UAP and Skinwalker Ranch News and Discussion

  • Thread starter Dotini
  • 320 comments
  • 32,976 views
Still hypothetically, it's probably arrogant to think that we humans have the brains to assess their motives at all.
There's a bit of a paradox here - any alien civilisation capable of sending a probe to this planet must be at a more advanced stage than we are, and that assumption is carried through into the 'we can't even explain what these things are' argument. So, if they are of alien origin, then the aliens sending them must be way more advanced than we are. Which begs the question, if they are much more advanced than we are, why would they be even remotely interested in us, our civilisation, our intelligence or our planet?

We can guess. Since their consistent focus has been our atomic weapons and missiles, we might consider they think our technology is a danger - possibly to them, but even more likely to us.
Turn the argument on its head and ask, 'who benefits from creating the impression that someone might be undermining our defences?' The answer? The military, the government and the defence industry. And who is the source of all of this information?
 
Since the phenomena have been going on for many decades and possibly millennia, the phenomena seems to be indigenous to Earth and quite possibly older than humanity.
You're logic eludes me. Are you making an Atlantis-like reference?

Which begs the question, if they are much more advanced than we are, why would they be even remotely interested in us, our civilisation, our intelligence or our planet?
Curiosity? We like to study other lifeforms on our own planet too.

Edit: Sorry for the double post, I don't know how to add a new quote.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Still hypothetically, it's probably arrogant to think that we humans have the brains to assess their motives at all.

That's my point.

Curiosity? We like to study other lifeforms on our own planet too.

That's because our knowledge of biology is rapidly developing. If we're going with outlandish explanations for these phenomena (which, honestly, is not warranted), I think at least as plausible as aliens would be time travelers. Who would be interested in humanity like humanity?
 
You're logic eludes me. Are you making an Atlantis-like reference?
I guess that's a remote possibility. It may also be aliens who colonized here millions of years ago.

There's a bit of a paradox here - any alien civilisation capable of sending a probe to this planet must be at a more advanced stage than we are, and that assumption is carried through into the 'we can't even explain what these things are' argument. So, if they are of alien origin, then the aliens sending them must be way more advanced than we are. Which begs the question, if they are much more advanced than we are, why would they be even remotely interested in us, our civilisation, our intelligence or our planet?

Your question is answered if the "aliens" are indigenous to Earth. In that case, it's their planet, and we are being monitored as threats, to them, the environment and to ourselves.

Turn the argument on its head and ask, 'who benefits from creating the impression that someone might be undermining our defences?' The answer? The military, the government and the defence industry. And who is the source of all of this information?
Are you seriously suggesting, at this late point, that the entire global phenomena is a hoax made up by the US military industrial complex?
 
Are you seriously suggesting, at this late point, that the entire global phenomena is a hoax made up by the US military industrial complex?
Not the "entire global phenomena", but certainly the latest 'evidence' being released by the US Government, yes.

It is not only (easily) possible, it also makes obvious sense to me that those who stand to benefit (i.e. through new investment) also happen to be the ones providing the 'evidence'.

It also strikes me as somewhat coincidental that military pilots - whose very job it is to identify and neutralise external threats - are the ones claiming that these objects appear to be engaged in 'threat identification'...
 
Not the "entire global phenomena", but certainly the latest 'evidence' being released by the US Government, yes.

It is not only (easily) possible, it also makes obvious sense to me that those who stand to benefit (i.e. through new investment) also happen to be the ones providing the 'evidence'.

It also strikes me as somewhat coincidental that military pilots - whose very job it is to identify and neutralise external threats - are the ones claiming that these objects appear to be engaged in 'threat identification'...

So you don't believe a word of what the numerous pilots interviewed on CBS 60 Minutes were saying? How about the chiefs and other enlisted men who were on the bridge, on the decks, and in the CIC centers? In the Atlantic fleet alone, over 60 pilots saw the phenomena, some every day for over two years.

Even former President Obama came out a few days ago and said, quite seriously, the phenomena was real, he had seen the tapes, but they didn't know what it was beyond "unidentified".
 
Last edited:
Not the "entire global phenomena", but certainly the latest 'evidence' being released by the US Government, yes.

It is not only (easily) possible, it also makes obvious sense to me that those who stand to benefit (i.e. through new investment) also happen to be the ones providing the 'evidence'.

It also strikes me as somewhat coincidental that military pilots - whose very job it is to identify and neutralise external threats - are the ones claiming that these objects appear to be engaged in 'threat identification'...

As outlandish as this example explanation is, it's perhaps... maybe a little... less outlandish than aliens and time travelers. It's not alone in the long list of explanations that do not require invoking the supernatural.

It could also be Christ on the cross come back for the rapture I suppose. I wonder if that's more or less credible than time travel.
 
Last edited:
As outlandish as this example explanation is, it's perhaps... maybe a little... less outlandish than aliens and time travelers. It's not alone in the long list of explanations that do not require invoking the supernatural.

It could also be Christ on the cross come back for the rapture I suppose. I wonder if that's more or less credible than time travel.

There is nothing supernatural. If it seems like it, it's only because of our own ignorance.

"Time travel" is a real possibility - in at least limited sense - as the Tic Tac encountered and chased off by Commander Fravor was waiting for him at the cap point. The Tic Tac knew where the pilot was going ahead of time.
 
There is nothing supernatural. If it seems like it, it's only because of our own ignorance.

"Time travel" is a real possibility - in at least limited sense - as the Tic Tac encountered and chased off by Commander Fravor was waiting for him at the cap point. The Tic Tac knew where the pilot was going ahead of time.

Time travel is a real possibility, like aliens, or christ on the cross bringing the rapture. Or we could go with any other religious explanation, or possibly ghosts. A more mundane explanation would be a hoax, or misunderstanding, or hallucination, or that something really was there and it was intercepting communications (such as a remotely operated drone).

But yes, time travel is a possibility. Not the simplest possibility, or the most straight forward...
 
Bottom line, UAP phenomena are officially real - according to the US government, and now the major media, and the public believes it.

The paradigm has changed in that stigma, ridicule and mockery by the government and major media are now swept away. Denial, stigma, ridicule and mockery can of course still be practiced by increasingly isolated individuals and groups.
 
So you don't believe a word of what the numerous pilots interviewed on CBS 60 Minutes were saying?
I do believe them, but that doesn't mean that what is being inferred from their comments is true or not, nor does it explain anything about what they have (apparently) observed/reported.

Bottom line, UAP phenomena are officially real - according to the US government, and now the major media, and the public believes it.
You say that like it is a good thing...
 
This is quite an interesting vid (in my opinion). It questions the gimbal UFO/UAP.



[edit] It's about 6 mins long.
 
Last edited:
I do believe them, but that doesn't mean that what is being inferred from their comments is true or not, nor does it explain anything about what they have (apparently) observed/reported.


You say that like it is a good thing...


Of course. The airmen and sailors observed something unusual, something they could not identify. It is now US policy to study and report to the Congress and to the people on what it is. Obviously, this will take time and the public will see only unclassified material. But the Congress will see some of the classified stuff.


If there is something real happening, it is a good thing to acknowledge it and deal with it seriously. This is far better than denial, stigma, mockery and ridicule. Danoff may be right - we may never know what the phenomena is all about. But it shouldn't and now won't be because we didn't attempt to study it and analyze it objectively.

@Nessy

The objects are often being observed simultaneously from a variety of platforms - satellites, ships radar, aircraft radar, and visually.

The Pentagon has officially acknowledged the Gimbal video to be both authentic and of an unidentified object. Even Obama now says he's seen the videos - presumably the classified ones - and says there are real unknowns.
 
Last edited:
The Pentagon has officially acknowledged the Gimbal video to be both authentic and of an unidentified object. Even Obama now says he's seen the videos - presumably the classified ones - and says there are real unknowns.

Nevertheless i still feel vids like the one i posted above, (and the one below), are still relevant to the discussion and topic.

 
Nevertheless i still feel vids like the one i posted above, (and the one below), are still relevant to the discussion and topic.


Of course. Some of these reports are going to be explained as Chinese drones, exotic weather phenomena and technical glitches. Over decades, only about 5% of all UFO/UAP reports remain unexplained.

Thanks for your contribution and participation the thread.
 
Last edited:
In breaking news, another video has been released showing up to 14 unknowns swarming the stealth combat ship Omaha.

Here are two very brief and very mainstream TV reports from different sides of our politics. They are followed by a much longer look at corroborative electro-optical data. Two major waves over three days involved 9 Navy warships, up to 100 unknowns simultaneously swarming each ship with each ship having one unknown directly above the ship, this according to numerous reports from those aboard the ships.





@Nessy
This might address some of your concerns


Edit:
Bonus material from Politico
https://www.politico.com/news/magaz...ecret-history-government-washington-dc-487900



Edit 2:
Channel 8 Las Vegas: Navy confirms video authentic.


Edit 3: "Extraordinary explanations look increasingly plausible"
https://thehill.com/opinion/nationa...anations-for-ufos-look-increasingly-plausible

Edit 4:
@Nessy
This should address your concerns.
 
Last edited:
Isn't it a bit suspicious that the same filmmaker, Jeremy Corbell, is all over these videos...? Of the clips I've listened to, he claims that radar data is the kind of proof that people have been "bellyaching" for but never produces anything like a proper analysis of, well, anything. The fact that he so casually dismisses calls for corroborating evidence and analysis as 'bellyaching' should set alarm bells ringing very loudly - it is clear that he doesn't really want this stuff to be analysed in anything like a rigorous or scientific way. He also will not reveal where he got the original videos/evidence, and I can't see any links anywhere to the original footage. And while the videos might be 'real', what about the audio? Who are the people speaking and has the raw video and/or audio been preserved or edited by Corbell or anyone else? An obvious question arises - if the filmmaker has access to all the footage and data from these events, but is only showing short, blurry portions of it, then why might that be?

Some of the commentary on these videos isn't much better. 'A self-illuminated sphere at least six feet in diameter'... 'was observed through a thermal sensor'... what does that mean exactly? In what way are they 'self-illuminated'? This claim is also made directly on Corbell's own website - that these objects are 'self-illuminated' - as in, they have a thermal signature? (i.e. an engine?) There's also the claim that they are spherical... what is that based on, the thermal sensor video footage??

Even the 'corroborative' radar video is underwhelming to the point of being almost laughably bad. Are we supposed to just look at the video and believe what we are being told it supposedly shows/says? Where is the raw footage? Who are the people speaking? Why is the video so blurred that we can't even see the data on the screen?? Is it compulsory for UFO/UAP footage to be so terrible that it raises more questions than it answers??
 
Isn't it a bit suspicious that the same filmmaker, Jeremy Corbell, is all over these videos...? Of the clips I've listened to, he claims that radar data is the kind of proof that people have been "bellyaching" for but never produces anything like a proper analysis of, well, anything. The fact that he so casually dismisses calls for corroborating evidence and analysis as 'bellyaching' should set alarm bells ringing very loudly - it is clear that he doesn't really want this stuff to be analysed in anything like a rigorous or scientific way. He also will not reveal where he got the original videos/evidence, and I can't see any links anywhere to the original footage. And while the videos might be 'real', what about the audio? Who are the people speaking and has the raw video and/or audio been preserved or edited by Corbell or anyone else? An obvious question arises - if the filmmaker has access to all the footage and data from these events, but is only showing short, blurry portions of it, then why might that be?

Some of the commentary on these videos isn't much better. 'A self-illuminated sphere at least six feet in diameter'... 'was observed through a thermal sensor'... what does that mean exactly? In what way are they 'self-illuminated'? This claim is also made directly on Corbell's own website - that these objects are 'self-illuminated' - as in, they have a thermal signature? (i.e. an engine?) There's also the claim that they are spherical... what is that based on, the thermal sensor video footage??

Even the 'corroborative' radar video is underwhelming to the point of being almost laughably bad. Are we supposed to just look at the video and believe what we are being told it supposedly shows/says? Where is the raw footage? Who are the people speaking? Why is the video so blurred that we can't even see the data on the screen?? Is it compulsory for UFO/UAP footage to be so terrible that it raises more questions than it answers??
Lots of good questions here. Keep them coming! If you find answers, let us know.

Apparently the video of the radar screen in the CIC of the USS Omaha was taken by a team of intelligence agents assigned to document, in real time, anomalous incidents and disseminate the data throughout the relevant government agencies. The incidents with the Omaha and its squadron persisted for about 3 weeks. It seems clear enough Corbell (and Knapp) are connected deep into this network. For years people have been (rightly) complaining about fuzzy imagery. But now visible light imagery is being corroborated by other platforms of data collection, such as radar, sonar, FLIR, satellite imagery , etc,. all simultaneously from multiple ships and airplanes. The data is still fuzzy and inconclusive, in part because the objects just seem to flick into existence then out if again, often jamming detection devices. It's like Flatland, where people from the 3rd dimension mess with ants, leaving them puzzled.

Over and over again, the Pentagon is confirming the authenticity of these videos, and that the objects are true unknowns. So we must conclude that there is a sea-change in the US military's approach to acknowledging and releasing information on this topic. How deep that goes, we will get a glimpse of later this month when the mandated report to Congress and the American people is released from all the intelligence agencies, military branches, DOE, etc.

This topic is so vast and complicated that immediate answers to all questions are not now and probably never will be ready to hand. We must all learn to live with ambiguity, and learn to love the mystery.

Edit:
At this time of great partisanship in government and politics, it is odd that both Republicans and Democrats are presently united in their support of greater UAP investigation and disclosure.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...731aff7d9a0d_story.html?utm_source=reddit.com
 
Last edited:
Lots of good questions here. Keep them coming! If you find answers, let us know.

Apparently the video of the radar screen in the CIC of the USS Omaha was taken by a team of intelligence agents assigned to document, in real time, anomalous incidents and disseminate the data throughout the relevant government agencies. The incidents with the Omaha and its squadron persisted for about 3 weeks. It seems clear enough Corbell (and Knapp) are connected deep into this network. For years people have been (rightly) complaining about fuzzy imagery. But now visible light imagery is being corroborated by other platforms of data collection, such as radar, sonar, FLIR, satellite imagery , etc,. all simultaneously from multiple ships and airplanes. The data is still fuzzy and inconclusive, in part because the objects just seem to flick into existence then out if again, often jamming detection devices. It's like Flatland, where people from the 3rd dimension mess with ants, leaving them puzzled.
This bolded bit is baffling to me. Corbell is a documentary filmmaker with virtually zero credibility or demonstrable knowledge of anything he is purporting to show, so it strikes me as extremely incongruous that the US intelligence and military networks should consider him part of their network.

One question I have about the radar video Corbell has recently posted - he says it is "unclassified", what is meant by that? That is it 'not classified', 'declassified', 'approved for release', 'not classified yet', what? The weird thing is that it happens to say on the radar screen itself "unclassified", which would suggest that it has nothing to do with 'classified information', and is merely a technical term related to something on the instrument/screen.

Over and over again, the Pentagon is confirming the authenticity of these videos, and that the objects are true unknowns. So we must conclude that there is a sea-change in the US military's approach to acknowledging and releasing information on this topic. How deep that goes, we will get a glimpse of later this month when the mandated report to Congress and the American people is released from all the intelligence agencies, military branches, DOE, etc.
This is also highly dubious IMHO. One recent video that Corbell has shared and extensively promoted as a UFO video, the green pyramid UFOs, are so ridiculous and poorly analysed (indeed, Corbell doesn't appear to have analysed them properly at all) that it almost beggars belief that anyone at the Pentagon would make what appears to be an obvious and patently false claim... not that the footage is not real, but that they are "true unknowns"... which begs the question, did the Pentagon really claim this, or is Corbell claiming that the Pentagon are claiming that? There is a huge difference between the two.

This topic is so vast and complicated that immediate answers to all questions are not now and probably never will be ready to hand. We must all learn to live with ambiguity, and learn to love the mystery.
There never is any answers though, only more and more dubious 'evidence' and terrible analysis. What is troubling is that these videos and what passes for analysis of them is meant to be the best there is, and yet it is so lacking that it almost looks like it was designed to create more doubt - the very opposite of attempting to provide 'answers'.
 
Last edited:
This bolded bit is baffling to me. Corbell is a documentary filmmaker with virtually zero credibility or demonstrable knowledge of anything he is purporting to show, so it strikes me as extremely incongruous that the US intelligence and military networks should consider him part of their network.

One question I have about the radar video Corbell has recently posted - he says it is "unclassified", what is meant by that? That is it 'not classified', 'declassified', 'approved for release', 'not classified yet', what? The weird thing is that it happens to say on the radar screen itself "unclassified", which would suggest that it has nothing to do with 'classified information', and is merely a technical term related to something on the instrument/screen.


This is also highly dubious IMHO. One recent video that Corbell has shared and extensively promoted as a UFO video, the green pyramid UFOs, are so ridiculous and poorly analysed (indeed, Corbell doesn't appear to have analysed them properly at all) that it almost beggars belief that anyone at the Pentagon would make what appears to be an obvious and patently false claim... not that the footage is not real, but that they are "true unknowns"... which begs the question, did the Pentagon really claim this, or is Corbell claiming that the Pentagon are claiming that? There is a huge difference between the two.


There never is any answers though, only more and more dubious 'evidence' and terrible analysis. What is troubling is that these videos and what passes for analysis of them is meant to be the best there is, and yet it is so lacking that it almost looks like it was designed to create more doubt - the very opposite of attempting to provide 'answers'.
If you keep on writing and thinking about this topic, you may catch the bug - and then there is no going back!

Edit:
Since both Republicans and Democrats on the relevant committees are united in support of funding and disclosing this topic, you might conclude they think it's a national security issue. For the conspiratorially minded, perhaps you'd think it's a plot to get reelected and make a lot of money. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
If you keep on writing and thinking about this topic, you may catch the bug - and then there is no going back!
On the contrary, when I see such poorly analysed and poorly explained footage/images being passed off as if it is incredibly important or fascinating, it just annoys me and makes me less likely to take such 'evidence' seriously.

Since both Republicans and Democrats on the relevant committees are united in support of funding and disclosing this topic, you might conclude they think it's a national security issue.
And yet you scoffed when I posted this just a few days ago...
Turn the argument on its head and ask, 'who benefits from creating the impression that someone might be undermining our defences?' The answer? The military, the government and the defence industry. And who is the source of all of this information?
 
On the contrary, when I see such poorly analysed and poorly explained footage/images being passed off as if it is incredibly important or fascinating, it just annoys me and makes me less likely to take such 'evidence' seriously.

And yet you scoffed when I posted this just a few days ago...

Turn the argument on its head and ask, 'who benefits from creating the impression that someone might be undermining our defences?' The answer? The military, the government and the defence industry. And who is the source of all of this information?
Welcome to conspiracy land, you are in with both feet as a partizan!

Meanwhile, the report may come out today:




Edit:

@Touring Mars
You are not alone in thinking the government fabricates UFO events for ulterior purposes, and that puts you in good company with Nick Redfern:

https://mysteriousuniverse.org/2021/05/more-on-the-matter-of-those-ufos-getting-people-excited/

https://mysteriousuniverse.org/2021...ies-manipulating-minds-and-using-helicopters/

https://mysteriousuniverse.org/2021...alien-abductions-cattle-mutilations-and-more/
 
Last edited:
Welcome to conspiracy land, you are in with both feet as a partizan!
'No mockery or ridicule'... maybe you should practice what you preach.

I really don't understand this comment anyway... I genuinely don't. Care to explain it?
 
'No mockery or ridicule'... maybe you should practice what you preach.

I really don't understand this comment anyway... I genuinely don't. Care to explain it?

These are your words:
"Turn the argument on its head and ask, 'who benefits from creating the impression that someone might be undermining our defences?' The answer? The military, the government and the defence industry. And who is the source of all of this information?"

You seem to be suggesting the government, military and defense industry are conspiring to create a false threat from which to financially profit or otherwise benefit. Am I completely misunderstanding your remark? If so, I'm wrong to count you among the conspiracy theorists.
 
Last edited:
You seem to be suggesting the government, military and defense industry are conspiring to create a false threat from which to financially profit or otherwise benefit.
Well, aren't they? Let's be clear here - it may be (and likely is) only a handful of individuals, but the more I read and see on this topic, the more it appears to be the same clique of people who are constantly pushing the same narrative. It is clearly in some people's interests to drum up political support for this topic, but the examples of the mainstream media coverage of these incidents shown above serve as a clear example of just how little scrutiny is really being done on these claims. Some of it is genuinely interesting, but some of it is laughably poor.

The point is, however, that people like Corbell don't seem to discriminate and will push anything that fits their narrative, even when their analysis (such as it is) is ridiculously bad. Worse still, they then go on Fox or CNN and push these stories, without even the slightest mention of how else the footage might be explained. This is the modus operandi of a snake oil salesman, and ironically it only helps to discredit what might otherwise be considered an interesting field of research.
 
Well, aren't they? Let's be clear here - it may be (and likely is) only a handful of individuals, but the more I read and see on this topic, the more it appears to be the same clique of people who are constantly pushing the same narrative. It is clearly in some people's interests to drum up political support for this topic, but the examples of the mainstream media coverage of these incidents shown above serve as a clear example of just how little scrutiny is really being done on these claims. Some of it is genuinely interesting, but some of it is laughably poor.

The point is, however, that people like Corbell don't seem to discriminate and will push anything that fits their narrative, even when their analysis (such as it is) is ridiculously bad. Worse still, they then go on Fox or CNN and push these stories, without even the slightest mention of how else the footage might be explained. This is the modus operandi of a snake oil salesman, and ironically it only helps to discredit what might otherwise be considered an interesting field of research.

You make a fair point. Perhaps marginal figures like Corbell are chosen to play their role to give a certain cover or deniability for those using him as a leaker. But it may be much more complex than that. Perhaps we will know more in the future about these shadowy personalities involved. But in the here and now, what are we to think when Barack Obama says "What is true, and I'm actually being serious here, is that there is footage and records of objects in the skies that we don't know exactly what they are," "We can't explain how they move, their trajectory," he said. "They did not have an easily explainable pattern. And so I think that people still take seriously, trying to investigate and figure out what that is."
https://www.nbcnews.com/science/weird-science/obama-ufo-videos-dont-know-exactly-are-rcna963

And also this in a recent podcast:
Former U.S. president Barack Obama doesn’t claim to know the origins of the unidentified flying objects that have been spotted by American military personnel — but if they are from another planet, he’d like to think that knowledge would unite humanity, rather than tear us apart.

70c8fc80
Obama opened up about the long-shot possibility that UFOs could lead to proof of aliens this week, in a new podcast interview with New York Times opinion columnist Ezra Klein.

It was the former president’s second time speaking about UFOs in recent weeks, ahead of a highly anticipated intelligence report to Congress on so-called Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) later this month.

In the latest interview, Obama was asked about a hypothetical situation in which the UFOs are proven to be remote drones sent by aliens. In that purely “what if” scenario, humans would only know that aliens exist, but would not be able to contact them.

Obama said such a revelation would not change his approach to politics, “because my entire politics is premised on the fact that we are these tiny organisms on this little speck floating out in space.”

He added that he bases his politics on the notion that “the differences we have on this planet are real, they’re profound, and they cause tragedy as well as joy … The best thing we can do is treat each other better, because we’re all we got.”

Obama did not claim to have any special knowledge about UFOs or their origins, but he did suggest that proof of aliens would cause tremendous upheaval in our society.

“I would hope that the knowledge that there were aliens out there would solidify people’s sense that what we have in common is a little more important,” he said.
https://globalnews.ca/news/7911125/barack-obama-ufos-aliens-interview/


So yes, we can obsess and fuss about bit players, or we can think about what the wisest and best informed are saying and publishing for the Congress and the American people to consider.

Edit:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...fo-report-expected-month-whats-it/5288989001/
 
Last edited:
These are your words:
"Turn the argument on its head and ask, 'who benefits from creating the impression that someone might be undermining our defences?' The answer? The military, the government and the defence industry. And who is the source of all of this information?"

You seem to be suggesting the government, military and defense industry are conspiring to create a false threat from which to financially profit or otherwise benefit. Am I completely misunderstanding your remark? If so, I'm wrong to count you among the conspiracy theorists.

That's not even a conspiracy theory, we know that the military-industrial complex and the government does this. Iraq War anyone? Lots of WMDs and nukes found in Iraq, right? Nobody creating false impressions of a threat to national security to drive their own agenda there.

It's not a conspiracy theory to suggest that maybe the bank robbery was done by the guy with a history of robbing banks. It's just putting two and two together and suggesting that maybe they actually make four. There's probably not currently enough evidence to say that the current spate of UFO data is even substantially generated by military/government/defence industry, or even that it's natural data that is being interpreted in ways that are skewed. But it's far from conspiratorial to suggest that they might be doing it when they absolutely have in the past, and absolutely will do so in the future when there's some political or military action that they need justification for. Like say, smacking down China and Russia before they develop too much economic power over the rest of the western world.
 
That's not even a conspiracy theory, we know that the military-industrial complex and the government does this. Iraq War anyone? Lots of WMDs and nukes found in Iraq, right? Nobody creating false impressions of a threat to national security to drive their own agenda there.

It's not a conspiracy theory to suggest that maybe the bank robbery was done by the guy with a history of robbing banks. It's just putting two and two together and suggesting that maybe they actually make four. There's probably not currently enough evidence to say that the current spate of UFO data is even substantially generated by military/government/defence industry, or even that it's natural data that is being interpreted in ways that are skewed. But it's far from conspiratorial to suggest that they might be doing it when they absolutely have in the past, and absolutely will do so in the future when there's some political or military action that they need justification for. Like say, smacking down China and Russia before they develop too much economic power over the rest of the western world.

If we are going your "UFOs are a US conspiracy" path, then we might want to think more globally than parochially, as the phenomena seems to be global. Are world governments also faking their own UFO incidents to gain more budget and domination over their neighbors? Or is the US faking all the incidents all over the world? Please keep your great questions coming. You are of enormous value to the thread.



U.S. Finds No Evidence of Alien Technology in Flying Objects, but Can’t Rule It Out, Either

A new report concedes that much about the observed phenomena remains difficult to explain, including their acceleration, as well as ability to change direction and submerge.


The U.S. Navy has officially published previously released videos showing unexplained objects.CreditCredit...Department of Defense, via Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

By Julian E. Barnes and Helene Cooper

Published June 3, 2021Updated June 4, 2021, 11:44 a.m. ET
WASHINGTON — American intelligence officials have found no evidence that aerial phenomena witnessed by Navy pilots in recent years are alien spacecraft, but they still cannot explain the unusual movements that have mystified scientists and the military, according to senior administration officials briefed on the findings of a highly anticipated government report.

The report determines that a vast majority of more than 120 incidents over the past two decades did not originate from any American military or other advanced U.S. government technology, the officials said. That determination would appear to eliminate the possibility that Navy pilots who reported seeing unexplained aircraft might have encountered programs the government meant to keep secret.

But that is about the only conclusive finding in the classified intelligence report, the officials said. And while a forthcoming unclassified version, expected to be released to Congress by June 25, will present few other firm conclusions, senior officials briefed on the intelligence conceded that the very ambiguity of the findings meant the government could not definitively rule out theories that the phenomena observed by military pilots might be alien spacecraft.

Americans’ long-running fascination with U.F.O.s has intensified in recent weeks in anticipation of the release of the government report. Former President Barack Obama further stoked the interest when he was asked last month about the incidents on “The Late Late Show with James Corden” on CBS.

“What is true, and I’m actually being serious here,” Mr. Obama said, “is that there is footage and records of objects in the skies that we don’t know exactly what they are.’’

The report concedes that much about the observed phenomena remains difficult to explain, including their acceleration, as well as ability to change direction and submerge. One possible explanation — that the phenomena could be weather balloons or other research balloons — does not hold up in all cases, the officials said, because of changes in wind speed at the times of some of the interactions.
.
The final report will also include a classified annex, the officials said. While the annex will not contain any evidence concluding that the phenomena are alien spacecraft, the officials acknowledged that the fact that it would remain off limits to the public was likely to continue to fuel speculation that the government had secret data about alien visitations to Earth.

Many of the more than 120 incidents examined in the report are from Navy personnel, officials said. The report also examined incidents involving foreign militaries over the last two decades. Intelligence officials believe at least some of the aerial phenomena could have been experimental technology from a rival power, most likely Russia or China.

One senior official briefed on the intelligence said without hesitation that U.S. officials knew it was not American technology. He said there was worry among intelligence and military officials that China or Russia could be experimenting with hypersonic technology.

He and other officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the classified findings in the report.

Russia has been investing heavily in hypersonics, believing the technology offers it the ability to evade American missile-defense technology. China has also developed hypersonic weaponry, and included it in military parades. If the phenomena were Chinese or Russian aircraft, officials said, that would suggest the two powers’ hypersonic research had far outpaced American military development.

Navy pilots were often unsettled by the sightings. In one encounter, strange objects — one of them like a spinning top moving against the wind — appeared almost daily from the summer of 2014 to March 2015, high in the skies over the East Coast. Navy pilots reported to their superiors that the objects had no visible engine or infrared exhaust plumes, but that they could reach 30,000 feet and hypersonic speeds.

Lt. Ryan Graves, an F/A-18 Super Hornet pilot who was with the Navy for 10 years, told The New York Times in an interview, “These things would be out there all day.” With the speeds he and other pilots observed, he said, “12 hours in the air is 11 hours longer than we’d expect.”

In late 2014, a Super Hornet pilot had a near collision with one of the objects, and an official mishap report was filed. Some of the incidents were recorded on video, including one taken by a plane’s camera in early 2015 that shows an object zooming over the ocean waves as pilots question what they are watching.

The Defense Department has been collecting such reports for more than 13 years as part of a shadowy, little-known Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program within the Pentagon. The program analyzed radar data, video footage and accounts provided by the Navy pilots and senior officers.

The program began in 2007 and was largely funded at the request of Harry Reid, the Nevada Democrat who was the Senate majority leader at the time. It was officially shut down in 2012, when the money dried up, according to the Pentagon. But Luis Elizondo, who ran the program at the time, said that he continued it until 2017. After the publication of a New York Times article later that year about the program and criticism from program officials that the government was not forthcoming about reports on aerial phenomena, the Pentagon restarted the program last summer as the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force.


The task force’s mission was to “detect, analyze and catalog” sightings of strange objects in the sky that could pose a threat to national security. But government officials said they also wanted to remove the stigma for service members who report U.F.O. sightings in the hope that more would be encouraged to speak up if they saw something. The goal, officials said, was to give authorities a better idea of what might be out there.

shows a whitish oval object described as a giant Tic Tac, about the size of a commercial plane, encountered by two Navy fighter jets off the coast of San Diego in 2004.

In that incident, the pilots reported an interaction with the craft, which lasted for several minutes. At one point, the object peeled away, one of the pilots, Cmdr. David Fravor, later said in an interview with The Times. “It accelerated like nothing I’ve ever seen,” he said.

The report studies that incident, including the video that accompanied the interaction. The provenance of the object, the officials said, is still unknown.

Why Are We All Talking About U.F.O.s Right Now?
June 3, 2021


Julian E. Barnes is a national security reporter based in Washington, covering the intelligence agencies. Before joining The Times in 2018, he wrote about security matters for The Wall Street Journal. @julianbarnesFacebook

Helene Cooper is a Pentagon correspondent. She was previously an editor, diplomatic correspondent and White House correspondent, and was part of the team awarded the 2015 Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting, for its coverage of the Ebola epidemic. @helenecooper
 
If we are going your "UFOs are a US conspiracy" path, then we might want to think more globally than parochially, as the phenomena seems to be global. Are world governments also faking their own UFO incidents to gain more budget and domination over their neighbors? Or is the US faking all the incidents all over the world? Please keep your great questions coming. You are of enormous value to the thread.


Again with the Jeremy Corbell footage. :rolleyes:

No-one is saying that anyone is 'faking' incidents - just that the way most of these incidents are being presented to the public is misleading, and possibly deliberately so.

Corbell doesn't seem to have the first clue about the footage he shares as 'UFOs', and doesn't even try to explain them. The question is why? Is he just lazy, totally incompetent or what? I reckon that he doesn't bother to analyse the footage he shares for a very simple reason - it benefits him (and possibly others) to not do it.

My take home point: If Corbell wants to have a serious debate about these 'phenomena' "without ridicule" (as he puts it), then he needs to stop making ridiculous claims in public and get serious about how to properly analyse and report the footage he promotes.
 
Again with the Jeremy Corbell footage. :rolleyes:

No-one is saying that anyone is 'faking' incidents - just that the way most of these incidents are being presented to the public is misleading, and possibly deliberately so.

Corbell doesn't seem to have the first clue about the footage he shares as 'UFOs', and doesn't even try to explain them. The question is why? Is he just lazy, totally incompetent or what? I reckon that he doesn't bother to analyse the footage he shares for a very simple reason - it benefits him (and possibly others) to not do it.

My take home point: If Corbell wants to have a serious debate about these 'phenomena' "without ridicule" (as he puts it), then he needs to stop making ridiculous claims in public and get serious about how to properly analyse and report the footage he promotes.

I appreciate your strong take home point: Jeremy Corbell doesn't want a serious debate, doesn't properly analyze his footage and he should stop doing what he's doing. A firm foundation upon which to rest and go no further. The paradigm is unaffected.

My own take home point: Numerous incidents over many years have forced the pilots, the generals and the politicians to admit the phenomena is real, and now a serious all-of-government investigation is mandated in law by Congress. The people and the mainstream press generally seem to be highly interested and taking this seriously. This is a paradigm shift.
 
Back