Pentagon releases UFO footage

[MookJong]

Why would a nation come out and openly admit that it's their technology?
Any nation with common-sense would keep schtum and let everyone carry on spouting little green men theories.

The report is to congress, if they say it isn't US technology and it actually is they can put you in prison. Why would the US be invading it's own restricted airspace on a near daily basis and putting it's own security and operations at risk?

 

[ethan]

Look what happened in 1964.

I think I misunderstand your point
In addition there appears to be a rather hefty article here covering many of the skeptical "points" raised in the thread-so much so that it's too much to absorb using using a phone.

Apologies if it's the same as the link that's already posted:

https://flip.it/Vwat23

Do you see now?

Site link. Hopefully it's a better read:

https://thedebrief.org/fast-movers-and-transmedium-vehicles-the-pentagons-uap-task-force/

 

[visibleman]

The report is to congress, if they say it isn't US technology and it actually is they can put you in prison.

Knowingly withheld information surely?

By all means you can take the report as face-value and believe what you want but you have to make a lot of assumptions to be getting to little green men theories, eg - assume every "black project" was disclosed for the report, i personally doubt that was the case due to secrecy and segregation around military projects; assume it's US technology and assume the US knows every nations "black project" programmes, again highly unlikely.

Why would the US be invading it's own airspace on a near daily basis and putting it's own security and operations at risk?

Nations have "invaded" their own airspace with past "black projects" so why wouldn't they do it now?

 

[Lysander]

By all means you can take the report as face-value and believe what you want but you have to make a lot of assumptions to be getting to little green men theories

You really don't. These things move in a way that nothing known on Earth does. To say it's Russian tech would mean the Russians are terrifyingly far ahead in their technology, the likes of which it's hard to comprehend, let alone explain.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

Nations have "invaded" their own airspace with past "black projects" so why wouldn't they do it now?

Absolutely, wasn't the B2 Bomber a good example?

 

[Felon]

You really don't. These things move in a way that nothing known on Earth does.

Where is the evidence for this, exactly?

 

[ethan]

Knowingly withheld information surely?

By all means you can take the report as face-value and believe what you want but you have to make a lot of assumptions to be getting to little green men theories, eg - assume every "black project" was disclosed for the report, i personally doubt that was the case due to secrecy and segregation around military projects; assume it's US technology and assume the US knows every nations "black project" programmes, again highly unlikely.



Nations have "invaded" their own airspace with past "black projects" so why wouldn't they do it now?

Apparently it's been happening for decades and what we have now with both the Pentagon and the media is a direct consequence of it having been ignored.

Christopher Mellon gives the example of the radar operators failing to provide the detected radar signatures up the chain resulting in the bombing of Pearl Harbour. The higher ups were not taking the matter seriously enough to provide support to military personnel encountering these things on a daily basis.

Furthermore, Mellon states that if they were Russian or Chinese or American, he would have known about it being the EX Deputy Secretary of Defence.

 

[ethan]

Where is the evidence for this, exactly?

Screech, you've been asking this throughout the thread having already been told what it is and where it is? Why do you keep asking

Go and read the debrief. org link. According to that the technological capabilities of these things is common knowledge within the intelligence communities.

 

[Lysander]

Screech, you've been asking this throughout the thread having already been told what it is and where it is? Why do you keep asking

It's the same question, same reply, same rebuttal.

Some of us choose to accept this evidence, some don't. Mr S should accept that.

 

[Angilion]

I happened to be watching a short history video on Nazi flying saucers yesterday. And yes, I do mean a history video. Not a "History" Channel "I'm not saying it's aliens but it's aliens" video, but an actual history video looking at the rare but real attempts to make flying saucers before, during and after WW2.

It contained a clip from an old video of a USA military officer giving a formal report on the USA military's investigation into UAPs. 70 years ago. It's still completely applicable today. It could be shown as the current answer without any changes at all.

The clip starts at 12:25.

This isn't a new thing. Or a big deal.

 

[Felon]

Screech, you've been asking this throughout the thread having already been told what it is and where it is? Why do you keep asking

I just keep challenging the claim which keeps being made, yet in 68 pages - no such evidence that backs up that claim has been made at all, yet the claim keeps being repeated.

You understand - that when you make such claims, if you don't put forward evidence to corroborate it - people far *worse* than me, are never ever going to take these claims seriously?

It's the same question, same reply, same rebuttal.

There hasn't actually been a rebuttal, at any point - just diversion and deflection. Rebuttal would be easy if evidence could be put forward which verifies the claims, but I haven't seen anything close.

Some of us choose to accept this evidence, some don't. Mr S should accept that.

This is like the type of argument that creationists use - "there's evidence of god, but you won't accept it" then they put forward a copy of the bible as the evidence in question, then blame everyone else when they don't take it seriously.

 

[MookJong]

Knowingly withheld information surely?

By all means you can take the report as face-value and believe what you want but you have to make a lot of assumptions to be getting to little green men theories, eg - assume every "black project" was disclosed for the report, i personally doubt that was the case due to secrecy and segregation around military projects; assume it's US technology and assume the US knows every nations "black project" programmes, again highly unlikely.

Nations have "invaded" their own airspace with past "black projects" so why wouldn't they do it now?

I've never said the origin is E.T. anywhere, I've always said I don't think anyone knows yet.

I understand your position, but you also have to make assumptions. Why would the Pentagon not have stepped in at some point in the last 17 years, had a quiet word with the US Navy, AATIP or UAPTF and told them the objects were US tech?

Failing that, why were Marco Rubio and the other congress people who are allowed to see classified information not told from the outset that a congressional UAP report wasn't needed because it was their tech? It would have saved all this hype, embarrassment and UFO talk for the Pentagon.

But the biggest assumption is that they would fly black projects into restricted airspace without telling those in charge. To do it on a weekly or even daily basis interupting normal opperations year after year, well that is an assumtption too far for me even if you think Pentagon heads would authorise it. For that reason alone I don't believe these objects are under Pentagon command.

Foreign black project is a lot more likely, back in 2004 less so but far more likely than US tech based on the volume and disruptive nature of these events.

 

[ethan]

It's the same question, same reply, same rebuttal.

Some of us choose to accept this evidence, some don't. Mr S should accept that.

It's just dogma.

I just keep challenging the claim which keeps being made, yet in 68 pages - no such evidence that backs up that claim has been made at all, yet the claim keeps being repeated.

You understand - that when you make such claims, if you don't put forward evidence to corroborate it - people far *worse* than me, are never ever going to take these claims seriously?



There hasn't actually been a rebuttal, at any point - just diversion and deflection. Rebuttal would be easy if evidence could be put forward which verifies the claims, but I haven't seen anything close.



This is like the type of argument that creationists use - "there's evidence of god, but you won't accept it" then they put forward a copy of the bible as the evidence in question, then blame everyone else when they don't take it seriously.

But nobody is putting forward evidence like a bible. That is, as you suggest an argument bssed on faith. Your analogy doesn't apply.

The UAP phenomena is an arguement based on eye-witness testimony from experienced military personnel in conjunction with our understanding of physics corroborated by the infared and radar, fleet wide - tracking systems which includes AWAC and sonar etc.

In other words it's testable - using, hard physical evidence which is difficult to discount and open to corroberation. It's nothing like creationism at all.

Furthermore, your asking where it is when you already know ? Unless, of course your really asking what it is- which is what you've previously been and just been told?

 

[visibleman]

You really don't. These things move in a way that nothing known on Earth does.

You (/me) wouldn't know regardless. You can assume that's the case but there's no evidence to suggest that it is or isn't. The only way you could say that with any confidence is if you knew all the global "black project" programmes - a bit of a feat.

Mellon states that if they were Russian or Chinese or American, he would have known about it being the EX Deputy Secretary of Defence.

Wasn't he 'Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defence'?
Either way, i would be surprised if Mellon was privy to every inch of US's own programmes (he would have been read-in to what he needed to know) let alone know what "black project" programmes where being undertaken by other nations.

Why would the Pentagon not have stepped in at some point in the last 17 years, had a quiet word with the US Navy, AATIP or UAPTF and told them the objects were US tech?

Failing that, why were Marco Rubio and the other congress people who are allowed to see classified information not told from the outset that a congressional UAP report wasn't needed because it was their tech? It would have saved all this hype, embarrassment and UFO talk for the Pentagon.

Why would an nation actively make a load of their own departments privy to highly-classified information other than to open themselves up to leaks and to save on a load of filling cabinets?
It makes no odds if (for example) a Navy pilot files a report of a sighting and for it to end up in a folder in a cabinet somewhere.

But the biggest assumption is that they would fly black projects into restricted airspace without telling those in charge. To do it on a weekly or even daily basis interupting normal opperations year after year, well that is an assumtption too far for me even if you think Pentagon heads would authorise it.

US already has and do do for testing going off past "black project" programmes (Oxcart, Have Blue etc), flying in and around US airspace and you would assume it's no different for other nations. So it's highly probable they would test it in their own backyards.
Testing it in other peoples is a good question though but then, if you had something this capable, why not?

Either way, it's a bit naive to assume this report is one-hundred percent the truth or the complete picture. There will be a handful of people on the planet that either know exactly or have a very, very good understanding of what they are but it'll be many decades/centuries before we're all privy to that.

 

[d_brennen]

Site link. Hopefully it's a better read:

https://thedebrief.org/fast-movers-and-transmedium-vehicles-the-pentagons-uap-task-force/

Are these the same UAPs as the "clearly lens artifact" leaked videos? I see no proof of anything

 

[Felon]

But nobody is putting forward evidence like a bible. That is, as you suggest an argument bssed on faith. The UAP phenomena is being argued based on eye-witness testimony from experienced military personnel in conjunction with our current understanding of physics corroborated by the infared and radar, fleet wide - tracking systems which includes AWAC. In other words - hard physical evidence which is difficult to discount. It's nothing like creationism at all.

I haven't seen any of this so called "hard physical evidence"; Radar data, infrared data or any of the information from the fleet-wide tracking systems, AWACS etc. There are numerous 2nd and 3rd hand verbal reports from interviews on various websites of it, but no actual evidence that's been cited by anybody, and certainly nothing official from anywhere whatsoever, that points to the sorts of explanations being supposed by yourself.

It seems you've presupposed, that there's an exotic explanation going on here, and will cling wildly to the most tenuous and circumstantial evidence you can find, but there's no hard evidence anywhere, that these objects are defying the laws of physics.

If there was hard evidence, it would be easy.

 

[ethan]

I haven't seen any of this so called "hard physical evidence"; Radar data, infrared data or any of the information from the fleet-wide tracking systems, AWACS etc. There are numerous 2nd and 3rd hand verbal reports from interviews on various websites of it, but no actual evidence that's been cited by anybody, and certainly nothing official from anywhere whatsoever, that points to the sorts of explanations being supposed by yourself.

It seems you've presupposed, that there's an exotic explanation going on here, and will cling wildly to the most tenuous and circumstantial evidence you can find, but there's no hard evidence anywhere, that these objects are defying the laws of physics.

If there was hard evidence, it would be easy.

You are not being either reasonable or rational and there is nothing circumstantial or tenuous about the Navy and the Pentagon confirming that the eyewitness testimony of their pilots and personnel is corroborated by their monitoring systems in a report which has been presented to Congress. In fact, show me where it is?

Your just in denial. The status of your argument reads like an extreme form of subjective idealism that believes there's no valid ground for believing in the existence of anything unless you can see it for yourself.

 

[ethan]

Are these the same UAPs as the "clearly lens artifact" leaked videos? I see no proof of anything

In all fairness I can't say. There's just too much to read on a phone

 

[Felon]

Your just in denial.

I'm demonstrating how you're conflating several different things, to reach a highly exotic, unlikely and almost certainly incorrect conclusion;

The UAP phenomena is an arguement based on eye-witness testimony from experienced military personnel in conjunction with our understanding of physics corroborated by the infared and radar, fleet wide - tracking systems which includes AWAC and sonar etc.

You are not being either reasonable or rational and there is nothing circumstantial or tenuous about the Navy and the Pentagon confirming that the eyewitness testimony of their pilots and personnel is corroborated by their monitoring systems in a report which has been presented to Congress.

Only one of the above quotes is correct; The Pentagon have confirmed that the videos of the UAPs are genuine - that I agree with, (specifically the video of what is probably a duck, and the out of focus blob which could be anything)

The other one is completely incorrect: Nobody in any official capacity, in any meaningful way has said that these things have behaved in ways which are defy our understanding of physics, or other similar language which has repeatedly been claimed, in this thread.

 

[ethan]

Wasn't he 'Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defence'?
Either way, i would be surprised if Mellon was privy to every inch of US's own programmes (he would have been read-in to what he needed to know) let alone know what "black project" programmes where being undertaken by other nations.

He says he would have known and maintains the only reason he leaked the material recently to the Times was because the problem of these things harassing the navy was being ignored.