Pentagon Admits UFO's are real

Post Reply New Topic

I have tapped in on a lot of UFO stuff, but I had never heard of the Cape Girardeau crash.

http://www.stantonfriedman.com/index.ph ... 2011.01.07

Comments? Also it's ludicrous that an MS would have been put on the project and not a PhD.

The way I see it the aliens are not stupid and cloak themselves so are never seen by us. The UFO phenomena is man-made.
In the early part of WWII the aliens (via the Grays) contacted the Nazis as they were winning the war and made a deal to prevent them from developing nuclear weapons. In return the Grays provided the Nazis with blueprints for making V2 rockets which were then mass produced by Wernher Von Braun. I think they were also given the technology to develop drones which explains the appearance of the so called "foo fighters" to Allied aircraft.

When the Americans entered the war the aliens shifted to negotiating with the yanks. When the Americans dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki they gave them saucer technology which Oppenheimer began work on. One of the first things the US troops were tasked with doing was infiltrating Germany in 1945 and evacuating Wenher Von Braun and his colleagues in the Nazi rocket program and relocated them and their rocket program to White Sands New Mexico.

Von Braun worked with Oppenheimer and other ex-Nazi engineers to back engineer the technology provided by the aliens in nearby Nevada in a base called Area 51. In 1947 some of their back engineered test craft were witnessed by pilot Kenneth Arnold who coined the term "flying saucer" and then in 1948 one of their craft crashed in Roswell New Mexico and was covered up.

In my view all of the UFOs witnessed have been back engineered black projects which explains the huge NSA budget. However the craft that visit space launch sites, nuclear warships and aicraft and nuclear weapon facilities are aliens who maintain monitoring to prevent some idiot from launching these weapons which guarantee mutually assured destruction of all life on earth.

It would be fair to say Stanton Friedman (who coincidentally is also an MS ) is not on good terms with Bob Lazar since the whole UFO disclosure project in 2001.

Friedman is a strong supporter of alien abduction and even claims to know which planets the aliens are from....

Friedman has not claimed to work on reverse engineering alien technology, a project that would not be given to an M.S. His degrees and affiliations have a paper trail unlike Lazar's.

The only reason to believe Lazar is not a fraud is that the government has deliberately covered his past up and replaced scant records with fake ones such that it looked like he was not credible.

The simpler explanation (even if you believe in UFOs) is that he is a fraud.

His description of the gravitational reactor was laughable. Couldn't touch it because it was emitting a gravitational field. Nevermind that every known gravitational field pulls things toward it. There is no known anti-gravity. Second gravity functions as an inverse square law. If the anti-gravity was strong enough to prevent the relatively small Lazar from touching it, it would shoot away from the Earth at the same distance at a rapid acceleration. Using his magnets analogy it be the equivalent of forcing a small magnet away from it while not interacting at all with a GIGANTIC magnet of the same polarity right next to it.

I know, I know "Physics beyond human understanding." Also known as "Any inconsistencies we can wish away."

I think theres' something weird with Bob Lazar's claims but he has been instrumental in getting members of the US government and military to disclose an intentional cover up under the guise of national security.

I don't know what kinda stuff you're smoking, but I want some!

Last edited by naturalplastic on 23 Jun 2019, 12:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Speaking of inconsistencies no one has explained to me how the UFOs in the declassified videos are at completely opposite ends of the temperature spectrum according to the IR sensors.

It sure seems like a good stradagey to discredit someone in the days of paper trails being mostly the only kind of information that existed to prove someone's history. What's more likely, that a kid building rockets in his garage never got a college degree? Or how a news paper article claims he worked for a company which messed around with particle accelerators yet the company has no record of him working there, yet an old phone book also has him listed as an employee of the company? There is a news article they presented that labeled him as an employee of a company which states he never worked there. That would seem to be an attempt to cover up his history, and it fits logically. If someone is disclosing something so secret that the government is doing and can't kill him because he already exposed the details to the public and media claiming he fears his life, it seems trying to erase his credentials would be a smart thing to do. There are many things that stuck out to me with his story, like speaking about a particular place in which people didn't publicly know to exist, using machines people didn't know existed (hand scanner), knowing which company actually hires people for work at area 51. To me it's like saying OJ was innocent. Maybe that's true, but not likely. Thus people flip it, we'll there is no conviction of OJ, so it's likely he is innocent. Probably not the best analogy., but I'm sure you can understand what I'm saying.

As for UFO'S, I don't really like trying to pin certain things down as to say that our government is making deals with aliens, while that could be possible I haven't seen anything that would strongly suggest that, and I'm not big on watching UFO documentaries, there are too many cheesy commentators with big eyeballs that are just too off putting for me with the mystical sci-if music in the background, which is why I like the Rogan interview rather than the documentary about the same thing. It's easy to make a bunk video, it's easier to read people in a legit interview. The guy seemed pretty legit to me and not once did I sense that he was trying to BS his way through the interview. The guy that made the documentary was one of those people that I just dislike, too over the top like the "ancient alien astronaut theorist" with the funny hair due. Those kind of people are just too wacky and to sure that everything they say is 100% correct, no other possibility. The Bob Lazar guy didn’t come off that way at all, to me he came off as just an honest person describing something that happend in his life which he tried to get out mainly so he couldn't be flat out killed by our government. To me, he seemed legitimately honest.

I have seen a suposed UFO. My experience wasn't as cool as others, I just saw a light in the sky moving slowly, it just looked like a star but slowly moving. I tried to point it out to my friend and it zipped off. I have seen many shooting stars, they leave trails where material is burning off of them, it didn't. It wouldn't had been such a reassuring event had it not happend again within 10 minutes. On the way back from the store I saw the slow moving star again, pointed it out to my friend saying there it is again. This time he saw it also and it zipped off again with no trail like a shooting star.

My mom went to school in Bahrain, she said that one night her and like 30 other people were watching many UFO'S doing all kinds of crazy s**t for a couple of hours, and no they weren't on LSD. My mom has only smoked hash a couple of times, other than that she doesn't do drugs and rarely drinks, never gets drunk. She said they were zipping all around, changing colors and shape, which all they were able to see was the lights. But as many UFO reports go, they would zip across the sky, sometimes making sharp turns at extremely high speeds, changing colors and all. She doesn't lie and she is my mom, she certainly didn't seem as if she was making it up and I know she wouldn't, she is very honest and straight forward, to an obnoxious degree.

If I knew what you were talking about I would attempt to. So are you saying the real conspiracy is the government pretending to hide that they are hiding evidence of unidentified flying objects that they can't explain? What purpose would it serve? Or the incidents that really have nothing to do with the military like the event that occured at an airport that tucker Carlson spoke about in that news broadcast I presented?

Please provide evidence that any of the above are true. Your fellow UFOlogist provides evidence that the man Lazar name dropped is working at a small technical college. That the phonebook shows that he worked for a contractor that worked with Los Alamos (and not the lab itself.)

I can guarantee I know a lot more about classified government science than most, as several members of my family have actually worked in it. I don't know the particulars of what they worked on for obvious reasons, but I do know that like most of science M.S. are treated like elite grunts while Ph.Ds are in charge of all the high-value projects. If you need something technically difficult that has been done before give it to an M.S. If you need something technically difficult that has a novelty factor to it, give it to a Ph.D. Something as difficult as reverse engineering alien technology would have been given to a Ph.D. without a doubt.

I could also take issue with his description of the security clearance process, but have to conced it may be different if you're working in a super-secret alien facillity.

And his description gravity reactor makes no sense...

I know I know "Physics beyond modern human understanding." Or the guys a fraud.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/ ... 41a8ebaa7f

This article shows the two declassified videos presented by a man whose organization is trying to get attention to this topic. The first is the infamous San Diego episode. In it the sensor is in "Black mode" where hot objects are shown as black and cold objects are shown as white. The UFO is white against a black ocean. This indicates the UFO is much colder than the ocean.

In the second the sensor is in "White Mode" where hot objects are shown as white and cold objects are shown as black. The UFO is bright white against a less white cloud background. This indicates the UFO is much hotter than the clouds.

As I said in my post 2-3 pages ago, common sense dictates that what is observed in each of these videos is not the same type of object.

I'm nor really big on picking apart things. I haven't watched the videos they released. My grandfather suposively worked with the CIA, I didn't hear anything about that until he died.I do not know anything about how the CIA opperates.


So in white mode the UFO is hotter than cold clouds. In black mode the UFO is colder than a warm ocean? I'm just trying to understand what that says. So the UFO is colder than the ocean but warmer than the clouds, is that right? How is that an issue.

Now if the background was the ocean in both photos, one showing the ocean hotter than the UFO and the other showing the ocean colder than the UFO I would say you are on to something. But what I see is the UFO is colder than the ocean but warmer than the clouds. Is it strange for clouds to be colder than the ocean or am I just misunderstanding something?

Listed in order of warmth. ..

Ocean being the warmest, UFO coming in second, clouds being the coldest.

Two different videos from two different incidents. They use different IR filters so they look different. By the way both clouds and Ocean are liquid water so approximately the same temperature range (32-65 F or 0-20 C). Both videos switch between sensor modes so you can see that the clouds and the ocean are roughly equivalent temperature.

The point is the UFO in one video is a VERY hot image. In the other it is a VERY cold image.

Are they claiming it is the same incident or two different incidences. I'm just not seeing an issue. Both ocean temperature and cloud temperature are vary. Them both being consisted of water molecules does not make them the same temputure. Just as some ocean surfaces are warm while others are freezing cold.

It just doesn't sound like much to me, I will read the article in a little bit, I'm on my phone. But so far the only thing I'm gathering is what I stated, the ocean is the warmest, the UFO is in the middle and the clouds are the coldest. Being one is a background of ocean and the other a background of clouds, they must be two different photos right? Or does it show both clouds and ocean in both pictures, I kinda think you would had mentioned that, maybe not. They are videos also.

As far as clouds and ocean temperatures, them both being made up of water molecules has nothing to do with their temputure. In cold fronts cloud temputure are cold, in warm fronts cloud tempatures are warm. In mixed condictions, warm and cold fronts we get rough weather. Cold fronts can travel over warm oceans. Warm fronts can travel over cold oceans.

Maybe I'm just still not getting what you are saying, but I do know that clouds do not have to be similar temperatures as the ocean surface temputure they are above. I'm not real big into weather, but I am a little bit. Water vapors can't condense until they have a piece of debree to cling on to, usally dust particles Water vapors can vary extremely in temputure. So can ocean surface tempatures.

But also, cloud vapors and liquid water are not the same thing, same molecule two different states of mater, Liquid water in a liquid state, water vapors are water in a gas state, that's how I have come to understand it anyway, I'm not a scientist, but I do know that water vapor and liquid water are not the same thing and do not have to be around the same temperature. Just as you can boil a pot of water near a swimming pool, warm water vapors will travel above a cold swimming pool. The tempatures of the air the vapors are in strongly affects the temperature of the vapors. Wind also has an cooling affect on vapor temperature. I'm sure you know most of this stuff, it just stuck out as odd when you stated that clouds and the ocean surface they travel over should be roughly around the same temperature, that is not true.

Anyway. If the background of the videos is clouds in one video and ocean in the other, they are obviously recorded at different times and at different angles. The only thing I see, if it's the same object recorded around the same time is that the UFO is colder than the ocean but warmer than the clouds, it doesn't sound odd or an inconsistent. A cold front over a warm ocean with a UFO temputure somewhere in the middle.

I'll watch the videos and read the article to see if maybe I'm missing something. I'm confused a little, seems like you are saying that each video flips from white mode to black mode and that they are two different incidences in which there is a hot UFO in one video and a cold UFO in the other, so now I'm just confused on whether it's reported as one or two incidents.

There not the same. That's exactly my point. These are two videos of two different incidents capturing objects that are of completely different temperatures.

My point is the objects captured in the videos can not be the same type of object because they are wildly varying temperatures.