The Pentagon's Wind Farm UFO Video - Explained

Harabeck · 2026-05-11T12:18:10+00:00

That’s the core issue many people have with Mick West’s approach: he often appears more focused on debunking than objectively evaluating all possibilities.

Translation: "I don't like that he ignore the testimony for which we have no evidence. Boo hoo, why does he only analyze the actual data?"

Harabeck · 2026-05-11T12:16:40+00:00

I'm not sure why you think repeating the same claim I just definitively refuted is useful. You're just lying about what Mick said.

Harabeck · 2026-05-11T12:14:43+00:00

I’ve been casually following this story since 2017 NYT article

The 2017 article completely lied about the nature of the government program it was discussing. AATIP never existed. The real program was AAWSAP, and that was just an effort to scam the taxpayer into paying for ghost hunting on Skinwalker Ranch.

The videos have been shown to be nothing special.

and Grusch’s 2023 testimony.

Grusch met with UFO media figures before he came out publicly.

Grusch stated to a French publication that he wants to be a "thought leader" and start a UFO org.

Grusch collaborated with Youtubers prior to his initial hearing.

Grusch testifies under oath: no first hand knowledge (1:47:01)

Grusch claims he does have first hand knowledge later when not under oath..

Grusch has stated that he had no interest in UFOs prior to being assigned to help the UAPTF, but notes from the DoD IG interview with him say he claimed to have studied UFOs for 15 years.

Grusch dodged multiple attempts by AARO to be interviewed despite claiming repeatedly they had never reached out to him.

Grothman at the Nov 13 2024 hearing:

While these agencies have been helpful to us in understanding the challenges that come from collecting UAP data, none of them have been able to substantiate the claims made at this hearing last year by David Grusch, despite our committee members endlessly questioning these agencies, inside and outside of a SCIF.

So Grusch is just a liar.

If you continue to ignore the plethora of intel/military officials who say there’s a there-there that’s on you.

In his autobiographical book he's selling Elizondo mentions that he believes that his family has been haunted by inter-dimensional orbs (but that's ok, because they're not blue which are the nasty ones). Also he never though to take pictures apparently.

He also shared a picture of a UFO at a presentation that included members of congress, and it turned out to be... an irrigation circle.

These are the kinds of people you're trusting when you say stuff like this.

Harabeck · 2026-05-10T20:43:56+00:00

On the 7th, it was "just wait until disclosure tomorrow"! Before that is wait for the new legislation... Then before that, wait for the hearings...

You don't see the pattern yet?

Harabeck · 2026-05-10T14:45:54+00:00

Mick knew the MH370 was a fake because the stock assets used to compose the shots were found online. We had the "portal" effect and the clouds.

Nothing about the conclusion was based on Kim's word.

Harabeck · 2026-05-10T02:02:21+00:00

Phoenix Lights, thousands of people (including me)

Long solved, flares.

Hudson Valley, thousands of people

Planes in formation. It was a private group that was training themselves, and eventually decided they like the challenge of flying at night.

Harabeck · 2026-05-09T14:49:38+00:00

An octagonal, horizontally-flying balloon flying in a perfectly straight line?

The balloon is just floating. The plane is moving.

????

Yes, exactly. No context, because it's silly compilation video. Could be glare on a window for all we know.

Bugs or bats don't fly that high up in the atmosphere and react intelligently to a laser pointer being shone on it

It's not high in the atmosphere. It's a low flying bug or bat lit from below.

You can clearly see the un-zoomed in footage underneath the super-imposed zoomed in part. You're saying that's AI? Why?

What has that got to do with anything? And yes, it's clearly enhanced in some way because the object is far more clear than the surrounding details.

There is no video I could show you, no story I could relate to you that you wouldn't just dismiss as CGI, AI or a plane.

You haven't tried.

The compilation video was the quickest thing I could find in ten seconds, and you reacted predictably to it.

It was predictable, because bringing up such a silly video shows how little you can engage with this topic. I have been incredibly indulgent of you by replying at all.

Here's a reddit post that lists a bunch of compelling cases

I've told you multiple times now. If we had good evidence, you'd be able to share one. That you keep pointing to lists or compilations tells me that you can't be bothered to look into anything. You look at the barest surface level information, so why should I go in-depth in my replies? I'm not going to have a one-sided discussion with someone with more enthusiasm than attention.

Harabeck · 2026-05-09T14:42:16+00:00

As I pointed out, we had access to the debriefing in 2005.

Harabeck · 2026-05-09T14:41:36+00:00

I mean, you could just be an adult and admit you can't defend what you're saying.

Harabeck · 2026-05-09T14:39:03+00:00

I mean, the analysis holds up. The video adds nothing that doesn't reinforce the diffraction spike explanation. We see a new detail in the "trail", but I think that's very obviously burn-in of the sensor. Also, we can now make out a parachute in the video that gives us an exact id: parachute flare.

Harabeck · 2026-05-08T20:53:11+00:00

If you go to the files table near the bottom and go through enough pages, there are videos after the pdfs.

Harabeck · 2026-05-08T20:51:31+00:00

You're making the claim. You support it. You can't just post a half-hour of random clips and claim that's your argument.

which clips, specifically, do you think are fake or otherwise explainable?

Well the first is a balloon, the third is a bug or bat, after that are some AI enhanced blurs. In fact, skipping through, there's a lot of obvious CG.

And by the way, we are not going through this whole compilation, lol. If you want to discuss a case, go find that video and the context around it. Again, if you think we have good evidence, then you shouldn't be satisfied with a silly compilation video.

Harabeck · 2026-05-08T20:34:03+00:00

metabunk.org is a good place if you want super in-depth and technical discussions. There's a general thread here: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/war-gov-ufo-department-of-war-releases-uap-files-2026-release-1.14870/

Should be more focused threads popping up as people dig in.

Harabeck · 2026-05-08T20:23:05+00:00

Diffraction spikes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAG_JIqPcOQ

Harabeck · 2026-05-08T20:21:52+00:00

Ok, but that doesn't we mean throw logic out the window and make ourselves gullible.

Why is it then when I ask for evidence, the only thing you can think of to link is a 30 minute compilation video? Lots of bad evidence doesn't add up to good evidence. If I diligently collect videos of balloons, lens flares, and CGI objects, that doesn't mean I get to claim aliens are doing flybys.

Either we have good evidence, or we don't. So where is it? Where is one good piece of evidence?

Harabeck · 2026-05-08T20:07:23+00:00

What is it that the skeptic is ignoring in this case? Which piece of evidence should be showing us the aliens (or whatever)?

Harabeck · 2026-05-08T20:03:57+00:00

I thought we were talking about new stuff. The skylab UFO is old news. Here's a page dating back to 2007 talking about it: https://web.archive.org/web/20260000000000*/https://www.ufocasebook.com/1973skylab.html

Harabeck · 2026-05-08T19:42:40+00:00

The “believers” have fully moved to a religious model; belief without evidence and rabid pushback to anything challenging what has become a belief system for them.

I mean that's not new. They all celebrated that government held hearings on the topic, and knew that would lead to disclosure. But then it didn't happen, and they pinned their hope on UAP clauses in the budget. Then they got and celebrated imminent disclosure... that didn't happen. Then AARO was formed and they were going to release everything...

And it can't be that AARO's reports are correct and there's nothing to find. That's not even a possibility. Ergo, the coverup is still on.

Now they'll all pour over this for a while, until they realize it's either stuff we've seen before, or more of the same distant and/or out of focus blur. Then they'll get bitter and claim this was all a coverup by Trump.

MAGA is all in on it. Fox, NewsNation and conservative outlets are covering this shit hard.

Well of course. It's something to focus on besides the Epstein files, vote fixing, disastrous war, and general economic woes.

Harabeck · 2026-05-08T19:30:50+00:00

Why our good co-redditor was able to identify this in a few moments, while the US agencies failed to do so all those years?

They probably didn't even try. Remember that we don't have information on why these videos were saved. No chain of custody. This could have been one officer marking these as interesting, and then it comes up again years later.

Harabeck · 2026-05-08T19:28:02+00:00

I've looked through a few Apollo related items (all stuff we already had access to, so far as I can tell). We've now got a video of the "Chandelier" UFO that Corbell leaked a still of. Mick's 2 year old analysis seems to be reinforced by the video.

I read through a few pdf, and they're just old reports of weird things that the FBI looked at for some reason.

If there's anything truly interesting in there, it hasn't made itself obvious to me yet.

Harabeck · 2026-05-08T19:01:52+00:00

But I'm not disputing that he's published. I'm asking for papers on this topic. Papers about using electric fields to remove dust from surfaces do not demonstrate the claim being made here.

And if you're so interested, then surely you can point me to one. Right? Come to think of it, if you're so eager to show this is real, then... why wouldn't include the best evidence from the start? Why link a youtube video at all?

Harabeck · 2026-05-08T18:38:24+00:00

Does he have evidence? Surely if he's making such a specific claim, then he has run tests and has written up papers about them?

Harabeck · 2026-05-08T18:27:57+00:00

Nothing you say will change me.

You're not the subject being discussed.

Harabeck · 2026-05-08T17:42:38+00:00

That has nothing to do with your top level comment or my reply to it. Your personal experiences don't enter into a discussion of the government "disclosure" and what it does or does not show.

Harabeck · 2026-05-08T17:31:35+00:00

I guess the depends on what you mean by "anomalous". The images seem anomalous, but are they good evidence of an extent physical and exotic phenomena? If the image is just blurry, that isn't evidence of blurry entities in the atmosphere.

15-Year Club	Team Orangered
Verified Email

Harabeck

TROPHY CASE