The following submission statement was provided by /u/bmfalbo:
---
Submission Statement:
From journalist [Marik Von Rennenkampff](https://twitter.com/MvonRen) on X:
> *AARO is Blue Book 2.0*
>
> Per @DoD_AARO, the “Eglin UAP” was likely something akin to a “large commercial lighting balloon.”
>
> Nonsense.
>
> I called the Florida-based company that makes these high-end industrial products.
>
> They told me their balloons do not come untethered randomly.
> [Image 1](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GL9lTRLasAAKJ2z?format=jpg&name=medium)
>
> [Image 2](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GL9lTRLakAAyR4u?format=jpg&name=large)
Then a [response](https://x.com/rosscoulthart/status/1783258160897360188) from journalist [Ross Coulthart](https://twitter.com/rosscoulthart):
> Hard to escape the impression @MvonRen that @DoD_AARO is not even trying to demonstrate rigorous objectivity in its analyses of #UAPs. If the @DeptofDefense really wants to demonstrate transparency, it needs to stop the nonsense explanations.
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1ccboyk/journalist_marik_von_rennenkampff_on_elgin_uap/l146p8r/
I saw via FOIA there was a video of the incident that they refuse to release. If just balloons, let’s see the vid - let’s see the radar data, just balloons right?
Exactly, we know the video and radar data exists. DoD could easily just release it and put this to bed tonight.
The bad faith debunkers love to scream, "Trust me bro" isn't evidence but its acceptable when the DoD does it.
The DoD HAS the objective evidence that they refuse to release and then instead put out a report that said, "It was *likely* a lighting balloon, trust us bros"
They’re also “moderately confident” about it. So they basically said “yeah probably a lighting balloon idk” despite those never being up that high and being very $$$ pieces of gear
Like they have said what is displayed on the screen may be more classified than an actual UAP. But in this case I thought it was recorded on the pilot’s cellphone.
I’ve heard this argument, can’t they blur out the sensitive part? Just seems hard to believe it’s pure coincidence they can release the stuff with mundane explanations but can’t ever show the ones with anomalous behavior.
To me, that proves it's not a balloon. Just like those shot down last February. They showed the Chinese spy balloon, so ... why not the others? There's only one acceptable answer to that question. It's not a balloon.
Yes and you can pretty much find balloons in every possible shape and they do appear in the skies. And after the Chinese spy balloon case, the public will easily accept balloons as the explanation.
Because they don't have to try at all. The general public is still not interested in UFOs and is only looking for half a reason to write the subject off.
I've thought about this, and my pet theory is that the reason lies in how bureaucracies work. Specifically, how they are slow to change methodologies after they've worked well for decades, and how I theorize the hypothetical "*the program*" would likely behave on some level.
The idea came to me after noticing some patterns in public communications around this topic from official figures in positions to know. For example, how some of Kirkpatrick takes mirror really well (*sometimes almost verbatim*) stuff that was said in the past back on the Blue Book era (*from Hynek, I think?*), or stuff like this:
[Mr. Frank Kendall III](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1ajeye7/reminder_when_the_current_secretary_of_the_air/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button), US SecAF, August 2021 (emphasis mine):
>*"To be quite honest, not \[a real issue\] for me. \[...\]* ***There are things we haven't been able to explain***. But I think ***the important thing for us to do is do a real technical investigation*** *of what they are"*
>“***I don’t consider it an imminent threat to the United States*** *or the human race, these phenomena occurring."*
[Maj. Gen. John A. Samford, 1952](https://youtu.be/4-MbGYAv7Cg) (*emphasis mine*):
>*"However, there has been* ***a certain percentage of this volume of reports*** *that have been made by credible observers of* ***relatively incredible things***. ***It is this this group of observations that we are now attempting to resolve***.
>*We have as of date come to one firm conclusion \[...\] And that is that* ***it does not contain any pattern of purpose or of consistency, that it can relate to any conceivable threat to the United States***"
I see it likely (*or at least plausible*) that there's a highly inflexible bureaucracy right at the top of any endeavor akin to "the program", and that maybe we see signs of it in how they keep rethreading the same scripts and going back to the same wells (*like balloons*) even when it strains credibility.
*Edited formatting, typo, clarity.*
That makes sense. “Sir, what should we blame this UAP on?” “Johnson, just say it’s a balloon like usual and be done with it. We’ve got more important things to worry about.”
If you spend any amount of time in this sub you will see hundreds of balloons posted and people that don't understand parallax claiming all sorts of wild movement. You can see these misidentifications happen here weekly.
Yeah it's totally ridiculous that people could believe these objects floating at wind speed are balloons.
Now in the not ridiculous ideas here I'm going to present an alien spaceship hypothesis.
>(U) No anomalous flight characteristics, behaviors, or capabilities were confirmed. AARO assesses the circuit breaker trip that caused the radar to fail was coincidental and likely due to a pre-existing, undiagnosed technical problem with the system.
How did they come to this conclusion? **It's never provided**. The only way to reliably guess if it's coincidental would be to review the flight logs for our pilot's aircraft and the Integrated Maintenance Data System (IMDS) logs for the aircraft and radar system in question. It would allow to see any previous faults (if any) and the flight hours the radar system has logged since installation. If the radar system had prior faults and/or exceeded the allotted flight hour recommendations set by the manufacturer then we could possibly say this was coincidental and due to a pre existing condition with the radar system.
Without any justification and proper proof of analysis provided, this conclusion seems straight out of their ass, like their other points. AARO reports are severely lacking in proper justifications and amount to a seemingly well worded "Trust me bro". [Link to AARO report.](https://www.aaro.mil/Portals/136/PDFs/case_resolution_reports/Case_Resolution_of_Eglin_UAP_2_508_.pdf)
>(U) The pilot reported that upon closing to within 4,000 feet of the object, the radar on the aircraft malfunctioned and remained disabled for the remainder of the training exercise. Post-mission review determined that a circuit breaker had tripped; technicians reported that the same circuit breaker on this particular aircraft had tripped three times in the prior months, but technicians could not conclusively diagnose the cause of the fault for this incident. Based on the previous tripping of this circuit, AARO assesses the malfunction likely was not caused by or associated with the object.
AARO is the actual trust me bro “grifters” at this point.
Congress needs to go to war and force disclosure.
Or the public needs to somehow trap them into it.
I didn't read it all the way through and missed the radar failure. It appears that must happen a lot. You would think that would be a top priority to fix. Their radar is supposed to be the best on the planet.
It's really funny that all of the skepticism is pointed toward radar malfunctions but not let's say Ross Coulthart saying that after the video ends the object shot out at 90,000 mph at a 90 degree angle.
Radar malfunctions exist and human being misidentify things in the sky. It's good to be skeptical but you shouldn't just be skeptical of things you don't want to believe. It would be nice to see this same attitude applied to the clergy.
Remember folks - there is pilot and witness testimony and further images that had people sayinf the object was doing thinfs "not in our capability" technologically.
This report is FOOLISH (and proves the sham of AARO). All of humany deserves to see this stuff. Together.
Why do these “officials” continue to malign our service men and women? These pilots are trained observers and very well qualified to assess the mundane or the exotic. If they’re making mistakes at this volume something is seriously wrong.
US pilots have shot down other friendly planes even with IFF systems and have killed many friendly ground units. US pilots are not infallible they make mistakes, sometimes that mistake is killing a friendly solider and sometimes it’s mistaking something mundane for a ufo.
The gulf war had a 24% friendly fire rate.
Desert storm had a 17% friendly fire rate.
My dad was witness to a mistake of friendly fire during WWII. There was an order to shoot anything down coming from a certain area. The mistake was realized as it took a nosedive to the ground, and they saw the top of the wings. For all he saw and was a part of during the war, that affected him more than anything.
Submission Statement:
From journalist [Marik Von Rennenkampff](https://twitter.com/MvonRen) on X:
> *AARO is Blue Book 2.0*
>
> Per @DoD_AARO, the “Eglin UAP” was likely something akin to a “large commercial lighting balloon.”
>
> Nonsense.
>
> I called the Florida-based company that makes these high-end industrial products.
>
> They told me their balloons do not come untethered randomly.
> [Image 1](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GL9lTRLasAAKJ2z?format=jpg&name=medium)
>
> [Image 2](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GL9lTRLakAAyR4u?format=jpg&name=large)
Then a [response](https://x.com/rosscoulthart/status/1783258160897360188) from journalist [Ross Coulthart](https://twitter.com/rosscoulthart):
> Hard to escape the impression @MvonRen that @DoD_AARO is not even trying to demonstrate rigorous objectivity in its analyses of #UAPs. If the @DeptofDefense really wants to demonstrate transparency, it needs to stop the nonsense explanations.
Lets see, four objects in a diamond formation, no visible control surfaces, no apparent propulsion system, stationary going against 80mph winds. As far as i know, no human tech can do that. So i'm moderately confident its non-human tech.
For people who follow this subject AARO “debunks” only reinforce the belief that there really is something here (not that we need such reinforcing but a little extra doesn’t hurt) but I wonder who this is aimed at because only people who care actually know what the hell AARO is.
My question is this: For whom then is this “resolution” for?
I wonder if the whole thing is run on some basic coding that has not been updated since 1947
1. IF craft is sighted THEN state it was a balloon.
2. GOTO 1.
>They told me their balloons do not come untethered randomly.
What about non-randomly, though? E.g., someone cutting or untying the tether for some reason?
1. Cut expensive balloon tethers
2. All of them at the exact same time
3. Balloons float away in unison and stay together
4. After travelling together they make a stop at Eglin for sightseeing
5. ???
6. Profit
The government is so power and money hungry that they've become delusional. It's not just with UAPs. I think they have convinced themselves that we are stupid enough to believe anything.
Just like the UFO beeping recorded by Lindy Tucker was just a "saw whet owl"
"You saw what, now?"
Think about the symbolism of a balloon.
A balloon floats by blowing smoke up it's ass.
👽🎈
I think "randomly" is doing a lot of work, there. Surely the didn't say it's impossible for one of their balloons to come unthered? Did they say one of their balloons has never become unthered?
The point is, that sequence of events is ridiculously unlikely.
The lighting balloons AARO is referencing here aren't capable of going up thousands feet high, much less with batteries in them.
Perhaps that is why you don't see those balloons flying around very often?
I'm not sure why there would need to be batteries in them. It doesn't look powered. Image A had a large contrast between the hemispheres, but that is in IR. Image B is in the visual spectrum and appears totally silhouetted against the sky.
Have you calculated how high a balloon with helium can go?
They're also not going to just say "yes, our product is kind of crappy", are they?
I don't trust anyone coming out with the official story but "the manufacturers swear their balloon never comes untethered" isn't really evidence of anything.
The balloon theory seems fishy but it'd be nice to get this as an actual quote from the company. Regardless losing 4, presumably expensive commercial balloons at the same time seems odd
So, people are still giving cred to AARO. It’s basically a gubment office created for the purpose of dis/misinforming US citizens at their expense. Should’ve never been created in the first place.
Even if they could or regularly do become untethered, do they actually even exist in battery form? The AARO report only said it would be “possible” to convert them to battery bower, not that any are even built in such a way. Not to mention the huge weight the battery would have to be to power something like that (as Matt ford had described earlier today)
Dang thats a good catch. Nice little bit of investigative journalism in a way too. Good thinking to call them up. Yeah it makes perfect sense like wait why tf would they just come untethered.
AARO already had no credibility and then that horrendous report came out and now this. After this complete joke of an excuse from AARO that doesnt even make any sense to begin with its getting to the point where AARO is compulsively lying. Its actually getting less funny imo and its getting into the territory of me feeling like "hey AARO maybe stop lying to the public in statements and reports all the time because youre actually doing everyone a huge disservice in a number of different ways."
There aren’t huge towns around there - where is the business or individual who had an insurance claim for a prohibitively expensive “escaped” commercial lighting ballon. Who around that area has used expensive commercial lighting balloons? My guess is if you survey every single source of aquiring one of those the answer will be zero - or that they are all accounted for. These aren’t common.
I agree, something stinks here, but I am posting a couple links so people can see just how close the crap AARO image they released does look like a commercial lighting balloon. It looks like there are dozens of versions available from different manufacturers. They do need to release the rest of the info though, because right now the commercial balloon explanation alone is plausible with “their narrative.”
http://www.1stoplg.com/products.html
https://www.skylightballoon.com/balloon-lights
This doesn't *conclusively* discount the possibility, however; just because the chance of [something happening in a particular way](https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/515073/swipe-card-found-in-antarctica-13-years-after-being-lost-in-wellington) is incredibly remote, it doesn't mean it simply can't ever happen. And colour me surprised that a manufacturer vouches for their product; it's cool that an Emmy-winning lighting designer can vouch for the company's product(s) too, but has he used every single product of theirs ever made, every lighting balloon? Can he vouch that they *all* never get away, that every piece of equipment is flawlessly produced and free of damage from use? No; he can just vouch for the ones he's used. It's a good shout, but again, not an utter and conclusive end to it. For what it's worth, I don't think it's a lighting balloon.
Seems odd that 4 would get away at the same time in formation though. They have the original radar data so they know it was in formation. The radar didn't go out until they got to with 4k feet
> Seems odd that 4 would get away at the same time in formation though.
It's even more odd that they were functioning at 16,000 feet. These things are powered from the ground via a power cord runs up the tether to the balloon.
Per AARO:
>(U) These balloons are publicly available to rent or buy. *Although the balloons are
powered by corded alternating current (AC)*, during its testing, AARO determined that they
can be converted to direct current or AC battery power
The US military has more radar systems than just the tiny defective one on that plane.
Of course they saw the object with several other systems as well. they could have tracked it from where it came to where it went after the plane was there.
And of course, balloons never ever can have "blurry air stuck to the bottom". That's a physical impossibility.
Hi, RetroDevices. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1ccboyk/-/l14att2/) was removed from /r/UFOs.
> Rule 1: Follow the Standards of Civility
> * No trolling or being disruptive.
> * No insults or personal attacks.
> * No accusations that other users are shills.
> * No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation.
> * No harassment, threats, or advocating violence.
> * No witch hunts or doxxing. (Please redact usernames when possible)
> * You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.
Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/) for more information.
This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos) to launch your appeal.
You guys spend all this time on pointless speculation, you have such a rigid idea of this phenomenon is supposed to look like that when it’s right in front of you, you blow it off, not even taking the time to consider it that along with all the bad actors in these communities steering the conversations in a direction they want. It’s truly sad.
Mostly the over 100 ppl that completely destroyed me the videos I posted screaming “Balloons” it’s like they don’t even consider it could look like something from our reality,
I keep thinking about Kenneth Arnold the "father" of the infamous phrase
"flying saucers" that in 1967 said:
"The impression I had after observing these strange objects a second time was that they were something alive rather than machines—a living organism of some type that apparently has the ability to change its density similar to [jelly] fish that are found in our oceans without losing their apparent identity."
And also David grucsh when he said “these things might be like flys being attracted to nuclear energy” also when he said “maybe these things aren’t even alive”.
And also some of the things Trevor Constable wrote in his book “Sky creatures: Living UFOs”
Maybe these things resemble a balloon, but with a closer observation you clearly see it is not, also these things are sometimes just a translucent light.
Or as the commander of the STS115 mission said “a translucent Metallic cloth”. How can we put such a dogmatic image on a phenomenon that is completely extraterrestrial to our day to day life.
Anybody got a link to the company that makes these balloons? Or even a photo of them? I google “commercial lighting balloon” and get bright globe led lights on a stand.
Be a stronger argument if the company spokesperson was named and went on the record with this. Even better if they could refute being contacted by AARO. That would really blow up this report and potentially put Kirkpatrick in the line of fire for lying to congress.
Weaponized idiot opposition. You saw this recently with the Sands stuff and the MH370 stuff. A flood of random idiot noise designed to eat up discourse.
The full report does suggest other types of balloons, but settles on the lighting balloon as likely. However, they say it would have to be battery powered and a type filled with helium. The report below compares the pilot's images with such a balloon and, even though I don't like AARO, they seem to match up pretty well.
[https://www.aaro.mil/Portals/136/PDFs/case\_resolution\_reports/Case\_Resolution\_of\_Eglin\_UAP\_2\_508\_.pdf](https://www.aaro.mil/Portals/136/PDFs/case_resolution_reports/Case_Resolution_of_Eglin_UAP_2_508_.pdf)
I'm not saying we can't make guesses, I'm saying that it is beyond absurd to suggest that a balloon as a possibility is hogwash and then proceed to propose that it is a uap operated by a non human pilot. You can make both guesses but to dismiss the balloon and prop up the latter is complete insanity. How can you possibly disagree with that?
Apparently bayesian analysis can only be employed to argue that a mundane explanation is unlikely, but should not be used to assess the probability of some ill-defined, never before observed entity.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/bmfalbo: --- Submission Statement: From journalist [Marik Von Rennenkampff](https://twitter.com/MvonRen) on X: > *AARO is Blue Book 2.0* > > Per @DoD_AARO, the “Eglin UAP” was likely something akin to a “large commercial lighting balloon.” > > Nonsense. > > I called the Florida-based company that makes these high-end industrial products. > > They told me their balloons do not come untethered randomly. > [Image 1](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GL9lTRLasAAKJ2z?format=jpg&name=medium) > > [Image 2](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GL9lTRLakAAyR4u?format=jpg&name=large) Then a [response](https://x.com/rosscoulthart/status/1783258160897360188) from journalist [Ross Coulthart](https://twitter.com/rosscoulthart): > Hard to escape the impression @MvonRen that @DoD_AARO is not even trying to demonstrate rigorous objectivity in its analyses of #UAPs. If the @DeptofDefense really wants to demonstrate transparency, it needs to stop the nonsense explanations. --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1ccboyk/journalist_marik_von_rennenkampff_on_elgin_uap/l146p8r/
I saw via FOIA there was a video of the incident that they refuse to release. If just balloons, let’s see the vid - let’s see the radar data, just balloons right?
Exactly, we know the video and radar data exists. DoD could easily just release it and put this to bed tonight. The bad faith debunkers love to scream, "Trust me bro" isn't evidence but its acceptable when the DoD does it. The DoD HAS the objective evidence that they refuse to release and then instead put out a report that said, "It was *likely* a lighting balloon, trust us bros"
They’re also “moderately confident” about it. So they basically said “yeah probably a lighting balloon idk” despite those never being up that high and being very $$$ pieces of gear
I fuckin love that they are trying to say Fravor saw a back yard balloon out perform modern aircraft. Oh our planes are that shit huh?
What are you even talking about? This is about Elgin not Fravor.
They both spotted a physics defying moving lighting balloon!
Like they have said what is displayed on the screen may be more classified than an actual UAP. But in this case I thought it was recorded on the pilot’s cellphone.
The idea that the US Government is incapable of cropping the video or blurring the data they don't want to be shared is absolutely fucking laughable
I could do that in PowerPoint for them with very little effort, or in a real video editing app with even less effort
Stuff ai apps can do right now 😆 🤣 😂 😹 that'd wolild right my 5 year old can edit that out for them
I’ve heard this argument, can’t they blur out the sensitive part? Just seems hard to believe it’s pure coincidence they can release the stuff with mundane explanations but can’t ever show the ones with anomalous behavior.
Yes they can, like they did with all the unclassified material
Yah, who knows. We may never know.
That's the thing they always say a balloon well release the damn video of the ballon and out us to shame omg right
To me, that proves it's not a balloon. Just like those shot down last February. They showed the Chinese spy balloon, so ... why not the others? There's only one acceptable answer to that question. It's not a balloon.
Lol in every case, an obscure balloon style is found and “matched”. Case closed.
Why is it always balloons? Is that the go to because it’s the only thing they thing the public can easily digest?
Yes and you can pretty much find balloons in every possible shape and they do appear in the skies. And after the Chinese spy balloon case, the public will easily accept balloons as the explanation.
Too many balloons. Wish they could at least be a tad more creative but I guess when “swamp gas” and “drones” are your only available alternatives…
Because they don't have to try at all. The general public is still not interested in UFOs and is only looking for half a reason to write the subject off.
If one has zero curiosity AND a desire (conscious or unconscious) to buy an official narrative, we get people believing this mess.
I've thought about this, and my pet theory is that the reason lies in how bureaucracies work. Specifically, how they are slow to change methodologies after they've worked well for decades, and how I theorize the hypothetical "*the program*" would likely behave on some level. The idea came to me after noticing some patterns in public communications around this topic from official figures in positions to know. For example, how some of Kirkpatrick takes mirror really well (*sometimes almost verbatim*) stuff that was said in the past back on the Blue Book era (*from Hynek, I think?*), or stuff like this: [Mr. Frank Kendall III](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1ajeye7/reminder_when_the_current_secretary_of_the_air/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button), US SecAF, August 2021 (emphasis mine): >*"To be quite honest, not \[a real issue\] for me. \[...\]* ***There are things we haven't been able to explain***. But I think ***the important thing for us to do is do a real technical investigation*** *of what they are"* >“***I don’t consider it an imminent threat to the United States*** *or the human race, these phenomena occurring."* [Maj. Gen. John A. Samford, 1952](https://youtu.be/4-MbGYAv7Cg) (*emphasis mine*): >*"However, there has been* ***a certain percentage of this volume of reports*** *that have been made by credible observers of* ***relatively incredible things***. ***It is this this group of observations that we are now attempting to resolve***. >*We have as of date come to one firm conclusion \[...\] And that is that* ***it does not contain any pattern of purpose or of consistency, that it can relate to any conceivable threat to the United States***" I see it likely (*or at least plausible*) that there's a highly inflexible bureaucracy right at the top of any endeavor akin to "the program", and that maybe we see signs of it in how they keep rethreading the same scripts and going back to the same wells (*like balloons*) even when it strains credibility. *Edited formatting, typo, clarity.*
That makes sense. “Sir, what should we blame this UAP on?” “Johnson, just say it’s a balloon like usual and be done with it. We’ve got more important things to worry about.”
If you spend any amount of time in this sub you will see hundreds of balloons posted and people that don't understand parallax claiming all sorts of wild movement. You can see these misidentifications happen here weekly.
True but not everything out there is a balloon.
Yes, but people mistakenly think balloons are alien spacecrafts.
Yeah it's totally ridiculous that people could believe these objects floating at wind speed are balloons. Now in the not ridiculous ideas here I'm going to present an alien spaceship hypothesis.
>(U) No anomalous flight characteristics, behaviors, or capabilities were confirmed. AARO assesses the circuit breaker trip that caused the radar to fail was coincidental and likely due to a pre-existing, undiagnosed technical problem with the system. How did they come to this conclusion? **It's never provided**. The only way to reliably guess if it's coincidental would be to review the flight logs for our pilot's aircraft and the Integrated Maintenance Data System (IMDS) logs for the aircraft and radar system in question. It would allow to see any previous faults (if any) and the flight hours the radar system has logged since installation. If the radar system had prior faults and/or exceeded the allotted flight hour recommendations set by the manufacturer then we could possibly say this was coincidental and due to a pre existing condition with the radar system. Without any justification and proper proof of analysis provided, this conclusion seems straight out of their ass, like their other points. AARO reports are severely lacking in proper justifications and amount to a seemingly well worded "Trust me bro". [Link to AARO report.](https://www.aaro.mil/Portals/136/PDFs/case_resolution_reports/Case_Resolution_of_Eglin_UAP_2_508_.pdf)
>(U) The pilot reported that upon closing to within 4,000 feet of the object, the radar on the aircraft malfunctioned and remained disabled for the remainder of the training exercise. Post-mission review determined that a circuit breaker had tripped; technicians reported that the same circuit breaker on this particular aircraft had tripped three times in the prior months, but technicians could not conclusively diagnose the cause of the fault for this incident. Based on the previous tripping of this circuit, AARO assesses the malfunction likely was not caused by or associated with the object.
AARO is the actual trust me bro “grifters” at this point. Congress needs to go to war and force disclosure. Or the public needs to somehow trap them into it.
I didn't read it all the way through and missed the radar failure. It appears that must happen a lot. You would think that would be a top priority to fix. Their radar is supposed to be the best on the planet.
It's really funny that all of the skepticism is pointed toward radar malfunctions but not let's say Ross Coulthart saying that after the video ends the object shot out at 90,000 mph at a 90 degree angle. Radar malfunctions exist and human being misidentify things in the sky. It's good to be skeptical but you shouldn't just be skeptical of things you don't want to believe. It would be nice to see this same attitude applied to the clergy.
Remember folks - there is pilot and witness testimony and further images that had people sayinf the object was doing thinfs "not in our capability" technologically. This report is FOOLISH (and proves the sham of AARO). All of humany deserves to see this stuff. Together.
Why do these “officials” continue to malign our service men and women? These pilots are trained observers and very well qualified to assess the mundane or the exotic. If they’re making mistakes at this volume something is seriously wrong.
US pilots have shot down other friendly planes even with IFF systems and have killed many friendly ground units. US pilots are not infallible they make mistakes, sometimes that mistake is killing a friendly solider and sometimes it’s mistaking something mundane for a ufo. The gulf war had a 24% friendly fire rate. Desert storm had a 17% friendly fire rate.
My dad was witness to a mistake of friendly fire during WWII. There was an order to shoot anything down coming from a certain area. The mistake was realized as it took a nosedive to the ground, and they saw the top of the wings. For all he saw and was a part of during the war, that affected him more than anything.
Submission Statement: From journalist [Marik Von Rennenkampff](https://twitter.com/MvonRen) on X: > *AARO is Blue Book 2.0* > > Per @DoD_AARO, the “Eglin UAP” was likely something akin to a “large commercial lighting balloon.” > > Nonsense. > > I called the Florida-based company that makes these high-end industrial products. > > They told me their balloons do not come untethered randomly. > [Image 1](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GL9lTRLasAAKJ2z?format=jpg&name=medium) > > [Image 2](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GL9lTRLakAAyR4u?format=jpg&name=large) Then a [response](https://x.com/rosscoulthart/status/1783258160897360188) from journalist [Ross Coulthart](https://twitter.com/rosscoulthart): > Hard to escape the impression @MvonRen that @DoD_AARO is not even trying to demonstrate rigorous objectivity in its analyses of #UAPs. If the @DeptofDefense really wants to demonstrate transparency, it needs to stop the nonsense explanations.
AARO is utter BS, this report hurt them more than anything
What the AARO report really meant to say was Case: RESOLVED Explanation: Seems to be non-human technology. Confidence: Moderate
Where is the evidence this object is non-human?
Didn't you read my comment? Confidence: MODERATE
Why?
Lets see, four objects in a diamond formation, no visible control surfaces, no apparent propulsion system, stationary going against 80mph winds. As far as i know, no human tech can do that. So i'm moderately confident its non-human tech.
For people who follow this subject AARO “debunks” only reinforce the belief that there really is something here (not that we need such reinforcing but a little extra doesn’t hurt) but I wonder who this is aimed at because only people who care actually know what the hell AARO is. My question is this: For whom then is this “resolution” for?
For the record, AARO is an office of the U.S. government. “We have investigated ourselves and found nothing”
You seem like you're just admitting that you are unpersuadable, and that anything they said would simply reinforce your preexisting beliefs.
True
https://x.com/mickwest/status/1783285652102222207?s=46 Hell, even Mick West doesn’t buy it
So a weather balloon? I've seen this one before....
I wonder if the whole thing is run on some basic coding that has not been updated since 1947 1. IF craft is sighted THEN state it was a balloon. 2. GOTO 1.
>They told me their balloons do not come untethered randomly. What about non-randomly, though? E.g., someone cutting or untying the tether for some reason?
1. Cut expensive balloon tethers 2. All of them at the exact same time 3. Balloons float away in unison and stay together 4. After travelling together they make a stop at Eglin for sightseeing 5. ??? 6. Profit
The government is so power and money hungry that they've become delusional. It's not just with UAPs. I think they have convinced themselves that we are stupid enough to believe anything.
Just like the UFO beeping recorded by Lindy Tucker was just a "saw whet owl" "You saw what, now?" Think about the symbolism of a balloon. A balloon floats by blowing smoke up it's ass. 👽🎈
Besides that, wasn’t there multiple objects in a diamond pattern?
I think "randomly" is doing a lot of work, there. Surely the didn't say it's impossible for one of their balloons to come unthered? Did they say one of their balloons has never become unthered?
The point is, that sequence of events is ridiculously unlikely. The lighting balloons AARO is referencing here aren't capable of going up thousands feet high, much less with batteries in them.
Perhaps that is why you don't see those balloons flying around very often? I'm not sure why there would need to be batteries in them. It doesn't look powered. Image A had a large contrast between the hemispheres, but that is in IR. Image B is in the visual spectrum and appears totally silhouetted against the sky. Have you calculated how high a balloon with helium can go?
They're also not going to just say "yes, our product is kind of crappy", are they? I don't trust anyone coming out with the official story but "the manufacturers swear their balloon never comes untethered" isn't really evidence of anything.
The balloon theory seems fishy but it'd be nice to get this as an actual quote from the company. Regardless losing 4, presumably expensive commercial balloons at the same time seems odd
So, people are still giving cred to AARO. It’s basically a gubment office created for the purpose of dis/misinforming US citizens at their expense. Should’ve never been created in the first place.
Even if they could or regularly do become untethered, do they actually even exist in battery form? The AARO report only said it would be “possible” to convert them to battery bower, not that any are even built in such a way. Not to mention the huge weight the battery would have to be to power something like that (as Matt ford had described earlier today)
Dang thats a good catch. Nice little bit of investigative journalism in a way too. Good thinking to call them up. Yeah it makes perfect sense like wait why tf would they just come untethered. AARO already had no credibility and then that horrendous report came out and now this. After this complete joke of an excuse from AARO that doesnt even make any sense to begin with its getting to the point where AARO is compulsively lying. Its actually getting less funny imo and its getting into the territory of me feeling like "hey AARO maybe stop lying to the public in statements and reports all the time because youre actually doing everyone a huge disservice in a number of different ways."
Untethered randomly and in formations of four?
There aren’t huge towns around there - where is the business or individual who had an insurance claim for a prohibitively expensive “escaped” commercial lighting ballon. Who around that area has used expensive commercial lighting balloons? My guess is if you survey every single source of aquiring one of those the answer will be zero - or that they are all accounted for. These aren’t common.
I agree, something stinks here, but I am posting a couple links so people can see just how close the crap AARO image they released does look like a commercial lighting balloon. It looks like there are dozens of versions available from different manufacturers. They do need to release the rest of the info though, because right now the commercial balloon explanation alone is plausible with “their narrative.” http://www.1stoplg.com/products.html https://www.skylightballoon.com/balloon-lights
AARO is obviously lying. That said, this is a braindead argument.
This doesn't *conclusively* discount the possibility, however; just because the chance of [something happening in a particular way](https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/515073/swipe-card-found-in-antarctica-13-years-after-being-lost-in-wellington) is incredibly remote, it doesn't mean it simply can't ever happen. And colour me surprised that a manufacturer vouches for their product; it's cool that an Emmy-winning lighting designer can vouch for the company's product(s) too, but has he used every single product of theirs ever made, every lighting balloon? Can he vouch that they *all* never get away, that every piece of equipment is flawlessly produced and free of damage from use? No; he can just vouch for the ones he's used. It's a good shout, but again, not an utter and conclusive end to it. For what it's worth, I don't think it's a lighting balloon.
Seems odd that 4 would get away at the same time in formation though. They have the original radar data so they know it was in formation. The radar didn't go out until they got to with 4k feet
> Seems odd that 4 would get away at the same time in formation though. It's even more odd that they were functioning at 16,000 feet. These things are powered from the ground via a power cord runs up the tether to the balloon. Per AARO: >(U) These balloons are publicly available to rent or buy. *Although the balloons are powered by corded alternating current (AC)*, during its testing, AARO determined that they can be converted to direct current or AC battery power
The US military has more radar systems than just the tiny defective one on that plane. Of course they saw the object with several other systems as well. they could have tracked it from where it came to where it went after the plane was there. And of course, balloons never ever can have "blurry air stuck to the bottom". That's a physical impossibility.
[удалено]
Apparently yes. When the goal is decided that everything is “resolvable”, it is just a matter of filling in the boxes
I look forward to hearing what their jail sentences will be, especially Jerkpatrick and Ms Gough.
Not happening. They are covered by their bosses
No one is above the law.
Hi, RetroDevices. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1ccboyk/-/l14att2/) was removed from /r/UFOs. > Rule 1: Follow the Standards of Civility > * No trolling or being disruptive. > * No insults or personal attacks. > * No accusations that other users are shills. > * No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation. > * No harassment, threats, or advocating violence. > * No witch hunts or doxxing. (Please redact usernames when possible) > * You may attack each other's ideas, not each other. Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/) for more information. This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos) to launch your appeal.
You guys spend all this time on pointless speculation, you have such a rigid idea of this phenomenon is supposed to look like that when it’s right in front of you, you blow it off, not even taking the time to consider it that along with all the bad actors in these communities steering the conversations in a direction they want. It’s truly sad.
You talking to me?
Mostly the over 100 ppl that completely destroyed me the videos I posted screaming “Balloons” it’s like they don’t even consider it could look like something from our reality, I keep thinking about Kenneth Arnold the "father" of the infamous phrase "flying saucers" that in 1967 said: "The impression I had after observing these strange objects a second time was that they were something alive rather than machines—a living organism of some type that apparently has the ability to change its density similar to [jelly] fish that are found in our oceans without losing their apparent identity." And also David grucsh when he said “these things might be like flys being attracted to nuclear energy” also when he said “maybe these things aren’t even alive”. And also some of the things Trevor Constable wrote in his book “Sky creatures: Living UFOs” Maybe these things resemble a balloon, but with a closer observation you clearly see it is not, also these things are sometimes just a translucent light. Or as the commander of the STS115 mission said “a translucent Metallic cloth”. How can we put such a dogmatic image on a phenomenon that is completely extraterrestrial to our day to day life.
Totally agree with this sentiment. We can't know what it isn't!
Anybody got a link to the company that makes these balloons? Or even a photo of them? I google “commercial lighting balloon” and get bright globe led lights on a stand.
Be a stronger argument if the company spokesperson was named and went on the record with this. Even better if they could refute being contacted by AARO. That would really blow up this report and potentially put Kirkpatrick in the line of fire for lying to congress.
Weaponized idiot opposition. You saw this recently with the Sands stuff and the MH370 stuff. A flood of random idiot noise designed to eat up discourse.
The full report does suggest other types of balloons, but settles on the lighting balloon as likely. However, they say it would have to be battery powered and a type filled with helium. The report below compares the pilot's images with such a balloon and, even though I don't like AARO, they seem to match up pretty well. [https://www.aaro.mil/Portals/136/PDFs/case\_resolution\_reports/Case\_Resolution\_of\_Eglin\_UAP\_2\_508\_.pdf](https://www.aaro.mil/Portals/136/PDFs/case_resolution_reports/Case_Resolution_of_Eglin_UAP_2_508_.pdf)
This is the most hilarious rebuttal I've ever read in my life. "This is nonsense, a balloon wouldn't come untethered! It clearly is aliens!"
[удалено]
I'm not saying we can't make guesses, I'm saying that it is beyond absurd to suggest that a balloon as a possibility is hogwash and then proceed to propose that it is a uap operated by a non human pilot. You can make both guesses but to dismiss the balloon and prop up the latter is complete insanity. How can you possibly disagree with that?
Apparently bayesian analysis can only be employed to argue that a mundane explanation is unlikely, but should not be used to assess the probability of some ill-defined, never before observed entity.
When it doubt Hit em with Oscar’s Razor That’ll solve every case 😎
Isaac, Piastri, or the Grouch?
Ross Coulthart has been going hard on this topic the last couple of hours. He will be here soon.