Don’t think it’ll debunk or deny anything. Guessing It’ll say there are numerous credible examples of UAPs - it’s a real phenomenon - they aren’t US and are beyond our capabilities - give us shed loads of cash to find out what they are.
UAP - Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
What does real phenomenon mean here, though? Obviously it's a real phenomenon, we created the term; the word phenomenon is even in there. It just means something they can't positively identify. It certainly doesn't mean:
It’s a US military report. That’s what I’m assuming it will say. According to the leaks last week it will definitely rule out they’re US made. Whether you believe that is your choice.
I guess we'll just have to wait and see. I definitely think some people are expecting the military to say "it could be aliens!", and I think those people will be disappointed. Good thing it's actually coming out, though.
There is a classified portion of this report, the existence of which will keep fueling both sides of this discourse.
yup... people like this certanly wont be changing their view
And i dont expect the report to change many peoples opinion... and as you say the classified section will be more than ehough for people to cling to whatever predetermined conclusion they have come to
They're going to say they're unidentified and not US technology. I doubt they'll speculate what they are more than that. Might be more videos and pictures released I guess.
The classified section probably just has more details on detection including radar or other sensor data they don't want to release publicly as it could give enemies insight in to what they're capable of detecting or not.
The classified section probably just has more details on detection including radar or other sensor data they don't want to release publicly as it could give enemies insight in to what they're capable of detecting or not.
So... nothing new?
https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/25/politics/ufo-report-pentagon-odni/index.html
‘"Of the 144 reports we are dealing with here, we have no clear indications that there is any non-terrestrial explanation for them — but we will go wherever the data takes us," a senior US official said.
But investigators were also convinced that the majority of the sightings were "physical objects," the official told reporters on Friday.
"We absolutely do believe what we're seeing are not simply sensor artifacts. These are things that physically exist," the official said, noting that 80 of the reported incidents included data from multiple sensors. In 11 cases, investigators believed that there was a "near-miss" collision with US personnel.’
I’m 99% convinced this is all a ploy to get more money but if a person told me 4 years ago a senior US Official would be on a mainstream news channel talking about an intelligence report saying we have no clear evidence these unknown things that we believe exist and are flying around in our airspace are alien - but hey who knows - they could be - then I’d have considered that person mad. The simulation has taken an odd turn.
‘"Of the 144 reports we are dealing with here, we have no clear indications that there is any non-terrestrial explanation for them — but we will go wherever the data takes us," a senior US official said.
But investigators were also convinced that the majority of the sightings were "physical objects," the official told reporters on Friday.
"We absolutely do believe what we're seeing are not simply sensor artifacts. These are things that physically exist," the official said, noting that 80 of the reported incidents included data from multiple sensors. In 11 cases, investigators believed that there was a "near-miss" collision with US personnel.’
I’m 99% convinced this is all a ploy to get more money but if a person told me 4 years ago a senior US Official would be on a mainstream news channel talking about an intelligence report saying we have no clear evidence these unknown things that we believe exist and are flying around in our airspace are alien - but hey who knows - they could be - then I’d have considered that person mad. The simulation has taken an odd turn.
Last edited:
you'd think that now everyone has a high-res camera in their pocket someone might get a good shot of one some day
They're out in the middle of the Atlantic and Pacific largely by the look of it.
If they're physical objects that's a start. Exactly what, will require us to either catch one or whatever it is to be reveal itself to us.
Can we stop with with the lazy "if only people had a camera" arguments...we are discussing a very specific incidents here, overwhelmingly observed by us navy personnel , mostly jet pilots. Hardly an instance where you have time to take out your phone. Although not impossible, by the WSOs.
We saw some stuff and one was a balloon. The Pentagon officially shrugs its shoulders in indifference and hopes the UFOlogists will leave them alone now.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jun/25/ufo-pentagon-report-reaction
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jun/25/ufo-pentagon-report-reaction
A deflating balloon is new as far as I am aware.
Awesome video from Thunderf00t about the "ufos"
So much for the idea that military pilots know what they are looking at, which some people here have used to rubbish suggestions that there are mundane explanations. This is the military admitting that their pilots might be confused by plastic bags or birds.
the-sun.com/news/2731522/most-compelling-ufo-vid-puerto-rico/
shitty link but this one made me a believer.
https://www.uaptheory.com/#Observations_Verification
better footage here
shitty link but this one made me a believer.
https://www.uaptheory.com/#Observations_Verification
better footage here
Did you miss the 80/144 incidents the report references they believe were real physical phenomena due to involving multiple sensors - 18 of which displayed no visible propulsion - or are you just cherry picking the stuff that suits your agenda and ignoring the rest? How very open minded of you to focus on the 1 instance of the deflated balloon
On a lighter note here’s Tucker Carlson - who I have long suspected is not of this world - stating aliens exist because it’s not possible humans would go round flying or something - what human would do thisss!?:
Did you miss the 80/144 incidents the report references they believe were real physical phenomena due to involving multiple sensors - 18 of which displayed no visible propulsion - or are you just cherry picking the stuff that suits your agenda and ignoring the rest? How very open minded of you to focus on the 1 instance of the deflated balloon
On a lighter note here’s Tucker Carlson - who I have long suspected is not of this world - stating aliens exist because it’s not possible humans would go round flying or something - what human would do thisss!?:
What are you talking about? I wasn't talking about the balloon, I was literally quoting the report.
Easiest ignore I've ever done.
It seemed you were smugly quoting one very small part of the report talking about UAP reportings in general - not the 144 investigated - to disingenuously mock others and imply you’ve been right all along debunking everything when the very same report you’re quoting from concludes the total sodding opposite! You can’t have it both ways.
At least that’s how it read to me - possible I’ve got that wrong having missed the previous context of debates in here - but hey ho - I’m currently talking to thin air.
Yeah unfortunately madness is increasingly the order of the day.
I wouldn't have an issue if the Qs and Trumplicans were vaporized.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2021/...ill-nelson-classified-ufo-report-newsroom.cnn
Pretty interesting interview even if he doesn’t actually say anything new.
Pretty interesting interview even if he doesn’t actually say anything new.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FIyprY7ynfp_qAdBOFt7t8GPJhvSruc8/view
A well put together study from GEIPAN in 2012, a department of CNES (French Space Agency), categorising all the reports made from pilots.
A well put together study from GEIPAN in 2012, a department of CNES (French Space Agency), categorising all the reports made from pilots.
In 78 cases, the phenomenon approached the aircraft on a collision course and in six more
cases there was a quasi-collision with the aircraft. In 31 cases, the pilot was forced to take evasive
action to avoid a collision with the UAP, including three cases (all commercial aircraft cases) in
which passengers were injured during the maneuver.
Example: An American Airlines pilot had a near-collision with an object “at least the size of a B-747”. To
avoid a head-on collision, the pilot made his aircraft dive under the object in such a sharp maneuver that many
of the eighty-five passengers were thrown from their seats. Ten passengers were injured. The pilot radioed the
nearest airport and requested an emergency landing. A full report was sent to the Civil Aviation Authority
(CAA). (Case 1432, USA 1957)
In 59 cases, the UAP circled the aircraft and/or maneuvered close to it. This type of event
has the greatest number (20 cases) of reports on alleged E-M effects on aircraft systems, especially
for commercial aircraft (8 cases) and private aircraft (8 cases).
I dunno man, it sounds like there's something weird out there to me. That combined with the rate of coincidence of malfunction in radar/magnetic/weapons systems when faced with these UAP, its all very very weird. And that's before you go full tinfoil hat like me and read something like Robert Hastings..
That whole doc was very interesting to read. It goes even further than I've thought in terms of there being documented weirdness confirmed by multiple instruments and eyewitnesses.
Last edited:
Yeah it's intriguing stuff, all the reports coming from pilots adds a layer of authenticity and reliability. Chapter 16 on the EM effects is an eye opener.
What is strange is that in these cases, it appears that the aircraft radar did not detect whatever was or was not there.
This would be even stranger in the case of military aircraft, the more modern ones now have extremely good radar.
I do understand that the very latest military jets feature stealth technology. But even they are not invisible. Just give a smaller radar reflection.
They've managed to develop craft that can fly so many multi-millions of miles faster than light (potentially), overcome the effects of G-Forces turning them into a very thin layer of jam over the entirety of the insides of their craft when they accelerate, which I think is the clever one personally, and you are getting hung up on defeating radar?
Instead of considering total fantasy, it is still important to deal with the realities.
Anything moving through our atmosphere however clever will leave a signature. And with modern highly sophisticated radar systems, it is likely that something would be detected.
For these things to even exist we are not dealing with the realities of what to them might be rudimentary technology.
You are applying our realities to what we assume would be beyond our fantasies. It's pointless to attempt to put our restrictions on something we would probably fail to understand if they exist.
Doesn't suggest they do exist but clearly there's something here that we do not understand, trying to rule them out with what we do doesn't answer any questions.
That is not what I was meaning to say.
I have always had an open mind as to whether there is other intelligent life forms out there.
I was trying to apply a level of science to the practicalities.
There are about 100 other stars within (an arbitrary) 25 light years. And any potential travel from one of those to earth would take a prohibitively long time. Even at a percentage the speed of light.
As they slowed down from many thousands of Km per second, the forces involved would make them pretty obvious to even our capabilities.
Moreover, we would have been bound to have detected any Radio Waves from such a solar system which travel at the speed of light in say the last 25 years.
So we must keep an open mind to both aspects.
Last edited:
I appreciate that, it is applying what we know. Again and again though we come up against what we would expect to be there, missing which we cannot be sure proves anything except an absence.
For whatever reasons we ourselves hold, this report at least says "Something is happening repeatedly, and we don't know what that is." So we can either believe that or not but if we take it at face value, Radar does not work in detecting the something, at least in the way we expect.
I'm just trying to apply some sort of logic because I'm in the camp of there being something which we cannot explain.
27% of the 600 cases were detected by radar. He doesn't categorise whether any of the instances where the pilot had to maneuver were detected by radar I don't think (I may have missed it), however he does confirm that
"In 59 cases, the UAP circled the aircraft and/or maneuvered close to it. This type of event has the greatest number (20 cases) of reports on alleged E-M effects on aircraft systems, especially for commercial aircraft (8 cases) and private aircraft (8 cases)." The report stretches back to the 1950s so modern radar systems wouldn't have been around for a chunk of the cases as well. 27% still isn't bad though.
I agree with your posts far too often
Always nice to meet my many fan.I agree with your posts far too often
Cannot disagree with you and that was never my intention.
However, I stand by what I said about the massive distances.
The only particles that travel at the speed of light are those with no mass. The fastest our space probes have travelled is about 10 Km/second. And that is using the gravitational pull of the moon (s) or planets. So way slower than even a fraction of a percentage speed of light.
Yes I accept that this is using what we know. And bear in mind the forces during the Apollo declaration phase.
Just saying...
Thanks for this.