A Forensic Analysis of Navy Carrier Strike Group Eleven’s Encounter with a *UAP(UFO)

[OscarLevant]

*Anomalous Aerial Vehicle (aka UAP, UFO, etc. The Navy does not use the term 'UFO', and good that they don't).

Robert Powell, Richard Hoffman, Morgan Beall in the fall of 2017 founded a non profit organization Called the Scientific Coalition of UAP studies. Over 120 members, 28% of membership are PHDs, professors from Universities, NASA employees, people who are in the defense industry, people who are in the high tech industry. Over half the SCUS membership have advanced degrees. They have produced a 270 page analysis of the Naval 2004 UAP event where I believe some 20 or so of these 'tic tacs' ( as they are affectionately called, owing to Commander Chad Underwood, who filed the 'go fast' video, coined the term) have been observed during this event.
.
Now, as I understand it, the point of the forensic study below is not to prove anything, per se, but let the chips fall where they may -- because the videos, of course, do not prove 'alien visitation" but the study just might eliminate the banal explanations or, at the minimum, take us to a place where what they are remains an open question, and if we can do that, we've made some progress by the recognition that something is out there, and it's baffling some very smart people (as well as fooling some not so smart people). In my view, the study proves that the videos are not recordings of explainable things. But, since I am not a scientist, I can't speak to the caliber of the study, though those have made it are educated people in science, as I understand it, at least sufficient to be qualified to do the study.

I'd like to hear from some real scientists on this forum (assuming there are, I don't know) preferably someone with an advanced degree, say, in physics, astrophysics, aerospace engineering, or something along those lines.

Anyone out there with some credentials want to review this study and tell me what you think? If I can't find you here, I will look elsewhere. If not, I invite comments. If there is science here, and it proves something unexplainable is, indeed occurring, and is of a concern to the Pentagon and national security, it is real, and thus not a 'conspiracy theory' which is why I post it here.

I repeat, this OP is NOT about 'proving aliens'. It is about proving that there is something out there that mankind has yet to explain, something compelling in it's performance capabilities such that what they are, whatever they are, is, at the minimum, an open question. So, does the analysis achieve at least this much?

 

[mike2810]

Metabunk has some discussion regarding the event.

"
Today the Navy officially released three videos of UFOs. They are called FLIR, GIMBAL and GOFAST. The internet immediately took this as meaning that aliens are real. But the videos are not actually new. They were internally declassified back in 2017, and immediately released by Tom DeLonge's To The Stars Academy. I started writing about them in December 2017. With the help of others, I quickly arrived at likely explanations (but not precise identifications) for all three videos.

The FLIR video is most likely a distant plane. The video was taken well after the famous encounter with a hypersonic zig-zagging tic-tac by pilots from the NIMITZ. This object doesn't actually move on screen - except when the camera moves, and it resembles an out of focus low-resolution backlit plane. I don't know what the pilots saw, but this video does not show anything really interesting.

The GIMBAL video is also probably of a plane. .... It's not rotating. What you see is the infrared glare of the engines, larger than the plane. It looks like it is rotating because of an artifact of the gimbal-mounted camera system. This is all a bit confusing, so I made several videos explaining it. Oh, and the "AURA" around the plane, that's just image sharpening. It happens all the time in thermal camera footage. It's not an alien warp drive, it's just the unsharp mask filter.

The GO-FAST video probably shows a balloon. It's not moving fast, it's not skimming the water, and you can verify this yourself because all the information you need is in the numbers on screen. It's just an effect caused by parallax. Over the last few years, I've made a variety of videos explaining all this.

Explained: The Navy UFO Videos

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7jcBGLIpus Today (April 27, 2020) the Navy officially released three videos of UFOs. They are called FLIR, GIMBAL and GOFAST. The internet immediately took this as meaning that aliens are real. But the videos are not actually new. They were internally...

www.metabunk.org

 

[OscarLevant]

Metabunk has some discussion regarding the event.

"
Today the Navy officially released three videos of UFOs. They are called FLIR, GIMBAL and GOFAST. The internet immediately took this as meaning that aliens are real. But the videos are not actually new. They were internally declassified back in 2017, and immediately released by Tom DeLonge's To The Stars Academy. I started writing about them in December 2017. With the help of others, I quickly arrived at likely explanations (but not precise identifications) for all three videos.

The FLIR video is most likely a distant plane. The video was taken well after the famous encounter with a hypersonic zig-zagging tic-tac by pilots from the NIMITZ. This object doesn't actually move on screen - except when the camera moves, and it resembles an out of focus low-resolution backlit plane. I don't know what the pilots saw, but this video does not show anything really interesting.

The GIMBAL video is also probably of a plane. .... It's not rotating. What you see is the infrared glare of the engines, larger than the plane. It looks like it is rotating because of an artifact of the gimbal-mounted camera system. This is all a bit confusing, so I made several videos explaining it. Oh, and the "AURA" around the plane, that's just image sharpening. It happens all the time in thermal camera footage. It's not an alien warp drive, it's just the unsharp mask filter.

The GO-FAST video probably shows a balloon. It's not moving fast, it's not skimming the water, and you can verify this yourself because all the information you need is in the numbers on screen. It's just an effect caused by parallax. Over the last few years, I've made a variety of videos explaining all this.

Explained: The Navy UFO Videos

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7jcBGLIpus Today (April 27, 2020) the Navy officially released three videos of UFOs. They are called FLIR, GIMBAL and GOFAST. The internet immediately took this as meaning that aliens are real. But the videos are not actually new. They were internally...

www.metabunk.org

I didn't ask for what y'all think it is, or what so-called 'debunkers' thinks it is.

I posted a forensic analysis by a scientific society. The analysis compares visual recognition testimony, radar tracking data, etc, testimonies of a number of pertinent personnel, including that of the pilots, themselves.

No one is asserting that, in fact, these are 'aliens'.

Please review the document.

 

[mike2810]

I didn't ask for what y'all think it is, or what so-called 'debunkers' thinks it is.

I posted a forensic analysis by a scientific society. The analysis compares visual recognition testimony, radar tracking data, etc, testimonies of a number of pertinent personnel, including that of the pilots, themselves.

No one is asserting that, in fact, these are 'aliens'.

Please review the document.

sigh.
All I provided was a different analysis.
Attack my source if you want. IDC

You are using a "scientific society" paper. Would not be the first time a group like this was not correct.
(think AE911T, with Gage regarding the destruction of the WTC on 9/11)

 

[OscarLevant]

sigh.
All I provided was a different analysis.
Attack my source if you want. IDC

You are using a "scientific society" paper. Would not be the first time a group like this was not correct.
(think AE911T, with Gage regarding the destruction of the WTC on 9/11)

You're a bit late, Mick West has already said he believed they were banal whatever.

Look, the problem with your analysis is that it defies radar tracking data and visual confirmation by pilots, noting that on one of the videos, it was established by four different pilots by visual confirmation corroborated by radar tracking data, of what Louis Elizondo tells, based on the analysis by a team of scientists and engineers at AATIP, the following five observables regarding hundreds of these UAPs, of which only 3 videos have been released to the public, which are:

1) Anti-gravity lift
Unlike any known aircraft, these objects have been sighted overcoming the earth’s gravity with no visible means of propulsion. They also lack any flight surfaces, such as wings. In the Nimitz incident, witnesses describe the crafts as tubular, shaped like a Tic Tac candy.

2) Sudden and instantaneous acceleration
The objects may accelerate or change direction so quickly that no human pilot could survive the g-forces—they would be crushed. In the Nimitz incident, radar operators say they tracked one of the UFOs as it dropped from the sky at more than 30 times the speed of sound. Black Aces squadron commander David Fravor, the Nimitz-based fighter pilot who was sent to intercept one of the objects, likened its rapid side-to-side movements, later captured on infrared video, to that of a ping-pong ball. Radar operators on the USS Princeton, part of the Nimitz carrier group, tracked the object accelerating from a standing position to traveling 60 miles in a minute—an astounding 3,600 miles an hour. According to manufacturer Boeing, the F/A 18 Super Hornet fighter jet typically currently reaches a maximum speed of Mach 1.6, or about 1,200 miles an hour.

3) Hypersonic velocities without signatures (your 'sprite' appears to have signatures, lighting bolts, etc)
If an aircraft travels faster than the speed of sound, it typically leaves "signatures," like vapor trails and sonic booms. Many UFO accounts note the lack of such evidence.

4) Low observability, or cloaking
Even when objects are observed, getting a clear and detailed view of them—either through pilot sightings, radar or other means—remains difficult. Witnesses generally only see the glow or haze around them.

5) Trans-medium travel
Some UAP have been seen moving easily in and between different environments, such as space, the earth’s atmosphere and even water. In the Nimitz incident, witnesses described a UFO hovering over a churning "disturbance" just under the ocean's otherwise calm surface, leading to speculation that another craft had entered the water. USS Princeton radar operator Gary Vorhees later confirmed from a Navy sonar operator in the area that day that a craft was moving faster than 70 knots, roughly two times the speed of nuclear subs.

Now, find me one 'plane' that can do these things and I'll pass the info along to the Pentagon, because I"m sure they'll want to know.

 

[mike2810]

If you will note I did not say if the linked articles I provided was correct or not. They were a different view of the event.

Your posts remind me of someone trying to prove ghosts are real.

Question: Since you seem to put weight on the OP linked article because of the paper came from a "Scientific Coalition", do you put weight on the papers and research presented by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth? The reason I ask is to see what type of sources you find creditable.

 

[OscarLevant]

If you will note I did not say if the linked articles I provided was correct or not. They were a different view of the event.

Your posts remind me of someone trying to prove ghosts are real.

Question: Since you seem to put weight on the OP linked article because of the paper came from a "Scientific Coalition", do you put weight on the papers and research presented by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth? The reason I ask is to see what type of sources you find creditable.

My only objective was to show that, contrary to debunkers claims that the explanations are banal, the general consensus is that these objects are real and that there is no explanation and that they defy conventional physics, which is to say the consensus of the pilots of the AATIP team and this particular study. My other objective was to invite comments by other scientists or science knowledgeable persons their view of the study. The problem I have with the debunkers is that their conclusions are parochial and the field is which much wider then what they are basing their conclusions on and does not factor in all that should be factored in and therefore their conclusions are not reliable

 

[mike2810]

The "Truth is out There". imo, the conclusion to come up with is we don't know what was captured. Hence the unidentified part.

"Where does this leave us? The truth, of course, is somewhere out there, whether or not it appears in the pages of the UAP Task Force report. But for now, the odds seem to be against the U.S. government knowing what it is, let alone revealing it anytime soon."

Experts Weigh In on Pentagon UFO Report

The vast majority of examined incidents were not caused by U.S. advanced technology programs, the forthcoming report concludes. So what’s going on?

www.scientificamerican.com

 

[OscarLevant]

The "Truth is out There". imo, the conclusion to come up with is we don't know what was captured. Hence the unidentified part.

"Where does this leave us? The truth, of course, is somewhere out there, whether or not it appears in the pages of the UAP Task Force report. But for now, the odds seem to be against the U.S. government knowing what it is, let alone revealing it anytime soon."

Experts Weigh In on Pentagon UFO Report

The vast majority of examined incidents were not caused by U.S. advanced technology programs, the forthcoming report concludes. So what’s going on?

www.scientificamerican.com

"Another real issue is that pilots sometimes see things that they cannot readily identify, West says, and they may misidentify such objects." --Mick West

So West says. WTF does West know? He's a debunker, and, unless you get an Alien on the WH lawn, nothing is going to get a debunker to admit anything other than the banal, and he's going to make sure his 'math' proves it, however limited in it's range and scope it is ( compared to all that is available which he has not seen, But AATIP team has) and he didn't mention that four pilots witnessed the same occurence and all agreed the 'tic tac' was about the size of an aircraft, moved in ways which defied our knowledge of physics, including movement at hypersonic speeds in excess of 50g. The article says the subject is an 'embarrassment'. well, I didn't get any of that from the pilots who were interviewed, they were awestruck at what they saw, so what we have her are the viewpoints of some fuddy duddies, so, screw them. .

West hasn't conducted a forensic analysis at all, he's done some calculations in limited portions of the videos, and has put all his eggs into one parochial basket.

And, if this subject was about the banal, why is part of the gov UFO report 'classified'.

Why would balloons and banal things be classified, if that is all they were? Maybe some American high tech stuff? It's possible.

 

[mike2810]

"Another real issue is that pilots sometimes see things that they cannot readily identify, West says, and they may misidentify such objects."

So West says. WTF does West know? He's a debunker, and, unless you get an Alien on the WH lawn, nothing is going to get a debunker to admit anything other than the banal, and he's going to make sure his 'math' proves it, however limited in it's range and scope is ( compared to all that is availabe whcih he has not seen, But AATIP has) and he didn't mention that four pilots witnessed the same occurence and all agreed the 'tic tac' was about the size of an aircraft, moved in ways which defied our knowledge of physics, including movement at hypersonic speeds in excess of 50g. The article says the subject is an 'embarrassment'. well, I didn't get any of that from the pilots who were interviewed, they were awestruck at what they saw, so what we have her are the viewpoints of some fuddy duddies, so, screw them.

West hasn't conducted a forensic analysis at all, he's done some calculations in limited portions of the videos, and has put all his eggs into one parochial basket.

ahh , dissing the source.

Back to the OP linked article. Do you have a link to a peer review of the article in the OP?

Still want answer my questions regarding if you accept the engineers from AE911T as having the final word on the collapse of the Towers on 9/11. Just trying to establish why you would accept one source and maybe not another.

Team | Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies

Board Members and Advisors of the Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies.

www.explorescu.org

 

[Napoleon]

Ok…so let’s see who the authors of that paper are.

Robert Powell
Bachelors in Chemistry from Southeastern Oklahoma State University

Peter Reali
Bachelors in Engineering from UC Berkeley

Tim Thompson
Unknown

Morgan Beall
Bachelors in Earth Science from Frostburg State University

Doug Kimzey
Unknown

Larry Cates
Bachelors in Mathematics from Jacksonville University

Richard Hoffman
Bachelors in Communications from Wright State University

These aren’t scientists. These are a bunch of old farts with decades old bachelors degrees and nothing better to do in their retirement but gin up conspiracy theories from a P.O. Box in Florida. Just because something calls itself a “Scientific Coalition” doesn’t mean that’s what it is.

 

[OscarLevant]

ahh , dissing the source.

Back to the OP linked article. Do you have a link to a peer review of the article in the OP?

Still want answer my questions regarding if you accept the engineers from AE911T as having the final word on the collapse of the Towers on 9/11. Just trying to establish why you would accept one source and maybe not another.

Team | Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies

Board Members and Advisors of the Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies.

www.explorescu.org

It's a forensic analysis, not a paper for peer review.

Towers is off point. Not familiar with AE911T but Mick West didn't do a forensoc analysis.

He's a debunker, and what they do is go about with the assumption there is a banal explanation.

See, I'd agree with him but for the fact that he's drawing a conclusion in a narrow area, where the field is vastly wider noting that we have contradicting data, radar data, and testimony, which he disregards, telling me he knows nothing about the capabilities of Lt Commander Fravor, a top gun pilot and 3 other pilots who corroborated his sighting.

In other words, I find West smug and cavalier, and not reliable.

 

[OscarLevant]

Ok…so let’s see who the authors of that paper are.

Robert Powell
Bachelors in Chemistry from Southeastern Oklahoma State University

Peter Reali
Bachelors in Engineering from UC Berkeley

Tim Thompson
Unknown

Morgan Beall
Bachelors in Earth Science from Frostburg State University

Doug Kimzey
Unknown

Larry Cates
Bachelors in Mathematics from Jacksonville University

Richard Hoffman
Bachelors in Communications from Wright State University

These aren’t scientists. These are a bunch of old farts with decades old bachelors degrees and nothing better to do in their retirement but gin up conspiracy theories from a P.O. Box in Florida. Just because something calls itself a “Scientific Coalition” doesn’t mean that’s what it is.

28% of the society have PHDs, and over half have advanced degrees.

Mick West is not a scientist, either, he said so.

 

[OscarLevant]

Ok…so let’s see who the authors of that paper are.

Robert Powell
Bachelors in Chemistry from Southeastern Oklahoma State University

Peter Reali
Bachelors in Engineering from UC Berkeley

Tim Thompson
Unknown

Morgan Beall
Bachelors in Earth Science from Frostburg State University

Doug Kimzey
Unknown

Larry Cates
Bachelors in Mathematics from Jacksonville University

Richard Hoffman
Bachelors in Communications from Wright State University

These aren’t scientists. These are a bunch of old farts with decades old bachelors degrees and nothing better to do in their retirement but gin up conspiracy theories from a P.O. Box in Florida. Just because something calls itself a “Scientific Coalition” doesn’t mean that’s what it is.

"I am not a scientist" --- Mick West.

Then refute their findings.

Scientific Coalition of UAP studies as over 120 members, 28% of membership are PHDs, professors from Universities, NASA employees, people who are in the defense industry, people who are in the high tech industry. Over half the SCUS membership have advanced degrees.
Powell and the others have worked in high tech fields for decades.

I don't accept your characterization, but the quote for Mick West, is accurate.

I've been a musician and composer for 50 years, and no advanced degree, but I could teach in a University, I'll put my knowledge up to any Masters.

Experience counts, too.

 

[Deuce]

It's a forensic analysis, not a paper for peer review.

Towers is off point. Not familiar with AE911T but Mick West didn't do a forensoc analysis.

He's a debunker, and what they do is go about with the assumption there is a banal explanation.

See, I'd agree with him but for the fact that he's drawing a conclusion in a narrow area, where the field is vastly wider noting that we have contradicting data, radar data, and testimony, which he disregards, telling me he knows nothing about the capabilities of Lt Commander Fravor, a top gun pilot and 3 other pilots who corroborated his sighting.

In other words, I find West smug and cavalier, and not reliable.

I’m a pilot and those are definitely not alien space ships

 

[Napoleon]

"I am not a scientist" --- Mick West.

Then refute their findings.

Scientific Coalition of UAP studies as over 120 members, 28% of membership are PHDs, professors from Universities, NASA employees, people who are in the defense industry, people who are in the high tech industry. Over half the SCUS membership have advanced degrees.
Powell and the others have worked in high tech fields for decades.

I don't accept your characterization, but the quote for Mick West, is accurate.

I've been a musician and composer for 50 years, and no advanced degree, but I could teach in a University, I'll put my knowledge up to any Masters.

Experience counts, too.

The question you should be asking is why none of the alleged 28% of members with PhDs attached their name to the paper.

 

[mike2810]

It's a forensic analysis, not a paper for peer review.

Towers is off point. Not familiar with AE911T but Mick West didn't do a forensoc analysis.

He's a debunker, and what they do is go about with the assumption there is a banal explanation.

See, I'd agree with him but for the fact that he's drawing a conclusion in a narrow area, where the field is vastly wider noting that we have contradicting data, radar data, and testimony, which he disregards, telling me he knows nothing about the capabilities of Lt Commander Fravor, a top gun pilot and 3 other pilots who corroborated his sighting.

In other words, I find West smug and cavalier, and not reliable.

Have you looked into what this group is that wrote the "forensic analysis"?
Very similar to AE911T. So the group did an "analysis". Analysis have been done on other events (9/11) that were later shown to be wrong.
My point. I would not put all my bets on the one "analysis". Others need to validate the analysis.

"In a limited number of incidents, UAP reportedly appeared to exhibit unusual flight characteristics. These observations could be the result of sensor errors, spoofing, or observer misperception and require additional rigorous analysis.

https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Prelimary-Assessment-UAP-20210625.pdf

""We don't know what it was, but it could have been a natural phenomenon in human activity. But the point was that it was weird, and we couldn't recognize it," she said."

The Tic Tac incident: Retired US Navy pilot recalls encounter with UFOs day before US govt's report

Retired US Navy Lieutenant Commander Alex Dietrich and her then-commanding officer had noticed "a smooth, white oblong object resembling a large Tic Tac breath mint flying at high speed over the water" during a routine training mission in 2004.

www.indiatoday.in

 

[OscarLevant]

I’m a pilot and those are definitely not alien space ships

Did you witness any of the 'tic tacs' as described by the pilots?

 

[OscarLevant]

The question you should be asking is why none of the alleged 28% of members with PhDs attached their name to the paper.

If you can find fault with the analysis, be my guest, that is why I posted it.
Each of the participants have years in defense and high tech fields.

 

[OscarLevant]

[...]
.

https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Prelimary-Assessment-UAP-20210625.pdf

The salient point is the statement they made, which was highlighted in the report, which we can characterize as the final analysis, which is:

"The limited amount of high-quality reporting on unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) hampers our ability to draw firm conclusions about the nature or intent of UAP."

So, that the final analysis is that they don't know what they are and so it remains an open question, which was my point all along.

""We don't know what it was, but it could have been a natural phenomenon in human activity. But the point was that it was weird, and we couldn't recognize it," she said."

The Tic Tac incident: Retired US Navy pilot recalls encounter with UFOs day before US govt's report

Retired US Navy Lieutenant Commander Alex Dietrich and her then-commanding officer had noticed "a smooth, white oblong object resembling a large Tic Tac breath mint flying at high speed over the water" during a routine training mission in 2004.

www.indiatoday.in

Here's what Louis Elizondo said, in an interview with George Knapp,

Elizondo: I actually left [retired from the Military and left AATIP] out of loyalty, not disloyalty, because of I love the department and the leadership so much, particularly (Secretary of Defense James) Mattis, that there was no other way for me to communicate that these things that we were seeing and experiencing were real, and that they were being collected by not just grandma in the backyard shooting a camera and seeing some lights back there. This is by trained observers flying multimillion-dollar weapon platform systems, sometimes over US cities that we trust to fight and win wars on our behalf. And they’re telling you they’re seeing something. They’ve seen something that they don’t know what it is. And we have to pay attention. Which is backed up by electro-optical data, which is backed up by the radar data, which is backed up by, you know, more and more and more layers. [...] but very much to that same methodology we did that within AATIP. We tried to find those commonalities and “binned” those in what we now know as the
five observables, that have come out as the five observables, and that has helped us really focus in on collecting the data pieces that are very important, or the pieces of data that we don’t have yet.


The 'five observables' as told to us by Elizondo, based on years of observation by a team of scientists and engineers at AATIP, are

1) Anti-gravity lift
Unlike any known aircraft, these objects have been sighted overcoming the earth’s gravity with no visible means of propulsion. They also lack any flight surfaces, such as wings. In the Nimitz incident, witnesses describe the crafts as tubular, shaped like a Tic Tac candy.

2) Sudden and instantaneous acceleration
The objects may accelerate or change direction so quickly that no human pilot could survive the g-forces—they would be crushed. In the Nimitz incident, radar operators say they tracked one of the UFOs as it dropped from the sky at more than 30 times the speed of sound. Black Aces squadron commander David Fravor, the Nimitz-based fighter pilot who was sent to intercept one of the objects, likened its rapid side-to-side movements, later captured on infrared video, to that of a ping-pong ball. Radar operators on the USS Princeton, part of the Nimitz carrier group, tracked the object accelerating from a standing position to traveling 60 miles in a minute—an astounding 3,600 miles an hour. According to manufacturer Boeing, the F/A 18 Super Hornet fighter jet typically currently reaches a maximum speed of Mach 1.6, or about 1,200 miles an hour.

3) Hypersonic velocities without signatures (your 'sprite' appears to have signatures, lighting bolts, etc)
If an aircraft travels faster than the speed of sound, it typically leaves "signatures," like vapor trails and sonic booms. Many UFO accounts note the lack of such evidence.

4) Low observability, or cloaking
Even when objects are observed, getting a clear and detailed view of them—either through pilot sightings, radar or other means—remains difficult. Witnesses generally only see the glow or haze around them.

5) Trans-medium travel
Some UAP have been seen moving easily in and between different environments, such as space, the earth’s atmosphere and even water. In the Nimitz incident, witnesses described a UFO hovering over a churning "disturbance" just under the ocean's otherwise calm surface, leading to speculation that another craft had entered the water. USS Princeton radar operator Gary Vorhees later confirmed from a Navy sonar operator in the area that day that a craft was moving faster than 70 knots, roughly two times the speed of nuclear subs.

 

[mike2810]

The salient point is the statement they made, which was highlighted in the report, which we can characterize as the final analysis, which is:

"The limited amount of high-quality reporting on unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) hampers our ability to draw firm conclusions about the nature or intent of UAP."

So, that the final analysis is that they don't know what they are and so it remains an open question, which was my point all along.



Here's what Louis Elizondo said, in an interview with George Knapp,

Elizondo: I actually left [retired from the Military and left AATIP] out of loyalty, not disloyalty, because of I love the department and the leadership so much, particularly (Secretary of Defense James) Mattis, that there was no other way for me to communicate that these things that we were seeing and experiencing were real, and that they were being collected by not just grandma in the backyard shooting a camera and seeing some lights back there. This is by trained observers flying multimillion-dollar weapon platform systems, sometimes over US cities that we trust to fight and win wars on our behalf. And they’re telling you they’re seeing something. They’ve seen something that they don’t know what it is. And we have to pay attention. Which is backed up by electro-optical data, which is backed up by the radar data, which is backed up by, you know, more and more and more layers. [...] but very much to that same methodology we did that within AATIP. We tried to find those commonalities and “binned” those in what we now know as the
five observables, that have come out as the five observables, and that has helped us really focus in on collecting the data pieces that are very important, or the pieces of data that we don’t have yet.


The 'five observables' as told to us by Elizondo, based on years of observation by a team of scientists and engineers at AATIP, are

1) Anti-gravity lift
Unlike any known aircraft, these objects have been sighted overcoming the earth’s gravity with no visible means of propulsion. They also lack any flight surfaces, such as wings. In the Nimitz incident, witnesses describe the crafts as tubular, shaped like a Tic Tac candy.

2) Sudden and instantaneous acceleration
The objects may accelerate or change direction so quickly that no human pilot could survive the g-forces—they would be crushed. In the Nimitz incident, radar operators say they tracked one of the UFOs as it dropped from the sky at more than 30 times the speed of sound. Black Aces squadron commander David Fravor, the Nimitz-based fighter pilot who was sent to intercept one of the objects, likened its rapid side-to-side movements, later captured on infrared video, to that of a ping-pong ball. Radar operators on the USS Princeton, part of the Nimitz carrier group, tracked the object accelerating from a standing position to traveling 60 miles in a minute—an astounding 3,600 miles an hour. According to manufacturer Boeing, the F/A 18 Super Hornet fighter jet typically currently reaches a maximum speed of Mach 1.6, or about 1,200 miles an hour.

3) Hypersonic velocities without signatures (your 'sprite' appears to have signatures, lighting bolts, etc)
If an aircraft travels faster than the speed of sound, it typically leaves "signatures," like vapor trails and sonic booms. Many UFO accounts note the lack of such evidence.

4) Low observability, or cloaking
Even when objects are observed, getting a clear and detailed view of them—either through pilot sightings, radar or other means—remains difficult. Witnesses generally only see the glow or haze around them.

5) Trans-medium travel
Some UAP have been seen moving easily in and between different environments, such as space, the earth’s atmosphere and even water. In the Nimitz incident, witnesses described a UFO hovering over a churning "disturbance" just under the ocean's otherwise calm surface, leading to speculation that another craft had entered the water. USS Princeton radar operator Gary Vorhees later confirmed from a Navy sonar operator in the area that day that a craft was moving faster than 70 knots, roughly two times the speed of nuclear subs.

So basically, they came to the same conclusion as the military and others.

 

[OscarLevant]

So basically, they came to the same conclusion as the military and others.

That's correct.

As for the Navy and DNI,
That is the public answer, PR dept answer, their classified answer is what they won't tell us.

I mean, if the whole subject balloons, atmospheric anomalies, etc., one wonders why there would be classified anything, unless:

1. It's a secret black ops special access project
2. It's foreign tech
3. It's other wordly


On #1, why would they be flying special black ops projects during military training exercises, noting that they have been seen all over the world?
On #2., the consensus among many military interviewed is that foreign nations do not have such exotic technology
On #3. They don't want to tell the public, for reasons of public panic and shattering religious beliefs or divulge tech that can be weaponized, to Russia and China.


So, of the three, which seems the more likely?

They have told us they are not going to make a determination, and the question remains open.

But, the banal explanations are appropriate for a percentage of sightings, but not all, and it is that 'not all' that this is directed.

 

[OscarLevant]

ahh , dissing the source.

[/URL]

You criticizing me for 'dissing' your source, yet you dissed mine.

Physician, heal thyself.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

I’m a pilot and those are definitely not alien space ships

That is just what a person who is an alien sympathizer would say

 

[lwf]

My only objective was to show that, contrary to debunkers claims that the explanations are banal, the general consensus is that these objects are real and that there is no explanation and that they defy conventional physics, which is to say the consensus of the pilots of the AATIP team and this particular study. My other objective was to invite comments by other scientists or science knowledgeable persons their view of the study. The problem I have with the debunkers is that their conclusions are parochial and the field is which much wider then what they are basing their conclusions on and does not factor in all that should be factored in and therefore their conclusions are not reliable

Unfortunately, consensus means little without hard data to back it up. Consensus is useful for interpretating hard data, but not so much for judging the validity of pilot or intelligence officer anecdotes. So far, the videos and data released of UAP have mundane explanations as well as potentially supernatural or conspiratorial explanations. Occam's Razor dictates that we place our bets on the mundane explanations until hard evidence that has no mundane explanation presents itself. Where are the crystal clear, unequivocal videos of this phenomena? They don't exist because crystal clear, unequivocal video is not subject to fantastical or conspiratorial interpretation.

For my money, there isn't enough evidence to conclude that these UAP are anything other than lens flares, distant objects out of focus, or illusions of parallax.