Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 213

Thread: Project Blue Book 2.0?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Posts
    1,547

    Project Blue Book 2.0?

    This story is getting some traction, F-18s pilots filming of odd objects in the skies. Any guesses? The pilots seems to be amazed and befuddled. Story and video below.....

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/u...arry-reid.html

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,850
    Probes released by Oumuamua as it passed through the inner solar system.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    12,732
    I have a question about it for people who know more than I do about jet fighters. Where is the video taken from? Is it a camera on the helmet of the pilot? I'm just wondering why is tracks the object so perfectly. Is that simply showing that the pilot is looking at it?
    As above, so below

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,048

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,048

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    6,826
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    The US Navy uses ATFLIR pods which have an inbuilt ability to track targets as well. Even without a RADAR lock the pod itself could probably hold such a clear and obvious target centre frame with a reasonable degree of success.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    8,462
    I am most intrigued by the Nimitz event; here's the video I'd like to discuss.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=6rWOtrke0HY

    -----------------------

    The most detailed account of the Nimitz event that I have found on-line is here https://fightersweep.com/1460/x-files-edition/
    I should point out that the text of that article is very interesting, and presumably as accurate as a second-hand account can be; but the images accompanying it are all 'generic' photos, and none of them are from the incident itself. Presumably this account was posted before the FLIR video was made available.

    Some notes;
    1/ As described in the account I posted, the first part of the encounter consisted of a disturbance on or under the sea; this might be submerged rocks, or a reef, or whales, or even a shoal of fish. An Unidentified Underwater Phenomenon.

    2/ The next part of the encounter concerns a white, featureless object (the 'tic-tac') with no apparent propulsion effects such as disturbed air from a jet or rotor. To me that suggests a balloon or some other buoyant object. A partially collapsed balloon might assume a tic-tac shape.

    3/ The third part of the encounter involved a second aircraft, or several, who recorded the encounter on tape. This is the one where the 'balloon' suddenly shoots off like it is fitted with reactionless drive. That can't be explained by a balloon.

    Or can it? Remember the FLIR was attached to a moving plane - as the plane closed in on the hovering object, at some point it would have sped past it- unless the pilot wanted to impale the object, he would need to pass by it on one side or the other. That explains the rapid exit. This is backed up by this sentence in the report that states
    In the less precise scan mode, the return indicated that the object was, in the WSO’s words, “A few thousand feet below us. Around 15-20K– but hovering stationary.” The only movement was generated by the closure of the fighter to the CAP location.
    I'd like some more informed opinions on whether the sudden movement in the FLIR footage might have been caused by the movement of the aircraft - to my eye the 'object' does seem to get slightly larger as it speeds off to the left. This is consistent with imagery caused by the closure of the fighter as it sped past a stationary object.


    I notice that almost every news outlet that is covering this encounter gives very few details, and this makes it almost impossible to get to the real facts.
    Last edited by eburacum45; 2017-Dec-19 at 09:45 AM.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Posts
    1,547
    I notice that almost every news outlet that is covering this encounter gives very few details, and this makes it almost impossible to get to the real facts.
    Yes, same here, some of the reporters even seem embarrassed and will crack a joke as is all too often typical behavior. This story is new and since it doesn't appear to be a classified study there most likely will be FOIAs submitted for more info. It's easy to suggest acceptable explanations even if they don't fill the bill. For the first video I posted above I could say that there was a gnat on the camera lens and it appeared to rotate because the camera was trying to focus on the clouds in the background.....of course I know nothing about how F-18's work but now I can sleep better tonite ;-).

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,048
    Not having all the facts, it is difficult to speculate. I assume the team members have all the data and also have technical expertise.

    Difficult for us to conduct an analysis based on partial data on this forum. I assume the team members are not members of mufon, et al, so I would expect a critical analysis.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    8,462
    Which team members are you talking about, by the way?

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,048
    The ones specified by the US government. I do not assume they recruited CUFOS or MUFON members. Since, as you know, the whole thing was top secret, no names were divulged. I assume that if they were interested in investigating the phenomena they would have competent team members.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    14,913
    Also in the old continent there is an article -with very little details- about this subject every day this week. A general remark, not related to the F18 movie specifically as it contains so little details:

    Many sightings talk of a "large, distant object speeding away at incredible speed". Often followed by "my eyes are still working well". I'm sure they do, but sometimes your mind tricks you and you actually saw a small, nearby object with a mundane relative speed. I've had that happening to me on multiple occasions, usually at night. Something huge hovering over the town, quickly moving to the left. Until I saw it was a wheelbarrow hanging in the construction crane I was about to pass under.

    Again, not to be applied to the F18 movie per se, because next to nothing is known about the specifics of that encounter.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,048

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,048
    Interesting, in any case, is the "ridicule factor" displayed by many journalists when discussing the ufo question. Laughing and being facetious.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    7,602
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    Interesting, in any case, is the "ridicule factor" displayed by many journalists when discussing the ufo question. Laughing and being facetious.
    Not surprising though. To accept UFO as alien is for most educated people an huge mental paradigm shift because of the implied distances involved. Of course we know about the panic when Orsen Wells' "War of the worlds" was broadcast on radio. UFO from secret earthbound developers? Rather more likely as an explanation when optical tricks are ruled out. Most paradigm shift ideas are ridiculed first. As to whether I would prefer aliens to angels, I remain agnostic but skeptical. I certainly know people who fervently believe in both. And neither.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    7,602
    Many years ago at university I attended a lecture by a man who said he was in communication with the king of Venus. We were much more polite in those days and listened on. He described how flying saucers work. There is a coil in the ring which is superconducting (he used different words to that effect) and can be pulsed. The centre generates ions around by some form of radioactivity such that when pulsed an enormous force is generated. OK it was I think 1967 and we were only dimply aware of technologies that have come along since. Ridicule yes but I was interested in the basic idea. Maybe the king of Venus is here with us today?
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    No longer near Grover's Mill
    Posts
    4,474
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    Of course we know about the panic when Orsen Wells' "War of the worlds" was broadcast on radio.
    Yeah, about that: Maybe not so much.

    https://www.snopes.com/war-of-the-worlds/


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I may have many faults, but being wrong ain't one of them. - Jimmy Hoffa

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    8,462
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    The ones specified by the US government. I do not assume they recruited CUFOS or MUFON members. Since, as you know, the whole thing was top secret, no names were divulged. I assume that if they were interested in investigating the phenomena they would have competent team members.
    And yet these videos are presented with little or no context, so we have to do our own research to find out the details of these sightings. If this 'team' is really interested in disclosing the 'truth', then they should give as many details as possible. In other cases (such as the Mexican infrared footage and the California 'missile') the official investigation was hopeless, and it fell to independent investigators to uncover the truth.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    8,462
    If we now consider this clip;
    https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100...pgtype=article
    the first thing that should be obvious is that this is not a 'forward-looking' camera, since the clouds are all moving sideways. This is a side-looking camera, and this footage calls to mind the Mexican Campeche footage mentioned in my previous post. It is possible that this is a distant, bright, infra-red source, above the clouds but quite possibly below the horizon, and if we were given the exact coordinates and flight plan it might be possible to determine what it was. But no such luck.
    Last edited by eburacum45; 2017-Dec-20 at 09:18 PM.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    8,462
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    As to whether I would prefer aliens to angels, I remain agnostic but skeptical. I certainly know people who fervently believe in both. And neither.
    Put me down as someone who believes in both; if by aliens you mean extraterrestrial life in a myriad of unexpected (and unexpectable) forms, and if by angels you mean entities with advanced, god-like technology.

    However I remain unconvinced that these clips are evidence of either.
    Last edited by eburacum45; 2017-Dec-20 at 09:20 PM.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,048
    Quote Originally Posted by eburacum45 View Post
    And yet these videos are presented with little or no context, so we have to do our own research to find out the details of these sightings. If this 'team' is really interested in disclosing the 'truth', then they should give as many details as possible. In other cases (such as the Mexican infrared footage and the California 'missile') the official investigation was hopeless, and it fell to independent investigators to uncover the truth.
    The team is not allowed to do so. It was a pilot who was interviewed. No official report was released, just the video of the pilot and an interview with him. Don't understand why it was released in the first place.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,048
    Quote Originally Posted by eburacum45 View Post
    If we now consider this clip;
    https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100...pgtype=article
    the first thing that should be obvious is that this is not a 'forward-looking' camera, since the clouds are all moving sideways. This is a side-looking camera, and this footage calls to mind the Mexican Campeche footage mentioned in my previous post. It is possible that this is a distant, bright, infra-red source, above the clouds but quite possibly below the horizon, and if we were given the exact coordinates and flight plan it might be possible to determine what it was. But no such luck.
    As I mentioned it is a puzzle that just the footage and a pilot commentary was released and no official analysis.
    Last edited by gzhpcu; 2017-Dec-20 at 10:28 PM.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,048
    What I don’t get is why does the government release a single solitary video about an alleged ufo sighting, admit they had a secret project and the ex-head if the project comes forward and says he quit becsuse the results were not getting the attention they deserved, and a statement is made that a stirage room in Las Vegas contains material from debris with unknown properties. Strange.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    6,826
    Quote Originally Posted by eburacum45 View Post
    If we now consider this clip;
    https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100...pgtype=article
    the first thing that should be obvious is that this is not a 'forward-looking' camera, since the clouds are all moving sideways. This is a side-looking camera, and this footage calls to mind the Mexican Campeche footage mentioned in my previous post. It is possible that this is a distant, bright, infra-red source, above the clouds but quite possibly below the horizon, and if we were given the exact coordinates and flight plan it might be possible to determine what it was. But no such luck.
    The Hornet doesn't have a side looking camera. Both the ATFLIR and IRST pods are forwards looking, although I think the IRST may have greater off boresight capability. Not sure if it is fitted to Navy Hornets yet.

    Also - look at the attitude indicator. The plane is banking. Which usually means turning. Which would mean that from the point of view of a FLIR system the clouds are going sideways.

    Edit to add: The only side looking pods you'd likely see on an aircraft like this would be a tac-recce pod - and I believe they generate stills. Side looking video systems would likely be FLIRs in turrets, like the MX series of sensors. I wasn't aware of them on Hornets, but happy to be corrected if I am wrong on either of these.
    Last edited by Shaula; 2017-Dec-21 at 09:14 AM.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,048

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    12,732
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    That was cool to read. A couple of things that I noticed:

    They pilots said that the water was being churned. To me the most likely explanation was that gas was coming out from it. But they said that they were looking in IR and didn't see any hot gas. So the most likely explanation seems to be that it was putting out cold gas, which was churning the water. Then, it had no windows, so perhaps it was a drone of some sort. Now, if you had a drone made of some porous material, with a very powerful but lightweight engine inside, then perhaps you could do that. I'm not sure what kind of an engine it would be, though. Sounds technically advanced. But to me the water being churned is a sign that indeed the laws of physics remain valid, and that it was moving by some kind of thrust.
    As above, so below

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    No longer near Grover's Mill
    Posts
    4,474
    Flying tic-tac?
    This is the first thing that came to mind:

    Tacit Blue

    The timeline isn't right, but it could be a follow-on project.

    ETA: Additional photos:
    http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Vis...op-tacit-blue/
    I may have many faults, but being wrong ain't one of them. - Jimmy Hoffa

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    12,732
    Quote Originally Posted by Extravoice View Post
    Flying tic-tac?
    This is the first thing that came to mind:

    Tacit Blue

    The timeline isn't right, but it could be a follow-on project.

    ETA: Additional photos:
    http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Vis...op-tacit-blue/
    That sounds sort of plausible. If that thing was flying in 1982, then by 2004 I can imagine they would have something even cooler. The fact that they were able to get a radar signal but only a weak one makes it sound like a stealth craft, and actually the fact that the craft only shifted to face the fighter when it was in visual range makes it sound like it doesn't have a really advanced sensing system. It could very well be some experimental drone, and who knows from what country.
    As above, so below

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    14,913
    To me, it sounds like someone trying out his black project stealth craft on his own army. Sounds like something unmanned, likely a lot less heavy than its size suggests, propelled by (cold gas) thrusters. If you see what the commercial companies can do today with steering and landing rocket stages, the baseline technology is there. It's an interesting report in that it reads like most likely it was a physical object that was spotted, not merely an illusion. Although you can't be sure about anything until there is clear footage or an actual touchable craft.

    If you look at some black projects, like the "looks like we built ourselves a spaceplane" X-37B, there certainly is budget to try out next-gen stuff.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    77
    I
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    That was cool to read. A couple of things that I noticed:

    They pilots said that the water was being churned. To me the most likely explanation was that gas was coming out from it. But they said that they were looking in IR and didn't see any hot gas. So the most likely explanation seems to be that it was putting out cold gas, which was churning the water. Then, it had no windows, so perhaps it was a drone of some sort. Now, if you had a drone made of some porous material, with a very powerful but lightweight engine inside, then perhaps you could do that. I'm not sure what kind of an engine it would be, though. Sounds technically advanced. But to me the water being churned is a sign that indeed the laws of physics remain valid, and that it was moving by some kind of thrust.
    Gas? Drone made of Porous material with a light engine? ����������

    You ok hun?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •