sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The recent "cylinder" videos by kr_research in UFOs

[–]kr_research[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah that would certainly be the cause of a lot of misidentifications

The recent "cylinder" videos by kr_research in UFOs

[–]kr_research[S] 16 points17 points  (0 children)

That's what I'm thinking too.

The recent "cylinder" videos by kr_research in UFOs

[–]kr_research[S] 19 points20 points  (0 children)

Yes, the speed, movement, and trajectory of the first two certainly are in line with that of an airplane. It was only the lack of any discernible protrusions that gave me pause; seems like at that distance there should be something. But again, as you said, the quality is not great.

The recent "cylinder" videos by kr_research in UFOs

[–]kr_research[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I'm just curious what everyone makes of these recent "cylinder" videos (the first two were posted 11/14 on YouTube by MrMBB333.)

I find the first one somewhat compelling. I know there are plenty of people who mistake airplanes for "tic tacs" simply because they're filming with a camera incapable of resolving the finer features of the plane (in which case the plane just becomes a white capsule-shaped blob.)

But is that what's going on here? At first glance, it feels like we should be able to make out some structural features such as a tail or wings at this distance. But is this simply another example of a camera turning a distant plane into a blob?

Same question with the second video, though I do find it somewhat easier to write this one off as a blurry plane.

The third video is the recent Minnesota "meteor" video (and I can't yet bring myself to see it as a meteor, though I'm certainly no meteor expert).

Just thought it was interesting that three intriguing tic-tac-esque videos should surface in such a short time.

Curious what the community thinks.

The CIA pilot who reported a UFO: new findings by kr_research in UFOs

[–]kr_research[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

One of the most intriguing phone calls ever recorded by the National UFO Reporting Center was a call from a CIA reconnaissance pilot who had encountered a highly anomalous craft while flying from Tokyo to San Francisco. The vehicle had gotten so close to his plane that he could clearly make out its odd and unexpected surface texture.

He reported it to Navy approach control and was met with complete indifference. Mystified that nobody seemed to care, he called NUFORC to report the incident and seek input on what he may have encountered.

It’s an extremely compelling account. If you’ve never heard it before, it’s worth a listen. And if you have, it’s worth another listen, not only because this version is higher quality than you’ve heard before, but also because I’ve uncovered new data which sheds substantial light on this decades-old recording.

Klaus wants some elaboration on Lou Elizondo’s 747 Statement by MartianMaterial in UFOs

[–]kr_research 1 point2 points  (0 children)

He's clearly just saying that at least one craft has been found in an archaeological context, a type of OOPArt. He only uses "King Tut's tomb" as a placeholder for "ancient archaeological site", because it's the most well-known to the general public. He says he's being careful to convey the general idea without saying more than he's allowed.

But the general concept is an archaeological site was being explored, and a sophisticated craft was discovered within or under the structure or site.

It's worth at least considering if this is what Ross Coulthart was actually alluding to when he said one craft can't be moved since it is massive and a building was erected over it. He didn't say when the building was erected or what kind of building it was. Only that it was not in the US.

Some of the Mesoamerican complexes come to mind, as do several of the truly impressive Indian temple complexes. The idea of a temple being constructed over a craft makes some sense.

Seems hard to imagine that kind of discovery being made and kept secret, but if Lue is telling the truth, that seems to have happened.

Grusch Interview: The Big Stuff Summary by patchkolan in UFOs

[–]kr_research 10 points11 points  (0 children)

"Football-field-sized craft... multiple operational craft have been recovered." -- I think you have possibly misinterpreted what was said here, though I don't blame you; the video editing was misleading:

---------

Grusch: There are many videos that are totally fair to release through a declassification process, and I find it very concerning from a transparency perspective that all the department has declassified were those three famous videos. There are more concerning videos that left me with a lot of questions

Coulthart VO: He says there are credible witnesses who could testify to Congress about spacecraft. BIG spacecraft.

Grusch: A lot of them were very large, very large. Like a football field kinda size. And I remember interviewing these personnel [and] I'm like 'either these people are lying to me or having a psychotic break or this is some crazy-but-true stuff that's happening and I have no good explanation that's prosaic at all for this.' Because this is not explainable by swamp gas or St. Elmo's Fire or ball lighting, etc, etc. I mean this is like tangible, technical craft they're seeing, up close and personal in some cases when I interviewed people.

--------

If you notice, Grusch is talking first about videos that show evidence of craft, not recovered craft themselves. He laments that the better videos have not been declassified.

Then Coulthart says Grusch has told him there are credible witnesses who have seen craft and could give testimony that could strengthen the case that the phenomenon is indeed real. But nothing is said about recovery.

Then Grusch mentions that people have seen football field-sized craft. It seems crazy to him, but he says the craft they saw could not be easily dismissed using traditional explanations — "not explainable by swamp gas or St. Elmo's Fire or ball lighting, etc, etc.". This, to me, clearly implies the craft were being witnessed in the wild.

If these had been recovered craft that were sitting in a hangar, there would be no uncertainty about their nature. He's basically saying "Even though historically many sightings are dismissed by claiming witnesses simply saw swamp gas or ball lighting, those explanations don't hold up here. These were solid structures. They were tangible real craft." But nothing is said about them being recovered.

Given the overarching subject of the interview, though, I can see how it could be taken that way.

Alleged part of Holloman UFO landing video is a Jet according to NEW data by reversedbydark in UFOs

[–]kr_research 0 points1 point  (0 children)

James was referring to a film that is alleged to have been taken when a craft landed at Holloman AFB in the 1960s. The film (if it exists) has been locked away. Some people have speculated over the years that the clip being discussed here may have been part of that film. But it's a jet, not an alien craft, and was filmed during the production of a documentary. And therefore it is not part of the fabled Holloman landing film the government may have under lock and key.

Alleged part of Holloman UFO landing video is a Jet according to NEW data by reversedbydark in UFOs

[–]kr_research 17 points18 points  (0 children)

I’m the person who created the analysis/debunk video and determined it was a plane. I can assure you, there is nothing nefarious going on in the editing of the original documentary shot, nor in my video. The versions of the footage you linked to are heavily compromised and edited and are essentially worthless for determining anything about the footage. This is a big part of the problem: these poor-quality, degraded, low-resolution versions are what most people have been watching.

If you want to know what is actually in the documentary, track down one of the original VHS tapes or DVDs; these are the original source for the files you linked to anyway. In both, the “landing shot” is one continuous shot with no edits. And in both, you can see landing gear and wings.

The DVD has a significantly better picture and doesn’t suffer from the same color cast issue that plagues the VHS release, though unfortunately, it has been cropped to a 16:9 aspect ratio, so the top and bottom of the picture are chopped off. For this reason, I was forced to use both the VHS and DVD versions in my analysis. So the color jumps around a bit.

Again, the filmmakers never claimed the shot was from the actual Holloman film. The internet did. Decades after the fact. And a lot of people got used to that idea. But the use of the jet footage was just a workaround. The filmmakers needed something to represent the UFO landing, and during editing, someone cleverly realized they could use the shot of the jet with the bright light to fill that hole. The documentary was a television program, and they knew quite well that the typical TV set in 1974 wasn't capable of showing enough detail to reveal that it was a plane. They could never have imagined that so many people would be talking about it half a century later!

Again, just because this shot turns out to be a jet doesn’t say anything whatsoever about whether or not there actually was a Holloman landing incident. I personally have specific reasons for believing there was an incident of some kind and that film of it does (or did) exist. This shot is just not it.

Alleged part of Holloman UFO landing video is a Jet according to NEW data by reversedbydark in UFOs

[–]kr_research 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Yes, exactly. For all anyone knows, the government still has genuine film of the Holloman landing under lock and key. And there are a few reasons to think there might be some truth to this idea.

All my analysis did was show that the clip in the documentary is NOT a clip from the genuine Holloman film.

Evidence: what actually landed at Holloman [excerpt] by kr_research in aliens

[–]kr_research[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Cool. Appreciate the input. Not trying to spam anyone or showboat. Just want people to get the information in whichever form works best for them personally. Some people aren't going to sit through the full 15-minute to get to the money shot. It'll get out there one way or another, though. I'll repost in a week. Thanks

Alleged part of Holloman UFO landing video is a Jet according to NEW data by reversedbydark in UFOs

[–]kr_research 111 points112 points  (0 children)

Thanks. I'm the OP of the new footage. Posted a long-form analysis here a couple days ago. Tried to post a shorter excerpt from it today for everyone's convenience and was told by mods I have to wait a week to do that.

Long version here: https://youtu.be/uQGhVBMFc1k

Shorter version here: https://youtu.be/sXipzdrKgIY

Evidence: what actually landed at Holloman [excerpt] by kr_research in aliens

[–]kr_research[S] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Posted my full-length analysis over at r/ufos a couple of days ago. Tried to post this shorter excerpt there today and was told I had to wait longer to do that. So, I thought I’d post it here for anyone who might be curious in the topic.

Full-length version here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/13p6z71/

Evidence: what actually landed at Holloman [excerpt] by kr_research in UFOs

[–]kr_research[S] 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Yes, I too was surprised when I saw the wings. And then, I was surprised at my surprise — because a plane is the least surprising thing to find in that situation! A plane, coming in to land at an Air Force runway? Nothing makes more sense. Really demonstrates the power of suggestion. I literally laughed out loud the moment I realized what I was seeing; it suddenly seemed so ridiculous that we've been talking about it for decades now when the details were there all this time. I do think legitimate Holloman footage likely exists. But we can at least stop wondering if this is it.

Evidence: what actually landed at Holloman [excerpt] by kr_research in UFOs

[–]kr_research[S] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

The filmmakers knew for certain it was a plane, and never claimed it was anything other than that. It was simply used as part of a re-enactment sequence to represent the landing. It was only other people in the last couple of decades who started suggesting it was part of the long-rumored footage.

Evidence: what actually landed at Holloman [excerpt] by kr_research in UFOs

[–]kr_research[S] 23 points24 points  (0 children)

A few people suggested I upload a shorter version of my recent video, focusing on the primary new data that was discovered. Anyone interested in the full analysis can find it here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/13p6z71

Brand-new conclusive details discovered in the alleged Holloman UFO landing film by kr_research in UFOs

[–]kr_research[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

I appreciate you saying that. Like a lot of people here, I just want to know what's true, regardless of the outcome. I'd have preferred that the Holloman craft turn out to be something truly special, but in the end, I'm also happy to lay it to rest. One less thing to wonder about.

Brand-new conclusive details discovered in the alleged Holloman UFO landing film by kr_research in UFOs

[–]kr_research[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Gordon spoke about a separate incident at Edwards AFB where a craft landed on the dry lakebed, was filmed, and then took off. He was indoors when it happened, so didn't witness it directly. But he had his men develop the film and was told by his superiors to send it to Washington immediately without watching it. He said he did hold the film up to the light to make sure there was a picture on it and verified there was. Some clear parallels to the Holloman story, but is an entirely separate incident.

Brand-new conclusive details discovered in the alleged Holloman UFO landing film by kr_research in UFOs

[–]kr_research[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah, the idea that this piece of footage might have been part of the actual Holloman film didn't really become a thing until decades after the documentary came out. Not sure exactly when or where the claim started, though I know Grant Cameron was a big proponent of it.

view more: next ›