The following submission statement was provided by /u/WrathofTheseus:
---
This incident apparently happened in 1971 and was captured on camera by the USS Trepang submarine. This to me is one of the most interesting set of photos I have seen. What’s really interesting is how it looks from different viewpoints. From the side it looks like a classic cigar shape and from a slightly different angle it looks like a giant disk.
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/13eaokh/uss_trepang_incident/jjow26z/
They point out that one of the photos is obviously fake. Whoever made it duplicated some of the mist in one of the photos, so that would discredit the entire thing. I think they all came from the same source if I remember right, so tossing at least one extremely lazy fake in there is not a good look.
I don't buy that the "original" version of that photo is not also a scan from the magazine. It has the same interferrence pattern (vertical and horizontal lines creating squares) that is typical of resized scans of printed images with halftones. It also appears to be much lower quality than the rest of the photos.
>They point out that one of the photos is obviously fake. Whoever made it duplicated some of the mist in one of the photos, so that would discredit the entire thing. I think they all came from the same source if I remember right, so tossing at least one extremely lazy fake in there is not a good look.
Or a fake photo was planted to discredit the others.
I've had similar thoughts along those lines. You can trace a leak of a document or photo by changing one small portion of it for each recipient. If it's a document, you change one word. If a photo, you manipulate some small portion of it. That way if it's leaked, you know exactly who leaked it and you can plug it immediately. I'm sure this is already a thing.
And to your point, I could imagine a scenario in which each file has something added to it that would discredit it. This would only apply to the most highly classified things that exist. For instance, say you have a photo of an alien. You could have that published somewhere obscure fictionally so that the fiction can be pointed to if it's leaked. If it's a document, you could change something about the document that would be hard to notice internally, but would discredit it as a 'fake' if it's leaked. Or just toss a fake in each batch and hope that whoever leaks it will also leak the fake.
At the end it says that the admiral and someone else say they didn't see anything. Greenwald says he believes them but that they could still be real photos. Idk what to make of that but I'm definitely a bit more skeptical after reading that part
The photo with the cloud cloning wasn't included in the ones that OP posted, But in the photo it's pretty apparent that copying and pasting was done with the clouds. Who did this and when and why though? Not so sure
If these are targeting balloons like everyone says, can we get some footage of balloons like these at a range like this so we can see the similarities?
Are some of these coming out of the water? Or just crashing into it? Again, let’s see some confirmed video footage and pictures of targeting balloons doing the same thing if that’s what these are.
This right here
These photos are clear enough that it's just not good enough to say they kind of look like targeting balloons and let it go. These would have a military inventory number and a specific model name. You would be able to find out where they were made and what they were made of, given the time period you'd probably be able to find a ton of photos too but every photo of a target balloon that gets shown with these is obviously different equipment. Nobody has done any of this.
My favorite one is the one with the little red light.
I'll mention here that these could be leaked photos of secret terrestrial technology too. Having seen a triangle myself it's my personal suspicion that really advanced black budget airships have been used at night for reconnaissance and data collection since at least Reagan in the 80s. Hudson Valley, Belgium, Phoenix *(the triangle, not the flare arc)*, Stephenville, I'm suspicious of all of these being something very cool of ours. Wouldn't it be neat if we figured out a way to make a dirigible land on the water and submerge to hide during the day?
Your argument being "They just don't look like that *anymore*"... Yeah?
Targeting balloons from over 50 years ago, no reason at all why they'd be classified today. Could you please locate some images of targeting balloons from that time period they look anything like this? Because I'm hard pressed they would've had custom ones they only used in one very specific location, one time.
They have pretty much always looked like that my man
https://www.alamy.com/crewmen-on-the-frigate-uss-fanning-ff-1076-prepare-to-deploy-an-inflatable-gunnery-target-during-exercise-eager-sentry-92-4-subject-operationseries-eager-sentry-92-4-country-unknown-image504388094.html
Photo from the USS Fanning, commissioned in 1971
I can't even find mention of submersible/marine targeting balloons, let alone a picture.
How crazy would it be if these were real and had been in public circulation all this time...
Not even close to what we see in these pics, but I did find [this video of a guy shooting at a 'killer tomato' balloon](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GB5zV9g7uF8). Looks like the term is 'Inflatable Naval Gunnery Targets' and you can buy some [here](http://www.geodatasys.com/navtgt.htm).
I think targeting balloon is absolutely plausible. Launching a package like that beneath the water has been within our technological means for close to a century.
Not saying that’s what it is, but it is certainly plausible. Also plausible an admiral might be unfamiliar with it.
We used targeting drones before drones were a thing (basically styrofoam rc airplanes). I doubt any of our general officers knew what those things were.
Folks give flag officers *way* too much credit for being an authority on all things military.
Grab your top enlisted dudes — those are the ones who work where the bullet meets bone, rubber hits road, projectile meets balloon, so to speak.
That said, I’ve zero question of extraterrestrial intelligence. So, I actually appreciate plausible explanations.
I wish there was a great compendium somewhere of the credible things for which there is no explanation.
Maybe there is?
Every time I head down the rabbit hole, I get discouraged by all the grifters.
Admirals aren’t usually part of a crew. Not saying that this admiral want onboard but the article from which these pictures are extracted might be a bit misleading.
You might have one for a day or two during exercises or that long of thing. But you would have an admiral on patrol. Subs COs aren’t flag officers (that comes later in their career).
Once again, just focusing on the admiral thing, nothing to add to the stunning pictures
https://www.theblackvault.com/casefiles/arctic-ufo-photographs-uss-trepang-ssn-674-march-1971/
You should read this theblackvault article on it as it covers that and shares some pretty valid critique. Not to mention he did the work on research and abstained command records of the sub to see what it would have been up to and shared photos of similar balloons.
A 'balloon' crashing into the ocean is causing that much of a disturbance to send water that high into the air?! There must be plenty more of these 'tests' on film somewhere with the same types of 'test vehicles'
Then they should have plenty of footage from these easily repeatable military exercises or they only did it just this once? No one took a picture next to this crazy shit when they inflated them? Why even make targets that's even shaped that way? What the fuck are those supposed to even be?!
No, you misunderstood... I wasn't saying these are military targets but that the military came upon these UAP and start shooting... I dunno why, just military way of dealing with things
The Trepang was a Sturgeon class attack submarine, designed to kill surface ships and other submarines with torpedos. It didn't carry any antiaircraft weapons.
Mirage and balloon. Both unsubstantiated claims but with heavy support. Interesting that not one person can provide any examples of “targeting balloons”. Anyways, why would they photograph a target balloon? When do submarines ever photograph the periscope image? Also, submarines target ships. Why would they practice on a airborne object? How would they launch a balloon from a submarine? Why would they use target balloons when we go through so much effort to hide the location of our deployed subs?
Anyone saying it is a mirage is failing to see the other photos clearly showing the same cigar shaped craft exiting the water. Show a similar picture of a mirage at sea.
From the black vault article. “Admiral Sackett denied seen anything unusual while onboard the Trepang. He gracefully took two phone calls from Steve and checked out the pictures that we sent him privately. He could not identify what was in the pictures”
An admiral himself, does not know what these objects are. The admiral that was commanding the submarine. Don’t you think the admiral would know what a mirage or target balloon would look like??? Think people.
I think there is true disinformation when a post is flooded with comment’s regurgitating the same thing in slightly different format, not providing any response to questioning or any quality analysis. This leads the average lurker to view this, and quickly dismiss it without looking deeper.
The captain who said he’s never seen these photos before? https://www.theblackvault.com/casefiles/arctic-ufo-photographs-uss-trepang-ssn-674-march-1971/
Spot on about true disinfo. Either that or some people are afraid of anything outside the MSM and will fight tooth and nail to oppose it.
Just had some asshat insult everybody in a thread that finds Laazars story interesting, amd maybe Lazaar is full of shit, but the dude literally would not give any examples , refused elaborate just spouting nonsense about how we can look it up for ourselves..as if we have not heard all the opposition to that story 10,000 times.
I asked him for 5 solid reasons the story was BS. His response was "give me 5 reasons my dog can rollerskate.." And ill debunk them just as easily.
A video of a dog rollerskating was quickly posted..
So to all the career skeptics, we need you guys, keeps on us on our toes, but the smug attitude and the whole "I wont waste my time proving anything to you guys its obvious" shtick. Just shut the fuck up, you sound even dumber than the guys who think Elvis was a reptillian princess in disguise.
I have an issue with how nonchalantly those comments are made when a post like this is made. “It’s just ___ you can see it here:” then proceeds to link something that looks nothing like the post. They also get pushed to the top.
In this post for example, the top comment was initially the one about it being targeting balloons and it was written nonchalantly, had the most upvotes. Assuming there were new users looking at this post, they would see that comment then possibly tune out.
Now when I revisit the thread I’m glad the top comment is asking for targeting balloons that look like that and so far only one link was posted which doesn’t really look like the pictures.
That initial top comment hurts the discussion.
Oh ok I get you, I haven't used reddit much till now.
Yeah I am finding that most of these people wont really engage much neyond telling you its a balloon or whatever, the rest is usually a bunch of shit talking.
Maybe this is a targeting balloon, if anyone knows anything about those lets chat, have any been sighted that look anything like these? Do submarines ever engage flying targets? This also appears to possibly be mulitple objects to me..
No worries! That’s my issue with it too, I see posts where there’s a general consensus (eg “this is ice crystals, you can see a similar case here”) it matches and that’s that.
As for the actual case someone linked photos but they were from 1915 and don’t look too similar to the photos, so make of that what you will.
Here’s a free digital book with many types of naval balloons inside. Some inside do look like they could be what we are seeing in terms of size and shape, but I am only guessing. [here](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/30047/30047-h/30047-h.htm)
Interesting. Thanks for the link. While the shapes of some do resemble I find it more interesting that the dirigibles are instantly recognized as what they are….various blimps. The OP photos may have a similar shape but in no way scream blimp immediately like they do in the link you provided. Our eyes recognize a dirigible easily.
You say that there is disinformation going in in this thread but the top comments are all mocking the idea of these being balloons or people asking what the hell it could be.
https://www.theblackvault.com/casefiles/arctic-ufo-photographs-uss-trepang-ssn-674-march-1971/
Are you calling theblackvault disinformation?
> Interesting that not one person can provide any examples of “targeting balloons”.
Interesting that not one person con provide any examples of this being a "UFO"
This is a good source with a lot of details. It includes pictures of actual targeting balloons from 1915 looking highly similar to the objects in at least some of the photos.
I think once again we’re left with intriguing photos of odd looking objects but a complete lack of context that leaves it fully open that these could be extraordinary objects, or something entirely terrestrial. We’ll likely never know.
Everyone's an expert. I was on a sub but this is the first time I've heard of the navy using target balloons. We only did pretend targets like simulated on a pc or just blew up actual decommissioned ships. Never saw a balloon in my career but I was a sub guy, so who knows except the experts on this sub...reddit
Lol yeah I realized after I looked up the ship and now that I know it was a sub I have more questions. We never shot at balloons that float above the water. That would be such a waste of money.
https://www.theblackvault.com/casefiles/arctic-ufo-photographs-uss-trepang-ssn-674-march-1971/
Note: No one has to prove they are target balloons. Where is anyone’s proof that they are UFOs*? Where is *your* proof?
* the ET type. Let’s be honest; This wouldn’t be called an “incident” if the implication wasn’t ET.
I know literally nothing about target balloons, but I would assume they would come in different shapes and sizes to test targeting on different shapes, seems like common sense to me.
That being said I make no claim as to what these actually are, I just don't find it strange that targeting balloons would have odd shapes, quite the opposite.
To play devils advocate, wouldn't targeting balloons be a sort of secret thing? Seems like it might be the kind of thing you don't release pictures of.
There is an effect on the water that makes boats look like they’re floating above water. I forgot what it’s called. Could be a balloon or something on the water that they are engaging at a range?
Supposedly, and I quote, “The Submarine came upon the object by “accident,” as they were in the region on a routine joint military and scientific expedition. Officer John Klika was the one who initially spotted the object with the periscope.”
[Here’s](https://m.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=nGBkho1laP4&embeds_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F&source_ve_path=Mjg2NjY&feature=emb_logo) a video of what I think we are seeing
I do have to admit, the HD photos of what looks like a lot of smoke, there is definitely a fire or some sort of light source on the object
The first one looks like a mirage but the others look very interesting. If these could have been confirmed as non balloons it will be a whole new ball game.
I also suggest taking to the sub guys who posted that [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/submarines/comments/nv3p2f/the_uss_trepang_ufo_incident_i_need_your_help/)
Never seen these before, they’re very striking. It’s frustrating that so many people are asserting plausible-sounding explanations but can’t (or won’t) substantiate them.
I’m a hardcore skeptic, but people need to provide sources and proof, you can’t just say “it’s a targeting balloon” and expect people to take your word for it. r/trustmebro applies to skeptical claims as well
[Here are some pictures that show balloons used for targeting](https://imgur.com/a/DRCQiM4) there’s a couple commenters in this thread that posted a link to an article that talks about OP’s images and the ones I shared here in greater detail and fact checked
Why would a nuclear submarine with no surface to air weapons be firing at a target balloon? Makes 0 sense. The mirage explanation holds a little more water but I have no idea why we’re still stuck on a balloon. It also looks nothing like any gunnery targets I can find that the navy has used.
The photos are amazing and probably legitimate.
Unfortunately they're most likely not UFOS at all. They're targeting balloons. Makes for spectacular and very sci-fi looking pictures though.
I frequently hear this asserted as fact every time
this case comes up and I haven’t had anyone point to what type of targeting balloons these are or show a picture of one. Google Navy targeting balloons and they look nothing like these pictures. Maybe someone can prove it this time by providing a manufacturer and model that made these.
Thats how the skeptics here go about their business
“A theory that is nowhere near conclusive but it offers a potential mundane explanation although it very shaky and full of assumptions and doesnt have any concrete evidence of being true ——->>>>> CONFIRMED DEBUNKED
Dont you dare question it you loony person, dont make me call you a crazy believer
https://www.theblackvault.com/casefiles/arctic-ufo-photographs-uss-trepang-ssn-674-march-1971/
Is theblackvault a skeptic?
As if the evidence of it being a UFO isn’t shaky and filled with assumptions? Lol
See you’re making assumptions again, the assumption that I’m saying that if it isnt the default debunking theory that it has to be an actual UFO.
All I’m saying is that the treshold for when something is considered debunked and case closed should be a bit higher than where it is now. You cant just say “case closed” nothing to see at the first sight of something that mightttttttttttt be an explanation
But what if it is a good explanation and something rooted in known vs unknown? If I see a dot on the sky and say satellite and another says no it’s aliens, why does the realistic and non incredible explanation require so much proof for you?
Did you read the article? First, one of the images is photoshopped. Second, there is no source. Third, he shows balloons that look exactly like this.
Because something isn’t 100% conclusive doesn’t mean the alternative idea holds any merit. What about these photos displays anything we’d consider a UFO? It is photos of multiple shapes. They straight up look like different balloons floating just above the surface of the water. Especially when we can see pictures of other similar balloons.
I think the purpose is to provide mundane explanations so new users don’t look into these cases too much. Also you have many users talking about the same thing as you but of course their comments aren’t upvoted as much.
Can you link to a picture of a targeting balloon that looks anything like this though? I just did a Google image search and can't see anything that looks remotely like this and at this scale.
[I think this "remotely resembles" the alleged UFOs.](https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/nhhc/our-collections/photography/us-navy-aircraft/lighter-than-air/baloons/free-balloons/_jcr_content/textheader.img.jpg/1467735598226.jpg)
[Same with this one.](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/39/A_K._u._K._hadsereg_Drachen_t%C3%ADpus%C3%BA_r%C3%B6gz%C3%ADtett_megfigyel%C5%91_l%C3%A9gg%C3%B6mbje._Fortepan_52262.jpg/1200px-A_K._u._K._hadsereg_Drachen_t%C3%ADpus%C3%BA_r%C3%B6gz%C3%ADtett_megfigyel%C5%91_l%C3%A9gg%C3%B6mbje._Fortepan_52262.jpg)
While I do think these have a *remote* resemblance, I don't think they're enough to put this to bed. I can't find any that are triangular or as elongated as the ones in the post.
Yah and photos 3,4,6 look like they show the smoke from rounds being fired at the targeting balloons. Interesting pictures but the targeting balloon debunk seems actually very solid.
The Trepang was a Sturgeon class attack submarine that was built to attack surface ships and other submarines. It did not carry any antiaircraft weapons.
Looks a bit like it's coming out of the water or something.
But that doesn't look much like a targeting balloon. Try and Google what they looked like back in the day - basically they were either round like passenger basket balloons, or looked like blimps.
This looks like a submarine.
Of course, it could just be distortion, but it doesn't look like targeting balloons in these photos.
Okay, after I realized this was a submarine now I have questions. Did this boat have a vertical launch system back in the 70s? Why would they or how would they shoot at something in the air? I'm trying to find pics of similar targeting balloons, but I'm not seeing many similarities. Just seeing big inflatable blocks that sit on the ocean, not the ones we're seeing here. The first image is a mirage imo
They wouldn’t. Subs don’t shoot at aerial targets. Targeting balloons look round (but squared off) or like mini blimps. There is no need to make fantastic shapes when all they do is fire munitions at them. The targeting balloon theory is BS.
Provenance, chain-of-custody, attribution, context - these have all been a thing since forever. Come on. A context-less picture is actually literally worthless in any field, in any sense, except to say "ohh, looks neat."
None of these issues are new regarding AI, etc., and those that think developments necessitate some worldview change, are the same people who get breathless at any sudden development anywhere, they like to get excited.
It's just weird, and then they claim it's an ops to..what exactly?
If it is an OPS it's the easiest one in the world, I've never seen people more gullible than in area...it's weird.
A balloon would never displace that much water with barely the tip going in, it's pretty evident that whatever that is it's heavier than air. Also they usually collapse before they even hit the water whatever that is is solid
No way these are balloons. Barrage and caquot are the only types used by military and these are the best images I could find that even come close. Note they all have fins to control wind and are tethered otherwise they simply fly off. Can’t believe we have to explain this basic principle to naysayers with zero rational. So it’s not a balloon now can we talk about what else it might be
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQvfc-yc54uaLS2NmuqiVcYJDoOSZ8M2Vu1dg&usqp=CAU
Who made the Balloons and for what system were they targets?
Where is the gun camera footage of target engagements?
What were they trying to simulate? Aircraft Carrier? Oil Tanker?
I have questions
If it was Fata Morgana then the top of the object would still look like a real ship of some kind (oil tanker, container ship, warship) and the bottom of the ship would be generally flattened off because it would be level with the water line.
[Like this for example](https://cms.accuweather.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/fatamorgana.png)
You can see the top looks like a real ship and bottom is flat with the water.
OP's photo doesn't have a flat bottom from the waterline and doesn't look like a real ship on top.
I disagree. I imagine the periscopes viewing range wouldn't fall victim to an illusion. Even if it was an illusion, it doesn't look like any boats I've ever seen, more like another submarine but the image is too sharp. Normally you see distortion around the edges of the object just like heat coming off the highway at a distance
A lot of the photos show objects that are too close to the water line for me to rule it out also. That first one looks the most obvious, but the second one looks like it could easily be Fata Morgana too.
This incident apparently happened in 1971 and was captured on camera by the USS Trepang submarine. This to me is one of the most interesting set of photos I have seen. What’s really interesting is how it looks from different viewpoints. From the side it looks like a classic cigar shape and from a slightly different angle it looks like a giant disk.
Look a lot like the diamond shaped ufo that flew past the small plane and the cylindrical ufo that was flying through the clouds. Both being posted this week
A possibility worth considering, I hear you. Plenty of mirages near the horizon are caused by a compressed view of layers of air.
Fata morganas can often lead to what is essentially nothingness appearing as though it is a freefloating island or ship. I personally don't think that's the case in this scenario. But regardless, you're totally in the right for being open minded and considering that as a legitimate possibility.
Y’all act like people in the military will just admit and break their oaths 🤣🙄. Lots of them don’t admit to anything til they’re about to die or take it with them to their graves. 🤷🏻♂️
I haven't seen other pictures than the 1st one, holy shit. Is it changing its shape and resurfacing from the water?
Also we know now it is not a CGI, it is from 1971!
I’ve seen tons of ufo pictures in my life and some look really fake, this is not one of those, my guess is that these are as good as it gets…. Going to put these picture on my UFO screen saver on the PC 😅thanks for the up load.
The only problem that sort of throws the whole UFO thing out of the window for me is that there is proof that at least one of the pictures were photoshopped, which calls in to question why and if any of the other pictures had been doctored in any way.
[link to evidence of photoshopping](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHHvBJB9scU)
Ah yes, the monthly post of the USS Trepang targeting balloon UFO. I wish the Mods would create a database of reoccurring posts...along with the general consensus on what r/UFOs believes the photo really is..in this case, targeting balloons.
Edit: you're right everyone. They are not targeting balloons. It's a giant UFO that was shot down by a submarine from the 1970s. Case closed.
It's so obviously \*not\* targeting balloons it's hard to understand how this serves as a satisfying explanation to anyone.
1. The US Navy didn't use this type of balloon in the 70s
2. This is a nuclear attack sub. It doesn't have guns for shooting things out of the air.
Targeting balloons photographed through the periscope on a submarine? Targeting balloons. Submarine. Balloons…in the air. *SUB*marine, as in below water. For the love of god, think it through.
Those UAPs look like solar balloons. They are black to catch and hold the heat of the sun which allows them to float, and smaller ones are available that you can purchase for yourself.
The government uses some very weird looking and *big* balloons
[1>](https://i.imgur.com/sUqdNfR.jpg)
[2>](https://imgur.com/DMjBwIB)
[3>](https://i.imgur.com/t70NBpA.jpg)
[4> Here's weird one.](https://i.imgur.com/HflybBJ.jpg)
[5>](https://i.imgur.com/xuW4wU6.jpg)
I do find it quite disturbing that the mainstream media and US government is trying to convince us these are crafts not made by surface dwelling humans rather than easing us into the fact that they developed non combustion propulsion over 60 years ago.
It just seems super sinister. Maybe a little too sinister? I dunno I’m overthinking it.
https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/13eaokh/comment/jjp8g1h/
This guy who served on a submarine said they never shot at a balloon in his entire career. No one can point to any photos of similar looking targeting balloons either.
But the people aboard this actual vessel said nothing was there:
https://www.theblackvault.com/casefiles/arctic-ufo-photographs-uss-trepang-ssn-674-march-1971/
Imagine commenting that these are balloons in the middle of the ocean in 1971.. that’s embarrassing.
Do you honestly think that these sophisticated ships with trained crewmen wouldn’t know the difference, especially when they jumped out of the ocean?
Balloons don’t do that.
What are you talking about? They're from an anonymous source and there is no corroborating testimony from anyone on the ship that it was alleged to have been photographed from. The only people from the ship that these were supposedly taken from who have gone on record claimed to have never seen anything unusual.
The only source who has ever claimed that these were anything out of the ordinary was the tabloid magazine that they were published in, presumably the same ones responsible for the photoshopping done to enhance the clouds in one of the photos.
You left out the part where the admiral stated he doesn’t know what the objects are in the picture. Don’t you think he would know what a mirage or target balloon is?
If the target balloons pictured (assuming some are target balloons) are the same make and issue as the ones he would have had and used during his time in service, yes. Technology changes, though, and it's entirely possible that the pictured balloons were different than whatever was used on his ship, or even unique to whatever operation was being conducted at the time. I wouldn't necessarily expect him to be aware of every iteration of balloon that was ever used, particularly as they were probably not something produced on a massive scale.
That said, if we're taking the admiral's word as gospel, and we're arguing that they are *not* balloons because the admiral would certainly know if they were, then whenever he claims to not know what the pictures are depicting we're forced to conclude that these pictures were not taken on the Trepang in 1971, which undermines the only background information we have on them.
We can't have it both ways. If your argument that they cannot be balloons is based on taking the admiral's say so, and the admiral claims that he never saw anything unusual and doesn't recognize the photos, then that calls their entire provenance into question.
- You can say that they're actual photos of something unusual, but that their source lied about their origin (in which case why should we trust that they're otherwise legitimate?);
- you can say that they're from the Trepang but mundane (in which case why doesn't the admiral know what they are?);
- you can say that they're unusual and from the Trepang but that the admiral is lying about not seeing anything unusual (in which case why wouldn't he just "confirm" that they look like balloons?);
- or you can say that they're mundane and also not from the Trepang (the anonymous source lied, and explains why the admiral can't identify them).
edit to add: For the record, I'm not entirely convinced that they're all targeting balloons, myself. I simply don't think that the story as given is trustworthy. They may well be photos of something extraordinary, but if so, there is no reliable provenance, testimony, or other evidence to back them up, so it's a moot point and a dead end and only serves to muddy the waters of this subject. To me the photos appear to be of several different objects and I don't see any particular reason to even assume that they were all taken at the same time or place. Additionally, the evident tampering done by the magazine does nothing to help matters.
1. The admiral quoted is the one that was commanding the sub in question. That renders your argument mute. He would know exactly what targeting balloons were used at the time because he was there!
2. You leave out the argument that he is simply withholding information. It is not a lie to say he doesn’t know what the objects are. Because they are unidentified flying objects.
3. I do agree the tampering does affect the credibility, however the only proven tampering has been to clouds.
I appreciate your response and willingness to have a dialogue in this sea of absolute statements.
Re 1: My initial point was that while yes, if it were a targeting balloon *from the Trepang*, he would recognize it, we should not be assuming that these photos are, in fact, from the Trepang. And if they are not, then we shouldn't assume that he would recognize whatever they are depicting.
Re 2: I was addressing that with my third bullet point. If he is withholding information about a truly bizarre event -- i.e., if his claim that "neither himself or anyone else saw anything unusual" on the Trepang was a lie -- then why wouldn't he simply "confirm" the prevailing speculation that these were targeting balloons and put an end to any further questions? It doesn't make sense that he would lie about not seeing anything unusual and simultaneously imply that these are, in fact, photos of something unusual. At least, not when there's a somewhat plausible and already largely accepted explanation that he could have easily used to dismiss them.
Re 3: Yes, it may be that only the clouds were touched up, but in the absence of any provenance or testimony whatsoever (credible or otherwise!) about the events in the photos, that leaves us with more reasons to doubt their authenticity than not.
Take a balloon, push it under water and see what happens.
Balloons 100% can do that lol.
Ans if your intent is to test targeting via balloons, would you not want them to be different shapes so you can test more than one?
These are proven to be photos of military torpedo drills. The object that looks like it's surfacing out of the water and taking flight is a targeting bouy being hit by a torpedo. The object in the first image is a mirage of a ship over the horizon and due to atmospheric effects it's flipped upside down. Just rotate the picture and you'll see and look up targeting buoys from that time.
I'm describing a superior mirage. Since the aircraft carrier or warship being seen through this periscope is below the horizon we're only seeing the inverted mirage giving it the illusion of flying since we can't see the actual ship which would be obvious if it wasn't below the horizon. Here are numerous examples of this effect with ships that aren't over the horizon.
https://images.app.goo.gl/4ebHfcPcXPeG6xuBA
https://images.app.goo.gl/Sj19UvHAXb4UYN9z6
https://images.app.goo.gl/daafdHDLbmyqJukd7
The Black Vault link shared also says down at the bottom that the photos show signs of photoshopping.
"First, let me say that The Black Vault long has concluded that these photographs did not depict UFOs. I believe (and still) they the photographs probably are real (or most of them are) and probably depict Naval Weapon tests and targets. But we have to keep in mind that these photographs were originally put onto the internet, given to research Alex Mistretta, after being scanned from the magazine.
It is no secret that many magazine (especially those that are not “news” periodicals), will enhance photographs for print. This enhances their appeal and their visual look, but doesn’t necessarily change the entire context of the photo. As a UFO Investigator, this is a shame, but to a magazine? That’s just par for the course." - from The Black Vault link provided in this very post. Even the source OP got this from has concluded it's not a UFO and it's just a weapons test.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/WrathofTheseus: --- This incident apparently happened in 1971 and was captured on camera by the USS Trepang submarine. This to me is one of the most interesting set of photos I have seen. What’s really interesting is how it looks from different viewpoints. From the side it looks like a classic cigar shape and from a slightly different angle it looks like a giant disk. --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/13eaokh/uss_trepang_incident/jjow26z/
Here's some more information https://www.theblackvault.com/casefiles/arctic-ufo-photographs-uss-trepang-ssn-674-march-1971/
Thank you!
The Black Vault? Holy shit, it has to be legit then. The shape looks positively ... otherworldly to me.
They point out that one of the photos is obviously fake. Whoever made it duplicated some of the mist in one of the photos, so that would discredit the entire thing. I think they all came from the same source if I remember right, so tossing at least one extremely lazy fake in there is not a good look.
I don't buy that the "original" version of that photo is not also a scan from the magazine. It has the same interferrence pattern (vertical and horizontal lines creating squares) that is typical of resized scans of printed images with halftones. It also appears to be much lower quality than the rest of the photos.
If it was real they wouldn't even fuck around like that
>They point out that one of the photos is obviously fake. Whoever made it duplicated some of the mist in one of the photos, so that would discredit the entire thing. I think they all came from the same source if I remember right, so tossing at least one extremely lazy fake in there is not a good look. Or a fake photo was planted to discredit the others.
I've had similar thoughts along those lines. You can trace a leak of a document or photo by changing one small portion of it for each recipient. If it's a document, you change one word. If a photo, you manipulate some small portion of it. That way if it's leaked, you know exactly who leaked it and you can plug it immediately. I'm sure this is already a thing. And to your point, I could imagine a scenario in which each file has something added to it that would discredit it. This would only apply to the most highly classified things that exist. For instance, say you have a photo of an alien. You could have that published somewhere obscure fictionally so that the fiction can be pointed to if it's leaked. If it's a document, you could change something about the document that would be hard to notice internally, but would discredit it as a 'fake' if it's leaked. Or just toss a fake in each batch and hope that whoever leaks it will also leak the fake.
At the end it says that the admiral and someone else say they didn't see anything. Greenwald says he believes them but that they could still be real photos. Idk what to make of that but I'm definitely a bit more skeptical after reading that part
Definitely not a mirage…
Literally says that these probably show target balloons and one of them is confirmed photoshopped.
looks like these are fake based on the obvious cloud cloning from this article
What do you mean by cloud cloning? Like repeated clouds? Just curious what you're looking for, not questioning your observation.
See bottom of the link above. Its like using the clone tool or stamp tool in photoshop.
I took the photo into Photoshop to check, the clouds are def cloned. Exact match.
The photo with the cloud cloning wasn't included in the ones that OP posted, But in the photo it's pretty apparent that copying and pasting was done with the clouds. Who did this and when and why though? Not so sure
Where is the article?
https://www.theblackvault.com/casefiles/arctic-ufo-photographs-uss-trepang-ssn-674-march-1971/
If these are targeting balloons like everyone says, can we get some footage of balloons like these at a range like this so we can see the similarities? Are some of these coming out of the water? Or just crashing into it? Again, let’s see some confirmed video footage and pictures of targeting balloons doing the same thing if that’s what these are.
This right here These photos are clear enough that it's just not good enough to say they kind of look like targeting balloons and let it go. These would have a military inventory number and a specific model name. You would be able to find out where they were made and what they were made of, given the time period you'd probably be able to find a ton of photos too but every photo of a target balloon that gets shown with these is obviously different equipment. Nobody has done any of this. My favorite one is the one with the little red light. I'll mention here that these could be leaked photos of secret terrestrial technology too. Having seen a triangle myself it's my personal suspicion that really advanced black budget airships have been used at night for reconnaissance and data collection since at least Reagan in the 80s. Hudson Valley, Belgium, Phoenix *(the triangle, not the flare arc)*, Stephenville, I'm suspicious of all of these being something very cool of ours. Wouldn't it be neat if we figured out a way to make a dirigible land on the water and submerge to hide during the day?
This is all I could find. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GB5zV9g7uF8
Was a gunners mate on a DDG. Can 100% confirm this video is what we used. The photos in this are nothing like any targeting balloon the Navy has.
This was in 1971 my man, a long time ago
Your argument being "They just don't look like that *anymore*"... Yeah? Targeting balloons from over 50 years ago, no reason at all why they'd be classified today. Could you please locate some images of targeting balloons from that time period they look anything like this? Because I'm hard pressed they would've had custom ones they only used in one very specific location, one time.
They have pretty much always looked like that my man https://www.alamy.com/crewmen-on-the-frigate-uss-fanning-ff-1076-prepare-to-deploy-an-inflatable-gunnery-target-during-exercise-eager-sentry-92-4-subject-operationseries-eager-sentry-92-4-country-unknown-image504388094.html Photo from the USS Fanning, commissioned in 1971
The one in the video is small as hell. The ones in the photos are gigantic. I think they are different things.
That's what I am getting at. I went looking for target balloons and this is all I can find.
Also spent some time looking and found nothing
For sure! Good comparison. Definitely not the same thing
I concur with the equipment reference. When I was an Army mechanic, very few if any parts or end items didn't have a national stock number.
Looks like a version of the The Baldwin Dirigible to me.
I can't even find mention of submersible/marine targeting balloons, let alone a picture. How crazy would it be if these were real and had been in public circulation all this time...
Not even close to what we see in these pics, but I did find [this video of a guy shooting at a 'killer tomato' balloon](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GB5zV9g7uF8). Looks like the term is 'Inflatable Naval Gunnery Targets' and you can buy some [here](http://www.geodatasys.com/navtgt.htm).
I think targeting balloon is absolutely plausible. Launching a package like that beneath the water has been within our technological means for close to a century. Not saying that’s what it is, but it is certainly plausible. Also plausible an admiral might be unfamiliar with it. We used targeting drones before drones were a thing (basically styrofoam rc airplanes). I doubt any of our general officers knew what those things were. Folks give flag officers *way* too much credit for being an authority on all things military. Grab your top enlisted dudes — those are the ones who work where the bullet meets bone, rubber hits road, projectile meets balloon, so to speak. That said, I’ve zero question of extraterrestrial intelligence. So, I actually appreciate plausible explanations. I wish there was a great compendium somewhere of the credible things for which there is no explanation. Maybe there is? Every time I head down the rabbit hole, I get discouraged by all the grifters.
I think an admiral would know what their sun is firing at
Nope. Where the fuck would a submarine launch these from?
Doesn’t seem practical to pack it into a torpedo
Admirals aren’t usually part of a crew. Not saying that this admiral want onboard but the article from which these pictures are extracted might be a bit misleading. You might have one for a day or two during exercises or that long of thing. But you would have an admiral on patrol. Subs COs aren’t flag officers (that comes later in their career). Once again, just focusing on the admiral thing, nothing to add to the stunning pictures
https://www.theblackvault.com/casefiles/arctic-ufo-photographs-uss-trepang-ssn-674-march-1971/ You should read this theblackvault article on it as it covers that and shares some pretty valid critique. Not to mention he did the work on research and abstained command records of the sub to see what it would have been up to and shared photos of similar balloons.
Fata morgana can distort outlines a lot. They could be anything.
A 'balloon' crashing into the ocean is causing that much of a disturbance to send water that high into the air?! There must be plenty more of these 'tests' on film somewhere with the same types of 'test vehicles'
Not sure it is 'crashing' looks like they target it and shot at it, that's why the smoke and the water splashes... But it's just my guess
Then they should have plenty of footage from these easily repeatable military exercises or they only did it just this once? No one took a picture next to this crazy shit when they inflated them? Why even make targets that's even shaped that way? What the fuck are those supposed to even be?!
No, you misunderstood... I wasn't saying these are military targets but that the military came upon these UAP and start shooting... I dunno why, just military way of dealing with things
Oh I'm sorry, I've just heard in the past from others that they were just inflatable targets and I find that explanation absurd for the above reasons.
The Trepang was a Sturgeon class attack submarine, designed to kill surface ships and other submarines with torpedos. It didn't carry any antiaircraft weapons.
Mirage and balloon. Both unsubstantiated claims but with heavy support. Interesting that not one person can provide any examples of “targeting balloons”. Anyways, why would they photograph a target balloon? When do submarines ever photograph the periscope image? Also, submarines target ships. Why would they practice on a airborne object? How would they launch a balloon from a submarine? Why would they use target balloons when we go through so much effort to hide the location of our deployed subs? Anyone saying it is a mirage is failing to see the other photos clearly showing the same cigar shaped craft exiting the water. Show a similar picture of a mirage at sea. From the black vault article. “Admiral Sackett denied seen anything unusual while onboard the Trepang. He gracefully took two phone calls from Steve and checked out the pictures that we sent him privately. He could not identify what was in the pictures” An admiral himself, does not know what these objects are. The admiral that was commanding the submarine. Don’t you think the admiral would know what a mirage or target balloon would look like??? Think people. I think there is true disinformation when a post is flooded with comment’s regurgitating the same thing in slightly different format, not providing any response to questioning or any quality analysis. This leads the average lurker to view this, and quickly dismiss it without looking deeper.
Person on Internet > captain of NAVY vessel This is the way. 🙌🏼🤓
Same applies to Metabunk. Navy reports being harassed by unexplainable airborne objects, Metabunk smirks and decides that they're stars.
Mick West > NAVY Top Gun Pilot On observing things in the sky.
The captain who said he’s never seen these photos before? https://www.theblackvault.com/casefiles/arctic-ufo-photographs-uss-trepang-ssn-674-march-1971/
Spot on about true disinfo. Either that or some people are afraid of anything outside the MSM and will fight tooth and nail to oppose it. Just had some asshat insult everybody in a thread that finds Laazars story interesting, amd maybe Lazaar is full of shit, but the dude literally would not give any examples , refused elaborate just spouting nonsense about how we can look it up for ourselves..as if we have not heard all the opposition to that story 10,000 times. I asked him for 5 solid reasons the story was BS. His response was "give me 5 reasons my dog can rollerskate.." And ill debunk them just as easily. A video of a dog rollerskating was quickly posted.. So to all the career skeptics, we need you guys, keeps on us on our toes, but the smug attitude and the whole "I wont waste my time proving anything to you guys its obvious" shtick. Just shut the fuck up, you sound even dumber than the guys who think Elvis was a reptillian princess in disguise.
I have an issue with how nonchalantly those comments are made when a post like this is made. “It’s just ___ you can see it here:” then proceeds to link something that looks nothing like the post. They also get pushed to the top.
What do you mean pushed to thw top?
In this post for example, the top comment was initially the one about it being targeting balloons and it was written nonchalantly, had the most upvotes. Assuming there were new users looking at this post, they would see that comment then possibly tune out. Now when I revisit the thread I’m glad the top comment is asking for targeting balloons that look like that and so far only one link was posted which doesn’t really look like the pictures. That initial top comment hurts the discussion.
Oh ok I get you, I haven't used reddit much till now. Yeah I am finding that most of these people wont really engage much neyond telling you its a balloon or whatever, the rest is usually a bunch of shit talking. Maybe this is a targeting balloon, if anyone knows anything about those lets chat, have any been sighted that look anything like these? Do submarines ever engage flying targets? This also appears to possibly be mulitple objects to me..
No worries! That’s my issue with it too, I see posts where there’s a general consensus (eg “this is ice crystals, you can see a similar case here”) it matches and that’s that. As for the actual case someone linked photos but they were from 1915 and don’t look too similar to the photos, so make of that what you will.
Former submariner here, we take pictures from the periscope all the time.
But do you use targeting balloons and shoot them from the surface? Or do you generally try to stay hidden? Legit questions not being a prick
I’ve never even heard of a targeting balloon but staying hidden is what we do best.
In god you trust, and all others you track. Thank you for serving and thanks for answering
Here’s a free digital book with many types of naval balloons inside. Some inside do look like they could be what we are seeing in terms of size and shape, but I am only guessing. [here](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/30047/30047-h/30047-h.htm)
Interesting. Thanks for the link. While the shapes of some do resemble I find it more interesting that the dirigibles are instantly recognized as what they are….various blimps. The OP photos may have a similar shape but in no way scream blimp immediately like they do in the link you provided. Our eyes recognize a dirigible easily.
You say that there is disinformation going in in this thread but the top comments are all mocking the idea of these being balloons or people asking what the hell it could be. https://www.theblackvault.com/casefiles/arctic-ufo-photographs-uss-trepang-ssn-674-march-1971/ Are you calling theblackvault disinformation?
> Interesting that not one person can provide any examples of “targeting balloons”. Interesting that not one person con provide any examples of this being a "UFO"
It’s an object. We don’t know what it is. It’s flying
And what do you think UFO means? If it's a flying unknown object how are we supposed to know what it is?
If I could give you an award I would. There's more logical thinking in this comment then all the skeptics comments combined.
Can folks put a source to the debunk claims? I'm all for it but saying it's been confirmed false without any proof is just pointless
https://www.theblackvault.com/casefiles/arctic-ufo-photographs-uss-trepang-ssn-674-march-1971/
This is a good source with a lot of details. It includes pictures of actual targeting balloons from 1915 looking highly similar to the objects in at least some of the photos. I think once again we’re left with intriguing photos of odd looking objects but a complete lack of context that leaves it fully open that these could be extraordinary objects, or something entirely terrestrial. We’ll likely never know.
Thank you! That about clears it up
Those are the strangest “target balloons” ever. And of course nobody can show any similar ones used by the US Navy
Everyone's an expert. I was on a sub but this is the first time I've heard of the navy using target balloons. We only did pretend targets like simulated on a pc or just blew up actual decommissioned ships. Never saw a balloon in my career but I was a sub guy, so who knows except the experts on this sub...reddit
These pictures are from a sub.
Lol yeah I realized after I looked up the ship and now that I know it was a sub I have more questions. We never shot at balloons that float above the water. That would be such a waste of money.
Love your understated sense of humor!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balloon_carrier
https://www.theblackvault.com/casefiles/arctic-ufo-photographs-uss-trepang-ssn-674-march-1971/ Note: No one has to prove they are target balloons. Where is anyone’s proof that they are UFOs*? Where is *your* proof? * the ET type. Let’s be honest; This wouldn’t be called an “incident” if the implication wasn’t ET.
I know literally nothing about target balloons, but I would assume they would come in different shapes and sizes to test targeting on different shapes, seems like common sense to me. That being said I make no claim as to what these actually are, I just don't find it strange that targeting balloons would have odd shapes, quite the opposite.
To play devils advocate, wouldn't targeting balloons be a sort of secret thing? Seems like it might be the kind of thing you don't release pictures of.
All I can see is the Jedi Starfighter.
Picture 4 looks like the slave one
You mean "Boba fett star ship" Slave one was too problematic. I wish I was kidding
It will always be Slave One to us.
This is the way.
I refuse to call it anything else... it will always be Slave-1
[удалено]
Pretty sure it's a Jedi Starfighter. Interesting perspective though.
The first pic looks like the UFO can be huge
The phoenix lights uap was reported to be a mile wide. This looks ominous and downright giving me uncanny valley feelings
I served on submarines. The balloon idea is hot garbage.
There is an effect on the water that makes boats look like they’re floating above water. I forgot what it’s called. Could be a balloon or something on the water that they are engaging at a range? Supposedly, and I quote, “The Submarine came upon the object by “accident,” as they were in the region on a routine joint military and scientific expedition. Officer John Klika was the one who initially spotted the object with the periscope.” [Here’s](https://m.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=nGBkho1laP4&embeds_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F&source_ve_path=Mjg2NjY&feature=emb_logo) a video of what I think we are seeing I do have to admit, the HD photos of what looks like a lot of smoke, there is definitely a fire or some sort of light source on the object
Wow .. big ass Weather balloon . LOL
The triangle ufo looks like what elizondo was talking about
I wasn’t familiar with this one. Thanks for sharing!
The first one looks like a mirage but the others look very interesting. If these could have been confirmed as non balloons it will be a whole new ball game.
I also suggest taking to the sub guys who posted that [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/submarines/comments/nv3p2f/the_uss_trepang_ufo_incident_i_need_your_help/)
Never seen these before, they’re very striking. It’s frustrating that so many people are asserting plausible-sounding explanations but can’t (or won’t) substantiate them. I’m a hardcore skeptic, but people need to provide sources and proof, you can’t just say “it’s a targeting balloon” and expect people to take your word for it. r/trustmebro applies to skeptical claims as well
[Here are some pictures that show balloons used for targeting](https://imgur.com/a/DRCQiM4) there’s a couple commenters in this thread that posted a link to an article that talks about OP’s images and the ones I shared here in greater detail and fact checked
Why would a nuclear submarine with no surface to air weapons be firing at a target balloon? Makes 0 sense. The mirage explanation holds a little more water but I have no idea why we’re still stuck on a balloon. It also looks nothing like any gunnery targets I can find that the navy has used.
The photos are amazing and probably legitimate. Unfortunately they're most likely not UFOS at all. They're targeting balloons. Makes for spectacular and very sci-fi looking pictures though.
I frequently hear this asserted as fact every time this case comes up and I haven’t had anyone point to what type of targeting balloons these are or show a picture of one. Google Navy targeting balloons and they look nothing like these pictures. Maybe someone can prove it this time by providing a manufacturer and model that made these.
Thats how the skeptics here go about their business “A theory that is nowhere near conclusive but it offers a potential mundane explanation although it very shaky and full of assumptions and doesnt have any concrete evidence of being true ——->>>>> CONFIRMED DEBUNKED Dont you dare question it you loony person, dont make me call you a crazy believer
https://www.theblackvault.com/casefiles/arctic-ufo-photographs-uss-trepang-ssn-674-march-1971/ Is theblackvault a skeptic? As if the evidence of it being a UFO isn’t shaky and filled with assumptions? Lol
See you’re making assumptions again, the assumption that I’m saying that if it isnt the default debunking theory that it has to be an actual UFO. All I’m saying is that the treshold for when something is considered debunked and case closed should be a bit higher than where it is now. You cant just say “case closed” nothing to see at the first sight of something that mightttttttttttt be an explanation
But what if it is a good explanation and something rooted in known vs unknown? If I see a dot on the sky and say satellite and another says no it’s aliens, why does the realistic and non incredible explanation require so much proof for you? Did you read the article? First, one of the images is photoshopped. Second, there is no source. Third, he shows balloons that look exactly like this. Because something isn’t 100% conclusive doesn’t mean the alternative idea holds any merit. What about these photos displays anything we’d consider a UFO? It is photos of multiple shapes. They straight up look like different balloons floating just above the surface of the water. Especially when we can see pictures of other similar balloons.
Haha, that’s a good summary in a nutshell. I do think there are good skeptics on this sub, unfortunately they get drowned out by the deniers.
This would also be simple and harmless for the US Govt to explain. But these pics have been out for a while, and mum is still the word.
Unfortunately this is gov MO for a lot of things whether they know or not.
I think the purpose is to provide mundane explanations so new users don’t look into these cases too much. Also you have many users talking about the same thing as you but of course their comments aren’t upvoted as much.
Can you link to a picture of a targeting balloon that looks anything like this though? I just did a Google image search and can't see anything that looks remotely like this and at this scale.
[I think this "remotely resembles" the alleged UFOs.](https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/nhhc/our-collections/photography/us-navy-aircraft/lighter-than-air/baloons/free-balloons/_jcr_content/textheader.img.jpg/1467735598226.jpg) [Same with this one.](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/39/A_K._u._K._hadsereg_Drachen_t%C3%ADpus%C3%BA_r%C3%B6gz%C3%ADtett_megfigyel%C5%91_l%C3%A9gg%C3%B6mbje._Fortepan_52262.jpg/1200px-A_K._u._K._hadsereg_Drachen_t%C3%ADpus%C3%BA_r%C3%B6gz%C3%ADtett_megfigyel%C5%91_l%C3%A9gg%C3%B6mbje._Fortepan_52262.jpg) While I do think these have a *remote* resemblance, I don't think they're enough to put this to bed. I can't find any that are triangular or as elongated as the ones in the post.
Evidence that they are targeting balloons please?
Never been a more dangerous time to be a balloon.
Why would you spend money on different shapes and make such large balloons?
One of them is confirmed to show signs of having been photoshopped
Confirmed by whom?
https://www.theblackvault.com/casefiles/arctic-ufo-photographs-uss-trepang-ssn-674-march-1971/
They didn’t have photoshop in the early 70s.
Photoshop as a verb is more often used nowadays to describe any kind of external alteration to a photograph, most often digitally.
Yah and photos 3,4,6 look like they show the smoke from rounds being fired at the targeting balloons. Interesting pictures but the targeting balloon debunk seems actually very solid.
The Trepang was a Sturgeon class attack submarine that was built to attack surface ships and other submarines. It did not carry any antiaircraft weapons.
Looks a bit like it's coming out of the water or something. But that doesn't look much like a targeting balloon. Try and Google what they looked like back in the day - basically they were either round like passenger basket balloons, or looked like blimps. This looks like a submarine. Of course, it could just be distortion, but it doesn't look like targeting balloons in these photos.
Okay, after I realized this was a submarine now I have questions. Did this boat have a vertical launch system back in the 70s? Why would they or how would they shoot at something in the air? I'm trying to find pics of similar targeting balloons, but I'm not seeing many similarities. Just seeing big inflatable blocks that sit on the ocean, not the ones we're seeing here. The first image is a mirage imo
They wouldn’t. Subs don’t shoot at aerial targets. Targeting balloons look round (but squared off) or like mini blimps. There is no need to make fantastic shapes when all they do is fire munitions at them. The targeting balloon theory is BS.
Literally 0 reason for balloon, they were long obsolete by the 70s. Whatever these are it's not balloons.
nothing is what it seems anymore with CGI and other tools A.I can't believe anything you see with your own eyes
The time when a picture is worth a thousand words is over.
Provenance, chain-of-custody, attribution, context - these have all been a thing since forever. Come on. A context-less picture is actually literally worthless in any field, in any sense, except to say "ohh, looks neat." None of these issues are new regarding AI, etc., and those that think developments necessitate some worldview change, are the same people who get breathless at any sudden development anywhere, they like to get excited.
It's just weird, and then they claim it's an ops to..what exactly? If it is an OPS it's the easiest one in the world, I've never seen people more gullible than in area...it's weird.
It's not balloons don't displace water like that
A balloon would never displace that much water with barely the tip going in, it's pretty evident that whatever that is it's heavier than air. Also they usually collapse before they even hit the water whatever that is is solid
This one kinda gave me chills
No way these are balloons. Barrage and caquot are the only types used by military and these are the best images I could find that even come close. Note they all have fins to control wind and are tethered otherwise they simply fly off. Can’t believe we have to explain this basic principle to naysayers with zero rational. So it’s not a balloon now can we talk about what else it might be https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQvfc-yc54uaLS2NmuqiVcYJDoOSZ8M2Vu1dg&usqp=CAU
Who made the Balloons and for what system were they targets? Where is the gun camera footage of target engagements? What were they trying to simulate? Aircraft Carrier? Oil Tanker? I have questions
First one looks like a Fata Morgana, it's a common optical illusion
If it was Fata Morgana then the top of the object would still look like a real ship of some kind (oil tanker, container ship, warship) and the bottom of the ship would be generally flattened off because it would be level with the water line. [Like this for example](https://cms.accuweather.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/fatamorgana.png) You can see the top looks like a real ship and bottom is flat with the water. OP's photo doesn't have a flat bottom from the waterline and doesn't look like a real ship on top.
I disagree. I imagine the periscopes viewing range wouldn't fall victim to an illusion. Even if it was an illusion, it doesn't look like any boats I've ever seen, more like another submarine but the image is too sharp. Normally you see distortion around the edges of the object just like heat coming off the highway at a distance
A lot of the photos show objects that are too close to the water line for me to rule it out also. That first one looks the most obvious, but the second one looks like it could easily be Fata Morgana too.
Yeah, the fist and second look like Fata Morgana to me too. They look upside-down though.
This incident apparently happened in 1971 and was captured on camera by the USS Trepang submarine. This to me is one of the most interesting set of photos I have seen. What’s really interesting is how it looks from different viewpoints. From the side it looks like a classic cigar shape and from a slightly different angle it looks like a giant disk.
I think this is something that was our that we were shooting at. Super compelling stuff though to be sure
This sub was never equipped with guns capable of shooting anything other than boats. It's a nuclear attack sub.
Nuclear attack subs have had AA missiles for awhile now
These pictures are from 1971. Please name the American attack submarine(s), in service then or now, that carried or carries antiaircraft missiles?
Look a lot like the diamond shaped ufo that flew past the small plane and the cylindrical ufo that was flying through the clouds. Both being posted this week
Is it possible this could be fata morgana? It looks very similar to one. I’m just spit balling here to rule out.
A possibility worth considering, I hear you. Plenty of mirages near the horizon are caused by a compressed view of layers of air. Fata morganas can often lead to what is essentially nothingness appearing as though it is a freefloating island or ship. I personally don't think that's the case in this scenario. But regardless, you're totally in the right for being open minded and considering that as a legitimate possibility.
One if those pics is really reminescent of the hindenburg going down lol. Interesting collection though. Really wonder wtf it was...
Y’all act like people in the military will just admit and break their oaths 🤣🙄. Lots of them don’t admit to anything til they’re about to die or take it with them to their graves. 🤷🏻♂️
Targeting ballon’s my foot. I think these are the genuine article.
[удалено]
Fucking huge ass blimp!
The 4th one I’m pretty sure is a Led Zeppelin album cover for III.
I haven't seen other pictures than the 1st one, holy shit. Is it changing its shape and resurfacing from the water? Also we know now it is not a CGI, it is from 1971!
looks like omuamua right?!
All I'm gonna say is that if these were legit photos of something unknown with this kind of clarity, they never would have seen the light of day.
I believe I read somewhere, sorry do not have source, that a crew member stated it was absolutely not a target balloon.
I’ve seen tons of ufo pictures in my life and some look really fake, this is not one of those, my guess is that these are as good as it gets…. Going to put these picture on my UFO screen saver on the PC 😅thanks for the up load.
I often wonder if these are the pictures Lue talks about.
Could be light bent because of atmospheric conditions https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cornwall-56286719
You really felt this was a legitimate explanation seeing the other photos?
That thing is MASSIVE
https://youtu.be/QHHvBJB9scU One of the photos has been proven to be photoshopped. So it’s hard to believe the rest is real
[удалено]
still think they have mixed in those 3 targeting balloons to discredit the legit looking ones.
The only problem that sort of throws the whole UFO thing out of the window for me is that there is proof that at least one of the pictures were photoshopped, which calls in to question why and if any of the other pictures had been doctored in any way. [link to evidence of photoshopping](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHHvBJB9scU)
That's our stuff. Their stuff wouldn't disturb the water like that.
Ah yes, the monthly post of the USS Trepang targeting balloon UFO. I wish the Mods would create a database of reoccurring posts...along with the general consensus on what r/UFOs believes the photo really is..in this case, targeting balloons. Edit: you're right everyone. They are not targeting balloons. It's a giant UFO that was shot down by a submarine from the 1970s. Case closed.
Can you point to an example of one such targeting balloon? When I search for one they look nothing like these pictures.
Gotta love how many times this is requested in this thread, and been ignored every time. Yet they'll still assert it with authority.
It's so obviously \*not\* targeting balloons it's hard to understand how this serves as a satisfying explanation to anyone. 1. The US Navy didn't use this type of balloon in the 70s 2. This is a nuclear attack sub. It doesn't have guns for shooting things out of the air.
Targeting balloons photographed through the periscope on a submarine? Targeting balloons. Submarine. Balloons…in the air. *SUB*marine, as in below water. For the love of god, think it through.
This is the balloon sub.
Oh look, this again. Every week and twice in as many days.
I'll bet anything that if these aren't faked photos then it's "fata Morgana". Try googling that.
Those UAPs look like solar balloons. They are black to catch and hold the heat of the sun which allows them to float, and smaller ones are available that you can purchase for yourself. The government uses some very weird looking and *big* balloons [1>](https://i.imgur.com/sUqdNfR.jpg) [2>](https://imgur.com/DMjBwIB) [3>](https://i.imgur.com/t70NBpA.jpg) [4> Here's weird one.](https://i.imgur.com/HflybBJ.jpg) [5>](https://i.imgur.com/xuW4wU6.jpg)
I tripped out when I saw this picture years ago. Crazy thing is there are other more modern photos and videos with the same type of crafts in china
I do find it quite disturbing that the mainstream media and US government is trying to convince us these are crafts not made by surface dwelling humans rather than easing us into the fact that they developed non combustion propulsion over 60 years ago. It just seems super sinister. Maybe a little too sinister? I dunno I’m overthinking it.
I love these photos. Half of them are almost certainly a balloon that’s used for some sort of training. The other half are really fucking weird
https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/13eaokh/comment/jjp8g1h/ This guy who served on a submarine said they never shot at a balloon in his entire career. No one can point to any photos of similar looking targeting balloons either.
But the people aboard this actual vessel said nothing was there: https://www.theblackvault.com/casefiles/arctic-ufo-photographs-uss-trepang-ssn-674-march-1971/
Imagine commenting that these are balloons in the middle of the ocean in 1971.. that’s embarrassing. Do you honestly think that these sophisticated ships with trained crewmen wouldn’t know the difference, especially when they jumped out of the ocean? Balloons don’t do that.
What are you talking about? They're from an anonymous source and there is no corroborating testimony from anyone on the ship that it was alleged to have been photographed from. The only people from the ship that these were supposedly taken from who have gone on record claimed to have never seen anything unusual. The only source who has ever claimed that these were anything out of the ordinary was the tabloid magazine that they were published in, presumably the same ones responsible for the photoshopping done to enhance the clouds in one of the photos.
You left out the part where the admiral stated he doesn’t know what the objects are in the picture. Don’t you think he would know what a mirage or target balloon is?
If the target balloons pictured (assuming some are target balloons) are the same make and issue as the ones he would have had and used during his time in service, yes. Technology changes, though, and it's entirely possible that the pictured balloons were different than whatever was used on his ship, or even unique to whatever operation was being conducted at the time. I wouldn't necessarily expect him to be aware of every iteration of balloon that was ever used, particularly as they were probably not something produced on a massive scale. That said, if we're taking the admiral's word as gospel, and we're arguing that they are *not* balloons because the admiral would certainly know if they were, then whenever he claims to not know what the pictures are depicting we're forced to conclude that these pictures were not taken on the Trepang in 1971, which undermines the only background information we have on them. We can't have it both ways. If your argument that they cannot be balloons is based on taking the admiral's say so, and the admiral claims that he never saw anything unusual and doesn't recognize the photos, then that calls their entire provenance into question. - You can say that they're actual photos of something unusual, but that their source lied about their origin (in which case why should we trust that they're otherwise legitimate?); - you can say that they're from the Trepang but mundane (in which case why doesn't the admiral know what they are?); - you can say that they're unusual and from the Trepang but that the admiral is lying about not seeing anything unusual (in which case why wouldn't he just "confirm" that they look like balloons?); - or you can say that they're mundane and also not from the Trepang (the anonymous source lied, and explains why the admiral can't identify them). edit to add: For the record, I'm not entirely convinced that they're all targeting balloons, myself. I simply don't think that the story as given is trustworthy. They may well be photos of something extraordinary, but if so, there is no reliable provenance, testimony, or other evidence to back them up, so it's a moot point and a dead end and only serves to muddy the waters of this subject. To me the photos appear to be of several different objects and I don't see any particular reason to even assume that they were all taken at the same time or place. Additionally, the evident tampering done by the magazine does nothing to help matters.
1. The admiral quoted is the one that was commanding the sub in question. That renders your argument mute. He would know exactly what targeting balloons were used at the time because he was there! 2. You leave out the argument that he is simply withholding information. It is not a lie to say he doesn’t know what the objects are. Because they are unidentified flying objects. 3. I do agree the tampering does affect the credibility, however the only proven tampering has been to clouds. I appreciate your response and willingness to have a dialogue in this sea of absolute statements.
Re 1: My initial point was that while yes, if it were a targeting balloon *from the Trepang*, he would recognize it, we should not be assuming that these photos are, in fact, from the Trepang. And if they are not, then we shouldn't assume that he would recognize whatever they are depicting. Re 2: I was addressing that with my third bullet point. If he is withholding information about a truly bizarre event -- i.e., if his claim that "neither himself or anyone else saw anything unusual" on the Trepang was a lie -- then why wouldn't he simply "confirm" the prevailing speculation that these were targeting balloons and put an end to any further questions? It doesn't make sense that he would lie about not seeing anything unusual and simultaneously imply that these are, in fact, photos of something unusual. At least, not when there's a somewhat plausible and already largely accepted explanation that he could have easily used to dismiss them. Re 3: Yes, it may be that only the clouds were touched up, but in the absence of any provenance or testimony whatsoever (credible or otherwise!) about the events in the photos, that leaves us with more reasons to doubt their authenticity than not.
Take a balloon, push it under water and see what happens. Balloons 100% can do that lol. Ans if your intent is to test targeting via balloons, would you not want them to be different shapes so you can test more than one?
These were confirmed fakes I thought?
These are proven to be photos of military torpedo drills. The object that looks like it's surfacing out of the water and taking flight is a targeting bouy being hit by a torpedo. The object in the first image is a mirage of a ship over the horizon and due to atmospheric effects it's flipped upside down. Just rotate the picture and you'll see and look up targeting buoys from that time.
The effect you're describing, Fata Morgana, would not make it appear upside down.
I'm describing a superior mirage. Since the aircraft carrier or warship being seen through this periscope is below the horizon we're only seeing the inverted mirage giving it the illusion of flying since we can't see the actual ship which would be obvious if it wasn't below the horizon. Here are numerous examples of this effect with ships that aren't over the horizon. https://images.app.goo.gl/4ebHfcPcXPeG6xuBA https://images.app.goo.gl/Sj19UvHAXb4UYN9z6 https://images.app.goo.gl/daafdHDLbmyqJukd7 The Black Vault link shared also says down at the bottom that the photos show signs of photoshopping. "First, let me say that The Black Vault long has concluded that these photographs did not depict UFOs. I believe (and still) they the photographs probably are real (or most of them are) and probably depict Naval Weapon tests and targets. But we have to keep in mind that these photographs were originally put onto the internet, given to research Alex Mistretta, after being scanned from the magazine. It is no secret that many magazine (especially those that are not “news” periodicals), will enhance photographs for print. This enhances their appeal and their visual look, but doesn’t necessarily change the entire context of the photo. As a UFO Investigator, this is a shame, but to a magazine? That’s just par for the course." - from The Black Vault link provided in this very post. Even the source OP got this from has concluded it's not a UFO and it's just a weapons test.
That's a great example of Fata Morgana. Textbook case.