Mike Colangelo

Ex YouTuber and full time video editor. All I want is full UFO/UAP disclosure. I truly think we're not alone in the universe and we're not alone on earth.

[Mike Colangelo @MikeColangelo]

@MiddleOfMayhem @LueElizondo I was also inspired to make a video after listening to @LueElizondo in an interview.

[Mike Colangelo @MikeColangelo]

@SilvaRecord @PostDisclosure I’m thinking this could happen in 14 days NOT weeks.

[Mike Colangelo @MikeColangelo]

@Munook Your mom can feel it.

[Mike Colangelo @MikeColangelo]

@Terravoir @DakotaGarman @JCOviedo6 Rear doors.

[Mike Colangelo @MikeColangelo]

@Terravoir @DakotaGarman @JCOviedo6 https://t.co/JelBDy3vxX

[Mike Colangelo @MikeColangelo]

@Mr_BenPrime I thought it was a Corn Moon right now?

This changes everything…

[Mike Colangelo @MikeColangelo]

@SilvaRecord @g_knapp Imagine the hater meltdown if the Knappster doesn’t mention Bob Lazar during the hearing.

[Mike Colangelo @MikeColangelo]

@devgru1980mi @enigmalabs Thank you. I’m still extremely handsome.

[Mike Colangelo @MikeColangelo]

@Gus2089603005 @MHuntington7 Probably best to decide for yourself.

I think some had or have something positive to contribute. I’ve always enjoyed Kevin Knuth.

You also have a UFO researcher and witness right here in this thread.

[Mike Colangelo @MikeColangelo]

Work and life got busy for me.

But if you’re asking for my take and are actually interested…

I can tell you I still don’t trust Jake Barber. Thought it was a huge mistake to go public before they get the goods for the public. If you can make a craft land and retrieve it, do that first before you say peep. The flock of birds video, give me a break.

I didn’t understand the New Jersey drone craze. No idea why the community got excited about that. Not one interesting video/photo came out of that circus.

Lue Elizondo showing two easily debunked UFO photos, we all know that was garbage.

I don’t understand what the 50+ fake and possibly 2 real mummies have to do with UFOs. Jumping to conclusions.

[Mike Colangelo @MikeColangelo]

@MHuntington7 @Gus2089603005 🤣 something like that.

[Mike Colangelo @MikeColangelo]

@MHuntington7 @Gus2089603005 I’m right here boys. Still observing, just not posting.

[Mike Colangelo @MikeColangelo]

@Munook His mom probably does PR.

[Mike Colangelo @MikeColangelo]

@TheUfoJoe @UAPDF Lue Elizondo sure knows how to pick awesome lawyers. What a shit show.

[Mike Colangelo @MikeColangelo]

@dave_beaty Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

[Joe Murgia @TheUfoJoe]

Is there a 7-10 minute video of the Tic Tac?

IMO, this LAP (Long-Ass Post) is worth your time. Took several hours. I'm tired! :-)

"There is a chance that [the Tic Tac] is extremely advanced technology that either we reverse engineered or just actually came up with ourselves.” ~USS Princeton Witness - Gary Voorhis - 2019

(Unless you ordered the video from UFO MegaCon 2019, or you've read my blog, you have not seen any of these quotes.)

~~~Excerpts from My 2019 Blog~~~

(If it's not a quote, then it's me writing. I was there the day of the Tic Tac panel.)

Approximately, on November 10th, [2004, Kevin] Day started witnessing these strange tracks on his radar scope. He wasn’t really concerned with them because there was a lot of air traffic off the coast of California and they were a significant ways from the strike group. So they just monitored them and reporting them to “higher authorities” and maintained track of them.

They stood out and were anomalous because they were at 28,000 feet and going at 100 knots. Day said that was, “extremely bizarre.” His entire job was to identify stuff and he had no idea what these were. None. Radar was shut down so they could do an extensive diagnostics to make sure it was working and these were real contacts.

(On November 14th, Fravor, @DietrichVFA41, Jim Slaight and Fravor's WSO engaged with the Tic Tac...)

@GaryVoorhis said that he heard they were streaming the intercept live on the SIPRNet (Wiki: Secret Internet Protocol Router Network is “a system of interconnected computer networks used by the U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. Department of State to transmit classified information”). So everybody (who had the proper clearance) packed into any place that had the SIPRNet.

Jason Turner was on board the USS Princeton and worked in the ship’s supply department and medical department as a Petty Officer.

Gary Voorhis: “We were watching it. We were watching the entire video, just like [Jason] Turner. He was lucky to have a top secret clearance and a friend in a space that he could watch it. It was honestly amazing. This thing moved with no apparent inertial…gravity didn’t seem to affect it. It would stop and go. It never really ramped up in speed. It just went from point A to point B at X speed. Period. And just as erratic as you would even imagine. After we got done watching the video and, you know…a bit stunned. Went out to the smoke deck and kind of stared off into oblivion for a while. I don’t really have any of the psychological effects that Kevin had. But to me, I’ve always been very interested in physics, engineering and this object just showed me a level of physics and a level of engineering that, you know, I didn’t even know is possible."

Jason Turner says that the FLIR video we��ve all seen of the Tic Tac is nowhere near the quality of what he saw. What he watched was crystal clear.

Gary Voorhis: “But it is the same video.”

Jason Turner: “It is. It’s the same video. This is actually the very beginning of the full video that I saw – the seven to ten minute long video – and you see there where he’s switching between different views…when you see the Tic Tac change color. When it was white, that is when you could really see the bottom, the things protruding out the bottom of it. And then, once you see it where it takes off and goes to the left. That is when they started chasing this thing. And then it was making maneuvers that no human being could ever survive. The g-forces that would be put on these people would just…you would die…instantly. And then being in these… you know, the jets, the fighter jets and not being able to keep up with them at all. That’s mind-blowing.”

(How did they watch Chad Underwood acquiring FLIR footage of the Tic Tac? I believe @dave_beaty looked into that and found that live streaming just wasn't possible. Underwood has said that he shot more footage than what we've seen so that matches what Turner said.

Chad Underwood (CU): "The thing that stood out to me the most was how erratic it was behaving. And what I mean by 'erratic' is that its changes in altitude, air speed, and aspect were just unlike things that I’ve ever encountered before flying against other air targets. It was just behaving in ways that aren’t physically normal. That’s what caught my eye. Because, aircraft, whether they’re manned or unmanned, still have to obey the laws of physics. They have to have some source of lift, some source of propulsion. The Tic Tac was not doing that. It was going from like 50,000 feet to, you know, a hundred feet in like seconds, which is not possible."

Matthew Phelan - @CBMDP (MP): "And it was doing that during your engagement too?"

CU: "Yes. That was the thing that was the most interesting to me: how erratic this thing was. If it was obeying physics like a normal object that you would encounter in the sky - an aircraft, or a cruise missile, or some sort of special project that the government didn’t tell you about - that would have made more sense to me. The part that drew our attention was how it wasn’t behaving within the normal laws of physics. You’re up there flying, like, 'Okay. It’s not behaving in a manner that’s predictable or is normal by how flying objects physically move.'"

Was it giving off heat?

CU: "Well, normally, you would see engines emitting a heat plume. This object was not doing that. The video shows a source of heat, but the normal signatures of an exhaust plume were not there. There was no sign of propulsion. You could not see the thing that the ATFLIR pod should pick up 100 percent of the time: the source of heat and exhaust that a normal object flying would give you. Does that make sense? Like, no method of propulsion or exhaust - and the exhaust part of it was the thing that kind of made me raise my eyebrows and be like, 'Okay, this is interesting.'"

~

CU: "When I was still in my flight gear, so probably within about 20 minutes or so, I spoke to someone that I assume was from NORAD. I described it exactly as I just told you. I didn’t get debriefed. The interesting thing was, normally, if you see something out in the middle of the ocean that’s a test project, we would get debriefed on it, one-on-one, in a dark room. Whether it’s from the folks at Edwards test site or something like that. “Hey, yes, we were testing a project. This is what you saw.” Without going into great detail, it will be like, 'Yes. This is project "Umptysquat” and, basically, “This is what you saw. Don’t talk about it.” That never happened, which leads me to think that it was not a government project."

Matthew Phelan: "Or, at least, not one..."

CU: "Not one that they wanted to give any acknowledgment of. And, you know, I’ve got top-secret clearance with a ton of special-project clearances. So, it’s not like I wasn’t cleared to know. But, as I’m sure you’ve found in your research, to have clearance to know something, you have to have both the clearance that it’s elevated to and you have to have the 'need to know' it. And, clearly, whatever it was, if it was a government project, I did not need to know."

(Or, maybe the person on the phone was connected to what @jaystratton described at his @ExploreSCU lecture last month, as transcribed by @SentinelNews_.)

Stratton: "We were not the only game in town. It turns out there was another, much larger, deeply hidden and longstanding UAP program underway, and they had no interest in sharing what they knew with us. I'm not going to get into specifics of that hurdle today, but suffice to say, it was extremely frustrating to be investigating UAP trying to address a serious national-security concern while knowing that others inside of my own intelligence community and military service had knowledge about the very questions that we were asking, [and] they weren't sharing them. They were supposed to be on the same team, but they were not. So we continued to push forward on our own, the best we could, driven by mission, despite the institutional barriers, standing in our way, our mission was broad."

~~~

MP Tweet: "Chad was taping the whole time. Between his comments and those of other Nimitz Carrier Strike Group personnel, it is very clear that a way longer video was made and may still exist."

~

MP Tweet: "From talking with Chad earlier today, my sense is that the additional FLIR1 footage might not be especially revelatory, although perhaps in the hands of some forensic imaging folks the longer and high-res video might add something. Better to FOIA for the full video than bug Chad?"

~~~

MP: "People are truly dying to know what else was on your FLIR video beyond the 1 minute 16 second highlight reel that's made it out to the public."

CU: "Trust me. Nothing worth talking about. Nothing exceptional. Nothing secret. Not hiding a damn thing. And you can quote me on that."

MP: "Right. Like, if I had to guess, the Tic Tac moving at wild speeds to various elevations would just look like glitches or jumps or something? IDK. That is the main thing they seem to think might be there. To me this whole thing is a lot like the Zapruder film, in that, it can tell you some key things but it just ain't the whole case. You gotta branch out. Etc."

CU: "Exactly. At the end of the day, it's something to talk about around the dinner table.

~~~End Underwood for Now - Back to Blog~~~

Bob Kiviat then switched the conversation over to whether or not these objects were ours (part of our government/military) and said that Gary Voorhis gave him a 30% chance that they were. Kiviat asked Jason Turner what he thought about that.

Turner went on to explain how he was able to watch the Tic Tac video. He had a friend who worked in the Ship’s Signal Exploitation Space, (SSES) which is where all the cryptological techs work. They had some computer issues going on and since he had a top secret clearance, he took some computer parts up there. And the video was playing on one particular console. So he sat down and watched it. That’s the first time he saw it.

Was it our tech?

Jason Turner: “I mean, if it was from us. You know, why are they even doing this to us?”

Gary Voorhis: “I did have some thoughts about that. There is a chance that it is extremely advanced technology that either we reverse engineered or just actually came up with ourselves. I mean, they would know where our fleet is.”

Jason Turner: “Right.”

Gary Voorhis: “They would know where we’re at. And they’d know we were not armed. Honestly, it would have been the perfect proof of concept. You know, see whether these systems are as viable as they think they are.”

Kevin Day added that he never saw the longer version of the video that Jason and Gary said they saw. He said the next morning, he saw the short version with the grainy quality. When he left the Navy, that mpeg video was still in his Navy email but he never moved it to any personal account because that was against the security rules, which he took very seriously.

@hughespj1 said he was open to this being our technology due his experience of working on very advanced tech that the public is totally unaware of. But he’s also not against it being otherworldly. He added, “I just wanna know what it is.”

This guys have opinions on whose technology this was but they admit that none of them know. And they want the truth, whatever that turns out to be. The data was taken from them. Somewhere, somebody has it. They want to know why that data was confiscated and what those objects were.

~~~End My Blog Excerpt - Start Excerpt of MP interview of CP~~~

(Some of this may be repetitive)

Matthew Phelan (MP): "Was [the Tic Tac] named based on what you saw with your own eyes, or from looking at the screen on the camera?"

Chad Underwood (CU): "No. I was more concentrated on looking at the FLIR. It was inside of 20 miles. You’re not going to see it with your own eyes until probably 10 miles, and then you’re not going to be able to visually track it until you’re probably inside of five miles, which is where Dave Fravor said that he saw it. So, at that point I didn’t see anything with my eyeballs. I was more concerned with tracking it, making sure that the videotape was on so that I could bring something back to the ship, so that the intel folks could dissect whatever it is that I captured.

"The thing that stood out to me the most was how erratic it was behaving. And what I mean by 'erratic' is that its changes in altitude, air speed, and aspect were just unlike things that I’ve ever encountered before flying against other air targets. It was just behaving in ways that aren’t physically normal. That’s what caught my eye. Because, aircraft, whether they’re manned or unmanned, still have to obey the laws of physics. They have to have some source of lift, some source of propulsion. The Tic Tac was not doing that. It was going from like 50,000 feet to, you know, a hundred feet in like seconds, which is not possible.

MP: "And it was doing that during your engagement too?" 

CU: "Yes. That was the thing that was the most interesting to me: how erratic this thing was. If it was obeying physics like a normal object that you would encounter in the sky — an aircraft, or a cruise missile, or some sort of special project that the government didn’t tell you about — that would have made more sense to me. The part that drew our attention was how it wasn’t behaving within the normal laws of physics. You’re up there flying, like, “Okay. It’s not behaving in a manner that’s predictable or is normal by how flying objects physically move.”

MP: "Were you approaching the Tic Tac head-on? Some people have suggested that the Tic Tac’s rapid leftward movement toward the end of the video was actually the result of your F/A-18 banking to the right and dragging the camera along with it."

CU: "We were pointed nose-on to it. Maybe 10 to 20 degrees of azimuth, either left or right."

MP: "Ergo, when the object kind of darts away to the left..."

CU: "I was not aggressively maneuvering the aircraft in the manner that would make the FLIR pod would do that. But look: At that point, I did not actually see the object aggressively accelerate to the left, as the video shows, to actually prove that."

MP: "Because you were at a distance where you couldn’t make visual contact with your own eyes."

CU: "Right."

MP: "And so what’s happening in the video is a little ambiguous as a result."

CU: "Right. Yeah. And that part kind of sucks, because I can’t confirm that the object aggressively accelerated that way. But I have my feelings, based off of my experience with my equipment — and also just logic, when it comes to, you know, physics."

MP"I want to ask you some questions based on theories that America’s armchair skeptics have put forward — like whether it was birds, or whether it was some sort of thermal weather event. I mean, I’m sure you have had enough flight time that you’ve seen birds."

CU: "Yup. Birds normally fly close to the surface of the ground. So, for example, you’re not going to see birds flying at 5,000 feet. You’re going to see them more down at like 2,000 feet and below, like down to the surface. That’s just kind of how birds normally operate. And they’re typically not alone. So you can you can physically see them, in a flock or whatever. You don’t see birds at 5,000 or 10,000 or 20,000 feet. That’s just not how birds operate. So birds are out of the question.

"And just so that I anticipate your next question: There are weather balloons that people launch, but this was not a weather balloon — because a balloon, it just ascends and floats from low to high altitude; it doesn’t behave erratically. I mean, it’s just a damn balloon. So that was out of the question.

"It wasn’t — to the best of my knowledge — a cruise missile or any other kind of test aircraft that we possibly may have not known about, just because of the way it was behaving. Like I said, it was just very erratic. It would go from like 50 feet off the ground, which when you’re out in the open ocean, you know, off the coast of San Diego, it looked like it was just hovering over the water. But there was no method of propulsion that was keeping it airborne: no wings, no heat, keeping it airborne or aloft."

MP: "Have you ever seen a weather event on an ATFLIR?"

CU: "I would say if I captured this object on my sensors independently, like I was the only one that saw it or tracked it, I might have blown it off as something like a weather event. But the amount of people and sensors from other independent sources who found it — given the time period Dave Fravor saw it, and an hour and a half later I went out and saw it, and we captured basically an object with the same description — leads me to believe that a weather event would be unlikely."

MP: "Did it surprise you or provide any kind of relief seeing the Navy officially declare the Tic Tac video genuine and a genuine UAP when that happened in the Washington Post last September?"

CU:"No, not surprised. Validation for sure."

"When I was still in my flight gear, so probably within about 20 minutes or so, I spoke to someone that I assume was from NORAD. I described it exactly as I just told you. I didn’t get debriefed. The interesting thing was, normally, if you see something out in the middle of the ocean that’s a test project, we would get debriefed on it, one-on-one, in a dark room. Whether it’s from the folks at Edwards test site or something like that. 'Hey, yes, we were testing a project. This is what you saw.' Without going into great detail, it will be like, 'Yes. This is project "Umptysquat" and, basically, 'This is what you saw. Don’t talk about it.' That never happened, which leads me to think that it was not a government project."

MP: "Or, at least, not one..."

CU: "Not one that they wanted to give any acknowledgment of. And, you know, I’ve got top-secret clearance with a ton of special-project clearances. So, it’s not like I wasn’t cleared to know. But, as I’m sure you’ve found in your research, to have clearance to know something, you have to have both the clearance that it’s elevated to and you have to have the 'need to know' it. And, clearly, whatever it was, if it was a government project, I did not need to know."

MP: "Yeah. Understood. Here’s something I’m curious about, because of this NORAD aspect: Did it come up that this telephone debriefing was maybe involved with something called an Operations Event Incident Report or NORAD’s OPREP-3 reporting system?"

CU: "Honestly, Matt, I have no idea. Like like what level up to who I was talking to. I just wanted to answer them. I was just basically handed a telephone and said, 'Hey. Answer these questions.'"

MP: "Fair enough. So, Between talking to the NORAD guy and Fravor going public, there’s a several-year period where this is just like a thing that happened in your life. Did it come up very often at all?"

CU: "There would be associations. I would be sitting at lunch five years later with some of my colleagues. Rumors tend to have legs. 'Hey, you were out on the Nimitz in ’04. Someone told me about some alien spacecraft.' And I’m like, 'Well, the video that you see is my video.' And no, I’ve never said that this is what I think it was or speculate as to what I think it was. That’s not my job. But I saw something. And it was also seen, via eyeballs, by both my commanding officer, Dave Fravor, and the Marine Corps Hornet squadron commanding officer (Douglas Kurth ~Joe) who was out there as well."

MP: "When did you find out Fravor was going to go public? Did a lot of people approach you during that reporting or afterward?"

CU: "It’s funny, seeing your boss’s name and face on the news, given what he was putting out there. You know, obviously, our encounter happened in 2004 — so a while back — but everything that Dave has put out there in the interviews is absolutely, 100 percent, exactly what happened on that day. And we’re still good friends to this day, so I started texting him. We had about a two-hour-long phone call and I’d be like, 'Dude. Like what made this pop up?' Like, 'Where was this like, you know, 12, 14 years ago?' Now it’s 15 years ago. And, I guess, that was when the Pentagon released — whatever project they called it. I can’t even remember it."

MP: "AATIP."

CU: "Yeah. AATIP."

MP: "Did the New York Times reach out to you? Ask for background just to confirm anything?"

CU: "No."

MP: "Interesting."

CU: "Not that I really care. At no point did I want to speculate as to what I thought this thing was — or be associated with, you know, 'alien beings' and 'alien aircraft' and all that stuff. I’m like, 'No. I do not want to be part of that community.' It is just what we call a UFO. I couldn’t identify it. It was flying. And it was an object. It’s as simple as that."

MP: "Yeah."

CU: "I’ll let the nerds, like, do the math on what it was likely to be. I just happened to be the person that brought back the video."

This story originally identified the man who quoted in the military’s report as reporting that the objects “exhibited ballistic-missile characteristics” as Kevin Day. The identity of this man has not yet been publicly reported. We regret the error.

[Mike Colangelo @MikeColangelo]

@TheUfoJoe I miss the Mosul Puddle.

[Joe Murgia @TheUfoJoe]

"I have nothing that would suggest that it is of out-of-this-world origin, except that we can't explain at that point the physics that appear to be employed." ~Rounds

(Except? That's a pretty big except that points towards anomalous tech. And it doesn't have to be from out of this world in order to belong to a non-human intelligence. Maybe it's human but not part of our society as we know it? Maybe future humans, or another form of human? Maybe something based here?

No matter what @rosscoulthart threw at @SenatorRounds, it was deflected without a second thought. Keep reading. I went beyond the video clip.)

Rounds: "I try to talk to anybody that has firsthand knowledge of actually working on projects. In fact, I told my team that I don't have an interest in talking to people that have second hand knowledge or that will relay information to me without evidence that they have firsthand knowledge of any particular type of materials or projects. I've talked to individuals that have told me their firsthand knowledge of things that they can't explain, but I have never gotten to the point where I could determine what it was as an item or a project or a platform, that what it really is."

(So, has he had any firsthand witnesses tell him that why worked hands-on a non-human craft? If so, what did Rounds do to confirm or refute that? Did he get access to the program and see a craft up close? Did he ever find a program that had that type of evidence?

I thought Ross did great but I would have loved if he asked Rounds this: Were you ever denied access to a program/location?

"I've given [members of Congress and the executive branch] not only the existence of non-human intelligence but the address to go look to see it. And they were denied access." ~Jay Stratton - @jaystratton

~

Rounds: "And so, are there things that I can't explain, based upon direct information from individuals that have observed information or materials? The answer to that is yes. But I have nothing that would suggest that it is of out of this world origin, except that we can't explain at that point the physics that appear to be employed. So, whether it's from one of our adversaries or whether it's from a unique project here within the United States, I simply don't know and I won't draw conclusions."

(He admits that they can't explain the physics and then reverts to it possibly being from an adversary or one of our own USG projects. And doesn't suggest that it may very well be something truly anomalous.)

Ross: The WSJ says, in the 1960s, live, thermonuclear weapons were tested against EMPs. Do you find that plausible? I couldn't believe the USAF would do that.

Rounds: I know we've done a great deal of research with regard to EMPs. We've had to study EMPs as a weapon system and our adversaries have looked at them as a weapon system. EMPs would do damage to electronic equipment but not to humans or structures.

(Welp. He obviously finds it plausible.)

Ross: How about enhancing the whistleblower protections?

Rounds: "I don't know that the existing protections fail us."

Ross: What about AARO?

Rounds: I met with AARO leaders and found them to be frank and open, "I don't have any evidence that says that there's in any way a desire to limit their ability to do research or to hide the information that they're doing. "

(Bring in Kosloski and ask him if he told @jamescfox that he had to get approval from the DOD even if he just wanted to part his hair.)

Ross: Rubio said we've had repeated instances of something operating over restricted nuclear facilities, and it's not ours. And we don't know whose it is. Any kind of craft over sensitive national security sites is a national security threat.

Rounds: I don't disagree. But I don't know if it's ours or if it belongs to one of our adversaries. And if it's neither, then I don't know whose it is. I'm not gonna jump to conclusions and I'm gonna keep my options open. I wanna make sure that if it's something one of our organizations in the US actually is testing or working with that we not disclose it. If it belongs to one of our adversaries, we wanna make sure that we have all of the information we can gather on it and be prepared to defend against it. "And if there's something that is neither ours nor theirs, it belongs some place else, then my curiousity really starts to grow at that state of the game and I wanna be open to those possibilities as well."

[Joe Murgia @TheUfoJoe]

Ross asked why @RepMikeRogersAL and @RepMikeTurner, reportedly, blocked the UAPDA in the House if there's nothing to hide?

This answer is horseshit...plain and simple. 👇🏼👇🏼👇🏼

@SenatorRounds: "My only assessment right now, other than direct contact with them, is they had concerns that it might disclose very sensitive information about either our adversaries' capabilities or about our own capabilities. And without proof that it might be some other alternative out there, it could very well have damaged our own national security. And I really think they were concerned about the release of any information that might give away our capabilities that we otherwise don't disclose today."

(See what I mean about being angry about what Rounds said in this interview?)

Rounds: "So, from my perspective, I respect what they have to say, but I'd really like to be able to get around that and get back to what our original intent was, which was to satisfy the curiosity of the American public and people around the world is: Is there actually information that we have that we haven't disclosed, that might be out there? Or that contractors might have that we're not aware of here at the congressional level. Or materials that very well may have, you know, that we don't know where it came from, but we haven't even able to figure out anything about. Those are far questions to ask."

(Does he really think this is just about satisfying our "curiosity" about this topic? Seriously? Maybe he should speak with some experiencers.)

Rounds: "And in the future, if we do find information about items that we don't where it comes from, I don't wanna have it get lost. I'd rather have it be kept in an archive that could be protected until such time as a separate, independent committee could decide it would be appropriate to release to the public."