proper investigation and put out official statements which you have seen multiple times. Even the Inspector General himself signed a document backing up the whistle-blowers.

Not only did this prove credibly to the whistle-blowers but if as you say, the usual suspect where behind this, none of that would have been possible and the IC IG would have come back and said this is just a few grifters with no evidence. The IC IG don’t mess around, you don’t mess around with the IC IG. The usually suspects cannot possibly infiltrate the IC IG and fake all those reports.

There are loads of documents like this.

https://www.disclosurediaries.com/c...David-Grusch-PPD-19-Procedural-Filing--1-.pdf

Paraphrasing

“He is currently clear at TS/SCI level by the NGA and serves at the agency UAP analyses division.” You know the UAP division/department you deny is real but is there in official paperwork to show its real.

Also from the official government documentation. Mr Grush served a fully cleared member of the US UAP Task Force.

Hence the UAP Task force and division is real. The whistle-blowers inside those departments are real and they have/had security clearance to work in them and access the files.

They are not faking it by pretending to work in a fake department under the instructions of your usual suspects. Above isn't even the only official paperwork. There is loads more, many of which has been shown to you over the past years.

Your the one denying these whistle-blowers are real whistle-blowers and denying they worked where the evdeince shows they worked. So how are the whistle-blowers not real then as you keep saying? Do you think they faked working at the UAP taskforce and somehow faked all that paperwork and investigation files?

So where is the substantive evidence for your conspiracy theory?

 

[Felon]

https://www.disclosurediaries.com/c...David-Grusch-PPD-19-Procedural-Filing--1-.pdf

So he paid a lawyer to write a document and sign it, wtf is that supposed to prove?

The IC IG went in an interviewed the whistle-blowers, interviewed all their colleagues, spoke to everyone in there department, spoke to there line manager, looked at all the evidence did a full proper investigation and put out official statements which you have seen multiple times. Even the Inspector General himself signed a document backing up the whistle-blowers.

The IC IG have not come out and confirmed that any of the whistleblower claims are true (which is the most important part of all of this), merely that they've investigated his complaint under whistleblower law (which they have to do).

There is no substantive evidence, no evidence whatsoever that any of those claims were true.

 

[Pottsey]

So he paid a lawyer to write a document and sign it, wtf is that supposed to prove?



The IC IG have not come out and confirmed that any of the whistleblower claims are true (which is the most important part of all of this), merely that they've investigated his complaint under whistleblower law (which they have to do).

There is no substantive evidence, no evidence whatsoever that any of those claims were true.

No, he didn’t pay some random layer. The very first line of the document is “Office of the director of National Intelligence, Intelligence community inspector general.

Charles served as the Chair of the Intelligence Community Inspectors General Forum; a committee composed of all US Intelligence Community Inspectors General. He is not just some random layer.

Charles doesn’t put him name to false documents. The statement in that filling are accurate and true. The Chair of the Intelligence Community (Not currently sitting chair in 2025) is not going to get basic facts wrong like where David worked, what his security clearance was, what department he was in. Charles given his position wouldn’t sign a false statement.

Furthermore, several sources, including journalists and other individuals, have corroborated Davids background as a military intelligence officer and his work within the intelligence community. The defence Office of Prepublication and Security Review passed a lot of this over to the press to confirm he is real. There was also the DOPSR Cleared Statement and IG Complaint which comes from the department of Defence prepublication and security review. Again proving David is who is says he is. Once such example now retired Army Reserve Colonel Karl E. Nell, who worked alongside Grusch as the Army’s Director for the UAP Task Force from 2021 to 2022 confirmed everything. Or is Karl E. Nell also one of your usual suspects?

Basically, your wrong in saying the whistle-blowers are fake and are working for the usual suspects. You cannot provide one shred of evidence for your deluded conspiracy theory. Not one explanation for the many massive flaws pointed out in your nonsense idea.

“merely that they've investigated his complaint under whistleblower law (which they have to do).”
Then put out a statement saying the complaint was urgent and credible. Backed up by the SKIF meeting where multiple people say the complaint was urgent and credible. Years back there was a stream of screenshots and links posted here proving that.

Going back to your theory. So basically, you have no substantive evidence that David is not who he says he is. You have no substantive evidence to support this nonsense idea of yours. You have no substantive evidence to backup any of the past few pages of nonsense you have be putting here. You have no substantive evidence to write off the other whistleblowers. You have no explanation for the other whistle-blowers who you just conveniently pretend dont exist.

You said the whistleblowers are not real but all the evdeince points to them being real and your wrong.