Pentagon Confirms Triangle UFO Video are Real Navy Videos

The Hill talks about the Pentagon confirming the 2019 “triangle” UFO video as a real navy video.

Mick West and others identified the stars in the video. They determined the number of degrees in the video.

Mick West notes the green pyramid UFO looks like bokeh which are out-of-focus plane lights. But how fast is it going, and is that speed consistent with a plane?

The circle view covers 17.2 degrees. If the object is 33000 feet of height then the object was moving at 400 knots which is normal airplane speed and altitude. The flashing would be the lights of a plane. If the object was very close then it could be slow moving drone.

Calculating speed in videos without reference points requires you know the angular field of view and either the size or the distance of the object. Since it’s out of focus we can’t tell the size, but we can estimate the distance using the average of air traffic in the area to see if the calculated speed matches that air traffic.

And it does.

The US military apparently has hundreds of videos and photos. All of the material needs to be released. The currently released information is too out of focus and needs better support to make the case that this is something exceptional.

SOURCES- Mick West, Rising, Today
Written By Brian Wang, Nextbigfuture.com

76 thoughts on “Pentagon Confirms Triangle UFO Video are Real Navy Videos”

  1. Everyone seems to assume all alien races would naturally be explorers and colonizers. I don't, for the simple reason that moving to another star means effectively exiling and excommunicating yourself from your own civilization. If you are 100 light years away from home (very close in galactic terms) then you and your descendents will never speak to anyone on your home planet ever again. Any news about your own homeworld would also be 100 years obsolete. Imagine having no knowledge about any events on earth since 1921…

    It's also guaranteed that visiting the home planet again would be impossible or at least very difficult (cryo sleep?), with the added issue that even the grandchildren of everyone you know in the colony will be dead before you could return.

    I would also suggest that launching a bunch of probes that will not report back for 100,000 years or more is kind of irrelevant. And how would it report back? Sending a large amount of data over that distance with all the stars and dust in between would take quite some tech.

    Reply
  2. Surveillance military drones? The SR71 replaced the U series spy planes and the Aurora replaced the 71. Why would anyone think the military is going to identify one of its secrets. You betcha those are unidentified, probably from another dimension or part of the distant universe.

    Reply
  3. We know that life is uncommon in the universe because life makes itself evident. The simplest life forms on the planet were capable of changing the composition of the atmosphere and a superficial analysis of earth surface immediately reveals the presence of life.
    This is even more true about civilizations: a group of hominids is very similar to all the other animals, but a group of hominids that mastered the fire can be seen from miles. Agriculture and cities change the landscape and make them visible from tens of miles away. Industrialization and electrification make our cities visible from space.
    Life consumes energy and produces ordered structures, civilizations do the same at levels that are several orders of magnitude higher and interplanetary civilizations are on another level too.
    You say:
    "If life arose on Earth after a few million years and intelligent life after 4 billion years it should mean, considering the age of the universe, that roughly two thirds of habitable planets should be at an evolutionary stage where the most advanced life is more intelligent than humans while one third should have only lifeforms less intelligent than humans. "
    We do not know that, it might have required a sample the size of the observable universe (or more) to have all the correct conditions for life and intelligence to emerge when and where they did.

    Reply
  4. I find it funny that people get hyped or surprised that its a "confirmed ufo". Lol.
    Intelligence agencies know exactly what this is, they disclose what they want when they want, you are always one step behind.

    Reply
  5. Right. We don't know the probability of life arising elsewhere. We do, however, begin to have some measure, vastly incomplete as it is, of how UNLIKELY life is elsewhere.

    While the eventual unlikelihood of another race like ourselves could make it vanishingly unlikely that there is another such race as far along as ourselves, anywhere in the observable universe, it is already well below the odds of there being even one in a galaxy the size and age of our Milky Way. Multiply the number of potential habitable planets in a galaxy, or even the observable universe, by a sufficiently small enough percentage chance, and the outcome can be below 1, and we are already at 1.

    It also is beginning to look as though we could not have arisen much earlier in the history of this galaxy than we did. This means that, in addition to being rare, we are also early. Even were we not rare, being early would be enough to explain the Fermi Paradox.

    But what are the odds of us just happening to be the first race of star travelers (assuming we do become star travelers) in this galaxy? Actually, given that we are here, it is 100%, to be precise, IF the first such race to occur in a galaxy prevents the development of any others (or we are pretty rare to begin with, or both).

    Certainly our occurrence on this planet precludes the "natural" (unassisted by us) development of any more races like ourselves while we are still here.

    Still, I watch for evidence we beat the odds. This UFO stuff isn't it.

    Reply
  6. There is just the little problem of bridging the interstellar distances. That would be the least simplest claim here. Even given the apparent speeds calculated in the Knuth et al. paper (~100 km per sec) it would take around 12,000 years just to get to our closest stellar neighbour. Yes we can fantasise they can travel much faster but then we are not talking about simplest explanations are we?

    Reply
  7. I'll write here because replying seems to stop working.

    Cool that one of my favourite commenters answered me, Dr. Pat. Thanx for the effort AAA too.

    I see no problem with lumping planets together with life. Few years ago nobody knew for sure if exoplanets exist, now it's still the same with exolife, later probably with intelligent exolife.

    We have only one habitable planet well explored, all other known habitable planets are completely unexplored. Having only one example the simplest claim is this example being common. You just have to stop thinking of life as something extraordinary, because there's no compelling reason to think so except our inability to look at a second sample.

    If life arose on Earth after a few million years and intelligent life after 4 billion years it should mean, considering the age of the universe, that roughly two thirds of habitable planets should be at an evolutionary stage where the most advanced life is more intelligent than humans while one third should have only lifeforms less intelligent than humans.

    I think the idea that (intelligent) life could be extraordinary is a merely subjective psychological phenomena like an escape mechanism caused by the painful collapse of the emotionally appealing geocentric worldview.

    In other news I believe that colonization belongs to a primitive mindset that doesn't fit with a super advanced civilization.

    Reply
  8. Point 2 is to specify that even where life is present at the current level of evolution/ tech developement it can exploit only a minimal part of the available resources.
    In my opinion the "close proximity" is relevant exactly for what you stated: relatively slow probes could colonize the galaxy in few million years. So if what we supposedly see here on Earth are probes from a civilization from the other side of the galaxy a significant fraction of the planets in the galaxy should have been already colonized for hundreds of thousands of years, Given that light takes 100K years to cross the galaxy we should have already seen traces of such vast and old civilization especially because the tech for automated self repairing/replicating probes can be used to terraform any kind of planet or disassemble it to build and maintain habitats even before your specie starts to move there.
    If a civilization developed several millions years ago, we should detect traces of similar civilizations not only in our galaxy but also in nearby galaxies. We do not see any of this, so the supposed aliens are not old and do not come from very far. But that is a paradox, because if life emerged close to earth it means that is not that rare and we should still see traces of old and far civilizations in the galaxy and in other galaxies too. And we do not.

    Reply
  9. I am dubious about any UFO/ET claims I have to take issue with using a complete and utter moron like Mick West to prove a point. The guy is an absolute tool and doesn't know anything .

    Reply
  10. Distractions are a convenience for those already in positions of authority who will be injured by effects of harmful policy decisions. These distractions are often the result of self-promotion. Catastrophic Global Warming has been the big one, but it is losing its mojo.
    This is better and much cheaper than bread and circuses.
    The scenarios are not credible. We are either being visited routinely by an advanced civilization, or human time-travelers.
    Any alien civilization would need to have mastery of warp drive systems and are content to leave us relatively at peace, while sending their probes or research ships to test our extremely primitive defenses.
    The more likely explanation is that someone is working on a book deal. And I expect that in the coming months, when people are trying to re-enter a weak job market, there will be more FUD. And when it becomes harder to pay down the debt or sell bonds the bill shall become due. First on the chopping block will be Defense and NASA, but they are actually very small parts of a very large budget, and they will need to reduce social services. It will all be dressed up as making the filthy rich pay their fair share, but in truth the burden will fall on us plebs, as always.
    Lots more FUD will be needed to keep the masses at bay, maybe even a major conflict.
    You should take the red pill.

    Reply
  11. The main event is the Nimitz incident in 2004. There you had multiple eyewitnesses, radar, and video. All three, so it’s very difficult for the debunkers to debunk. They are left saying things like it was a radar glitch, even though it was an AEGIS combat system where the radar was recalibrated just to make sure there wasn’t any error.

    And the two pilots at very different altitudes both saw the same thing. So there goes your bokey wokey.

    Reply
  12. I have no idea whether you are claiming these UFO reports are fake to distract us from the REAL story, or whether you are claiming that these debunking videos are produced by the USN, or the Aliens, to stop us realizing they really are out there.

    Congratulations: a sufficiently vague dismissal could mean anything.

    Reply
  13. If there really was an alien spaceship visiting our solar system, would they hang around a dead planet Mars, or the much more interesting live planet Earth?

    Reply
  14. It's clear you don't understand even the basics, which is probably why you don't listen to Mick. 

    Firstly, the FLIR speed is the speed of the observing aircraft, not the object it is tracking. The 220 knts is the observer.

    Secondly, it is elementary that angular velocity is independent of the distance from axis of rotation. No range required.

    Why keep commenting on these videos when you clearly have no idea?

    Reply
  15. "It's not about believing, it's about considering the data for what it is. "
    You're doing the same thing.

    "The paper you posted assumes tracking was lost because the object moved and not because of the concurrent change in FLIR video modes, which can also cause loss of trackin"
    Prove it.

    "As I said, it's only by actually understanding the arguments that you can appreciate them. If you can't understand them then why comment?"
    I'd say the same thing to you.

    Reply
  16. Nobody said that. But 250mph is not a bird or balloon as some have claimed.
    It's also a little funny that it was able to pull that kind of speed while being colder than the surrounding air and ocean and had no visible sign of propulsion. Just sayin'.

    Reply
  17. I don't really get the relevance of point 2.

    And the "close proximity" thing is a bit misleading too.

    As has been calculated repeatedly, even a 0.1% of C expansion (say of self replicating robot probes) occupies the entire galaxy within a short fraction of the galactic age.

    Reply
  18. Your comments are coming off a bit off putting.
    Sorry if you are innocent, but a comment like

    we should have assumed planets and life are common too

    looks like someone attempting a rhetorical trick.

    Mixing up one thing, planets, that everyone knows are common, with a very different thing life where there is zero proof at all.

    That's the sort of thing that spam advertising does to try to trick people into accepting extraordinary claims.

    Watch your sentence construction or you'll come across as someone trying to pull a fast one.

    Likewise the claim that "these blurry photos are not proof of alien visitors buzzing navy ships" is not equivalent to "we know humans are the only intelligence in the galaxy". It's a poor attempt at a strawman and it'll just generate pushback, not honest debate.

    Reply
  19. I don't think any serious claim was made that the actual speeds defied physics. (ie. light speed) It was the accelerations that were the problem.

    Reply
  20. Approx 100 meters, naked eye. My comment was to note the nav lights. Thus from my own experience whether the craft has blinking nav lights or not does nothing to help identify it.

    Reply
  21. I remember claims being made that whatever these things are they travel at ungodly speeds that defy physics. 250mph isn't impressive for an aircraft and it certainly doesn't defy physics.

    Reply
  22. were you looking at it through some optical device or with the naked eye? I don't mean to be rude but I don't consider 2nd hand narrative accounts as reliable evidence. If I were to see an alien craft tomorrow over my head I would be a believer but I would also completely understand that nobody in their right mind should believe me just because I made a claim. Its just not reasonable. We need compelling evidence.

    Reply
  23. It's not about believing, it's about considering the data for what it is. The paper you posted assumes tracking was lost because the object moved and not because of the concurrent change in FLIR video modes, which can also cause loss of tracking. As I said, it's only by actually understanding the arguments that you can appreciate them. If you can't understand them then why comment?

    Reply
  24. It's clear you don't understand even the basics, which is probably why you don't listen to Mick. 

    Firstly, the FLIR speed is the speed of the observing aircraft, not the object it is tracking. The 220 knts is the observer.

    Secondly, it is elementary that angular velocity is independent of the distance from axis of rotation. No range required.

    Why keep commenting on these videos when you clearly have no idea?

    Reply
  25. People are saying things based on the videos. If they haven’t figured out that the videos don’t show anything abnormal then they will be sincere. Most of the videos were shot at night when an independent visual was not possible.

    Reply
  26. For several minutes in 1996 I watched a large triangle hovering only 100 meters above my head. Besides the cluster of 5 very large lights underneath there were navigation lights blinking rapidly on the wingtips.
    Why the lights, I don't know ? But the triangle was real and it exhibited behavior no aircraft can mimic.

    Reply
  27. We have no estimate of the probability of life emerging somewhere else. Everything we see points to:
    1) Life is rare and indeed it occurred only once in the hundreds of bodies on the solar system
    2) On the planet where life occurred it occupies a very small fraction of the mass of such planet
    3) Intelligent life, on the same planet occurred only in very closely related species of which only one survived
    4) In the approx 300.000 of the existence of such specie only the last few thousands saw certain degrees of technological development.
    5) Tech development capable of making us noticeable are at best 100 years old and our space exploration is approx 50 years old (I count from the moon landing milestone)

    Everything suggests that life is rare and any meaningful exploration of space is prohibitively rare.

    You claim that all this happened twice (in close proximity)

    I claim that intelligent life occurred here and being not perfect sometimes people make mistakes and believe they saw something while it was something else.

    Until you can prove that emergence of life is easy, an so it is the occurrence of intelligent interstellar civilizations capable of visiting us, my hypothesis remains the simpler one

    Reply
  28. The triangle UFO is already proven to be plane with a bokeh artifact. Mick West and fellow debunkists already proved this. They even re-created the illusion with a lense with a triangular aperture.

    Reply
  29. Its so clearly bokeh in that "pyramid" video. That doesn't mean that whatever the out of focus object is has to be a mundane object like a plane. But the fact that it blinks like a commercial aircraft is another tell. Where exactly is this compelling proof other than what some people claim they saw?

    Reply
  30. Not true! Self similarity says from the moment we knew stars are common we should have assumed planets and life are common too. Everything else is an extraordinary claim.

    Reply
  31. I'll believe it's E.T. when China/Russia/Iran, and North Korea are liquidated . . . not tomention the Vatican, Islam religion, and religion in general is put in a museum and left there to collect dust.

    Reply
  32. A single event is simpler than two concurring events, so no. It is less extraordinary for intelligence to have evolved once rather than twice

    Reply
  33. I'm not interested in politicians' testimony as they are merely repeating that they have heard of many UFO incidents from the military. The military itself is saying they have seen many UFO incidents, and provided only blurry videos. There are also witness claims of strange sightings. Someone in the military is leaking the videos to UFO-promoter Jeremy Corbell. When these videos are analyzed, they all have mundane explanations that seem to work very well.

    Evidence I would find interesting:

    1. A non-blurry video of a craft, allowing us to make out features that show it is not a balloon/airplane/drone.
    2. Physical evidence (spaceship debris, alien DNA, etc.)
    3. Proof that a UFO has done anything other than lead a pilot on a wild goose chase and then disappear.
    Reply
  34. https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/21/10/939/htm
    " The elapsed time is modeled as a Gaussian distribution with a mean of 1±1s
     and truncated for positive values of time ( Figure 4 C). The resulting acceleration distribution was a skewed distribution of accelerations ( Figure 4 D) with a most probable acceleration of 150
    +140
    −80
    g
    , indicated in the figure by the red vertical lines and a mean acceleration of about 550g
     indicated by the black vertical dotted line. Please note that this is a lower bound, probably far below the observed acceleration if the UAV accelerated briefly as if “shot out of a rifle” and then traveled at a constant speed."

    " The results of the nested sampling analysis are listed in  Table 1 . The uncertainties in the logZ estimates (not listed) were on the order of one or less. We see that Model 4, which describes the motion of the UAV as a constant acceleration to the left and away from the observer for the first 15 frames (approximately 0.53s
    ) is the most probable solution with acceleration components of a
    x
    =−35.64±0.08g
     and a
    z
    =67.04±0.18g
     for an overall acceleration of about 75.9±0.2g
    . While Model 4 describes the data well, the residuals indicate that a more precise model would consist of multiple episodes of acceleration and deceleration during the maneuver. This was observed in SCU’s analysis [ 22 ] where the accelerations were estimated to vary from around 40 to 80 g."

    Brief bio on the lead:
    https://www.albany.edu/physics/faculty/kevin-

    Reply
  35. Also, the paper published in entropy by Univ of Albany Physics Dept that was posted on this site showed FLIR1's object to be pulling, conservatively, 80 g's. Who are we gonna believe? The amateur that doesn't know you need a range to calculate angular velocity or the physicists that ran an actual kinematics analysis?

    Reply
  36. Why no aliens in New Horizon's data? How about at Mars Curiosity or Perseverence rovers? Or the new China lander/rover? Or, how about no Alien sightings with the China Rover on the far side of the moon?

    Reply
  37. See, this is where Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Proof. Dozens of things are shown on radar, but not in the visual. The visual shows a single triangular shape which could be some kind of kite or glider, but the visual is of poor quality, which is all too common with UFO "evidence".

    Reply
  38. Agreed.

    My question is: are these witnesses loonies from a Youtube channel?

    The source matters. That's what seems to be different this time.

    Reply
  39. I don't listen to Mick anyways because half of what he says makes no sense.
    He thought Go Fast was a balloon even though the FLIR says it's pulling 220knts. Really impressive balloon there.
    He thought FLIR1 was pulling like a quarter degree/sec, even though he has no range provided.

    He's an amateur, former video game programmer, not an expert. The experts have no idea what these are.

    Reply
  40. And former DNI Ratcliffe that said there was radar, FLIR, satellite imagery, etc.

    I mean, the US government is saying "we have no idea what these are but they are doing things WE don't have"

    Reply
  41. My first thought was a lens flare (you see a few on the left as well). but it looks like Russell and Omaha were swarmed by…dozens of things on radar.

    Reply
  42. Couldn't this "Triangle UFO" just be a hang-glider or kite of some kind?

    Those things are usually triangular, and they're not radically rare thigns to see in the sky. If I were to look up in the sky at night, and see some triangular thing floating above me, I'd think it was a hang-glider or kite.

    Reply
  43. Does a craft have to land on your lawn? There has been testimony by Harry Reid, Obama, John podestA, and hundreds of pilots and military personnel. Plus apparently thousands of pictures and videos

    Reply
  44. So if nobody claimed that we can go with the simplest explanation:

    Some other people with cool gear trying to have fun and see something of the galaxy.

    Of course the small isolated amazonian tribe too has mostly people who think bad eyesight from foul fish is more realistic than planes.

    Reply
  45. The existence of UAPs isn't controversial. People turning every fuzzy video into signs of alien space craft is a serious mental condition.

    Reply
  46. There is still no compelling information that has been provided. There is some blurry video and some claims by witnesses. There is a separate video of radar tracking some small, slow-moving objects. None of this really adds up to anything. Unless the government is going to provide some actual hard information, I'm going to have to continue to consider UFOs to be merely mundane issues of mistaken identity and sensor glitches.

    Reply
  47. Good. Go debunk them then.

    But the problem of what their motivations are for saying something is true, when it really isn't, remains.

    Or you can take it at face value and accept they are truthful while saying it is something they recorded and that they don't know what it is.

    Reply
  48. I'd agree.

    Of course there are internal public health issues that every government is probably concentrating on at this time.

    Not a good time to try to grab that bit of interesting border territory, that nearby island, that province that recorded legends from 535 AD clearly says belonged to [a country with a similar name and position to our current nation] so it still belongs to us.

    https://www.heroicage.org/issues/15/green.php

    Reply
  49. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

    Like, for example, the theory that humans are the only intelligent species in the galaxy.

    Reply
  50. No, it's about taking the data those videos represent seriously. By that I mean analysing them at depth. Turns out it doesn't take that much to show they are mundane.

    As for the oral and radar accounts, I will grant that this is more compelling. Nevertheless, people need to get a grip when it comes to the videos.

    Reply
  51. I guess it's a matter of trust.

    If you think your government and its officials always lie, then you won't see anything they show and say as valid proof. There is a lot of people sharing this view nowadays.

    But if you accept some of these people are professionals and that they are earnest and baffled as anyone else, then you might admit some of these are actual evidence of something really odd going on.

    Reply
  52. If you think it's about whether the cloud rotates or not you either aren't listening to what Mick is saying or you do not understand it (at all).

    Reply
  53. It's funny to think we might be about to face an official admission by authorities that UAPs exist and that they don't know who or what they are.

    Harder to see an admission from them that they might know who or what a few of these actually are (or were). In the case there were legit UAP crashes, like the famed Roswell case.

    But I'll take whatever we get from them. It would really be an interesting new world, the one where we know there is something really unexplained out there, and that there might be other intelligences, or other orders of being that come and go as they please.

    And funny how many people make very little of it. But if confirmed, it would end up being something big, akin to the discovery of the new world, or the change from geocentric to heliocentric cosmologies. Something most people will be able to pinpoint as a big turning point in history, in retrospective.

    Reply
  54. It’s not about the cloud orientation it’s about shadings or distortions due the dirt etc on the lens. So you have to look at disperseparts of the image rotating, not the main objects such as clouds. Look at the background shading.

    Reply
  55. I'd say that beyond some local scandals and happenings, it's a surprisingly calm moment on the international scene.

    Reply
  56. Except it didn't.
    How about you do this-
    Screen cap how you think the object rotates WITH the thing because I just described the exact opposite. It literally ends up at a 90 to the cloud layer.

    Reply
  57. Indeed you would have thought that about the DoD. But the DoD did not officially release these videos as evidence of ETs. Only unidentifiable objects. Given just an infrared glare it is indeed difficult to identify this object. But does it suggest ET? No.

    Reply
  58. So you’re going to deny your own eyes? Are you actually denying elements of the field of view rotate with the “UFO”?

    Reply
  59. No you can't. You have a cloudline in the background and the object is pitched at 30 or so degrees and rotates counter clockwise til it is at a 90 with it.
    You'd think the pilots and analysts at the DoD would have been like "Oh, ok. Just an artifact of ATFLIR" instead of "We have no idea what this is."

    Reply
  60. We went over this in the other post. He doesn’t answer the relevant question. More importantly you can see rotation of the whole field in sync with the “UFO” for yourself! Conclusive proof.

    Reply
  61. Indeed these videos by themselves are no evidence of anything unusual. You have to start to wonder about the intention or competence of those who leaked them.

    Reply
  62. lol
    Except we have radar footage of Omaha surrounded by them.
    Frankly I wouldnt take Mick's analysis. He tried calculating angular velocity without range.
    Also, he thinks Go Fast is of a balloon even though it's traveling at 250mph, per the instruments.

    Reply

Leave a Comment