I uploaded it to Youtube...I didn't notice it at first, but there's actually two. First is at 3-4 seconds, and second at around 37 seconds. Can't be a shooting star b/c it's in front/under the clouds. Both in the top-left portion of the video.
After years of revelations about strange lights in the sky, first hand reports from Navy pilots about UFOs, and governmental investigations, Congress seems to have admitted something startling in print: it doesn’t believe all UFOs are “man-made.”
Buried deep in a report that’s an addendum to the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023, a budget that governs America’s clandestine services, Congress made two startling claims. The first is that “cross-domain transmedium threats to the United States national security are expanding exponentially.” The second is that it wants to distinguish between UFOs that are human in origin and those that are not: “Temporary nonattributed objects, or those that are positively identified as man-made after analysis, will be passed to appropriate offices and should not be considered under the definition as unidentified aerospace-undersea phenomena,” the document states.
The admission is stunning chiefly because, as more information about the U.S. government’s study of UFOs has become public, many politicians have stopped just short of claiming the unidentified objects were extraterrestrial or extradimensional in origin. The standard line is typically that, if UFOs exist, then they're likely advanced—although human-made—vehicles. Obama refused to confirm the existence of aliens but did say that people have seen a lot of strange stuff in the sky lately when asked directly on The Late Show with James Corden, for example. But now Congress seems to want to specifically distinguish between objects that are “man-made” and those that are not.
Full text here. Search for SEC. 1683. Interesting stuff in there about composition of the core group, specific elements of interest, and data analysis requirements. Nice catch Ozy.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
I uploaded it to Youtube...I didn't notice it at first, but there's actually two. First is at 3-4 seconds, and second at around 37 seconds. Can't be a shooting star b/c it's in front/under the clouds. Both in the top-left portion of the video.
Copy and paste that part and select it. Then hit the YouTube button. This should surround it with the proper tags. You need to be in Advanced Mode to do that. Otherwise put [youtube] in front of the part you copied and [youtube] with a / after the first bracket at the end.
If you hit the Quote button on my post it'll show you what I mean.
The Following User Says Thank You to DownInFlames For This Useful Post:
Location: A simple man leading a complicated life....
Exp:
Release of more classified UFO videos will ‘harm national security’, US Navy spokesperson says
Quote:
The US Navy has said it will not release more unseen, classified videos of unidentified flying objects (UFOs) publicly, adding that doing so would “harm national security”.
A US Navy spokesperson said so last week in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed by the Black Vault, a US government transparency site.
“The release of this information will harm national security as it may provide adversaries valuable information regarding Department of Defense/Navy operations, vulnerabilities, and/or capabilities,” the Navy spokesperson wrote.
Quote:
The US Pentagon had said the three videos were released to clear up misconceptions by the public on whether or not the footage was real, “or whether or not there is more to the videos”.
Quote:
In response to the Navy’s latest admission, the Black Vault has reportedly filed an appeal seeking the release of the denied videos.
To be fair, I believe it was because the United States is using very advanced radar technology that detects movement throughout water, the atmosphere and into space. While it might be a little bit about actually what they capture on the cameras and radar, I believe the denial is more about exposing this tracking technology and giving countries like Russia and China information about it.
Frank Drake, Who Led Search for Life on Other Planets, Dies at 92
He was convinced that human beings would eventually connect with extraterrestrials, and he inspired others to share that belief.
After years of revelations about strange lights in the sky, first hand reports from Navy pilots about UFOs, and governmental investigations, Congress seems to have admitted something startling in print: it doesn’t believe all UFOs are “man-made.”
Buried deep in a report that’s an addendum to the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023, a budget that governs America’s clandestine services, Congress made two startling claims. The first is that “cross-domain transmedium threats to the United States national security are expanding exponentially.” The second is that it wants to distinguish between UFOs that are human in origin and those that are not: “Temporary nonattributed objects, or those that are positively identified as man-made after analysis, will be passed to appropriate offices and should not be considered under the definition as unidentified aerospace-undersea phenomena,” the document states.
The admission is stunning chiefly because, as more information about the U.S. government’s study of UFOs has become public, many politicians have stopped just short of claiming the unidentified objects were extraterrestrial or extradimensional in origin. The standard line is typically that, if UFOs exist, then they're likely advanced—although human-made—vehicles. Obama refused to confirm the existence of aliens but did say that people have seen a lot of strange stuff in the sky lately when asked directly on The Late Show with James Corden, for example. But now Congress seems to want to specifically distinguish between objects that are “man-made” and those that are not.
I don’t think your excerpt matches the headlines.
All it is saying is they segregate items that they can identify as man made after analysis and those they cannot yet identify. So all this says is there are objects can’t conclusively identify, I don’t see how that is revolutionary. The likelihood is still they aren’t ET.
To be fair, I believe it was because the United States is using very advanced radar technology that detects movement throughout water, the atmosphere and into space. While it might be a little bit about actually what they capture on the cameras and radar, I believe the denial is more about exposing this tracking technology and giving countries like Russia and China information about it.
Why do you believe this is about detection capability as opposed to flight capability?
I believe it relates to how these objects are caught on Advanced Targeting Forward-Looking Infrared (ATFLIR) and more recently the successor LITENING ATP, particularly on the FA-18 Super Hornets. If previously-recorded footage was captured using either that isn't already declassified (e.g. how it pertains to tracking objects), it might suggest proprietary tech that is classified might assist China or Russia in how to develop (or reverse engineer) some of the tracking system technology.
LITENING has been in development by Northrop Grumman for a while and probably had some of the in-development models mounted on F/A-18's or other aircraft flying patrol missions before officially deploying them with public announcement.
I'm a believer in UAP and the phenomena, but you have to remember that capturing footage of these transmedium objects is done by military-first tech most normally designed to track human-made adversaries or adversarial technology (e.g. hypersonic weapons).
To be fair, I believe it was because the United States is using very advanced radar technology that detects movement throughout water, the atmosphere and into space. While it might be a little bit about actually what they capture on the cameras and radar, I believe the denial is more about exposing this tracking technology and giving countries like Russia and China information about it.
Or, more plausibly, they don't want to release the videos because the objects of the videos are their most advanced technology.
You are saying the objects captured in the videos they don't want to release are all human made? That's a bit of a stretch, considering the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 considers separating the two into dichotomous areas of field capture.
Would seem to me they don't have a clear answer on that either.
I'm not saying they are all manmade or not manmade. Nice spin doctoring though.
Conversely, you're arguing it's a stretch to suggest that they're not, even when Congress is shifting their legislation and messaging to reflect it as such?
I'm not saying they are all manmade or not manmade. Nice spin doctoring though.
Conversely, you're arguing it's a stretch to suggest that they're not, even when Congress is shifting their legislation and messaging to reflect it as such?
Okay.
Yes, because suggesting something is extra-terrestrial is - by definition - a stretch.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Suggesting that the most plausible explanation is, well, more plausible, is the natural starting point. Hoping/claiming the extraordinary is the stretch.
I think it's just as simple as the U.S. navy not wanting other countries to know what they can or can't pick up, and that seems like a reasonable thing to want to keep a secret. I don't think we can read into it too much as a comment on the origin of the UAP.
Side question, are these UAP videos that were released and confirmed by authorities, things that can be seen with the naked eye, or are they objects that are only detected with instruments?
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
The Following User Says Thank You to FlamesAddiction For This Useful Post:
Yes, because suggesting something is extra-terrestrial is - by definition - a stretch.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Suggesting that the most plausible explanation is, well, more plausible, is the natural starting point. Hoping/claiming the extraordinary is the stretch.
Since you unfortunately seem to be having difficulties with trajectory, I'll summarize my thoughts on today's discussion:
- I believe the Navy blocked future release of videos is likely because of classified sensor/radar technology, not proof of aliens.
- It's not out of the realm it's something else or for some other reason, and that door is open.
- Congress is changing the language to allow for proper investigation into man-made versus non man-made phenomena. This also includes upcoming protections for those with NDA's to speak at hearings (both public and classified). This has rare bipartisan support.
Since Congress and the USG seems to be moving in that direction, I'm going to follow with close interest rather than hear the same old recycled Carl Sagan aphorism which in itself is arguably irrational and contrary to scientific objectivity to demand extraordinary evidence for those that are merely amazing or bizarre or not yet well known.
Side question, are these UAP videos that were released and confirmed by authorities, things that can be seen with the naked eye, or are they objects that are only detected with instruments?
It's both. Much of it is captured on FLIR or with night-vision, but depending on the visuals it can be seen with the naked eye. The latter is what David Fravor and Ryan Sprague have made into the mainstream with the "tic tac" and "cube inside of sphere" encounters.
I suspect part of the detection of these anomalous objects has to do with frequency detection, in which they emit specific electromagnetic waves. This may be why sensor capabilities are classified.
Since you unfortunately seem to be having difficulties with trajectory, I'll summarize my thoughts on today's discussion:
- I believe the Navy blocked future release of videos is likely because of classified sensor/radar technology, not proof of aliens.
- It's not out of the realm it's something else or for some other reason, and that door is open.
- Congress is changing the language to allow for proper investigation into man-made versus non man-made phenomena. This also includes upcoming protections for those with NDA's to speak at hearings (both public and classified). This has rare bipartisan support.
Since Congress and the USG seems to be moving in that direction, I'm going to follow with close interest rather than hear the same old recycled Carl Sagan aphorism which in itself is arguably irrational and contrary to scientific objectivity to demand extraordinary evidence for those that are merely amazing or bizarre or not yet well known.
You contribute lots of great stuff in this thread, no need for this kind of garbage.
The Following User Says Thank You to Enoch Root For This Useful Post:
You contribute lots of great stuff in this thread, no need for this kind of garbage.
So is taking a well-reasoned and objective statement - based on the facts available - and calling it "a stretch" when you present nothing to the contrary other than your opinion. Ozy referenced government released information to support his statement, which you called "a stretch". If Ozy is making a stretch it would seem the US government and military are making a similar stretch?
I actually think that Ozy's claim makes the most sense. If the US has technology to track and intercept technology like that displayed it would make the Russian and Chinese investment in hypersonic assets all but useless. I don't think the US would want either country to know they were throwing good money after a technology that could already be defend against. Keep your defense secrets secret as long as you can, especially if the enemy is playing into your hands.
