Analysis of the Nimitz UAP encounter

...When the " system" creates a unified view of the situational awareness does each target get assigned a 2d or 3d XY&Z space?
Each object is tracked with Latitude, Longitude, height, and speed from each vessel's location and the CEC system then integrates the tracked object or objects data into a 3-D composite spatial map with a time stamp.
 
Last edited:
Each object is tracked with Latitude, Longitude, height, and speed from each vessel's location and the CEC system is then supposed to then integrate the object or objects with a 3-D spatial map with a time stamp.

I wonder if each radar produces its own 3d image that gets sent?

Insinuation is the spy 1 can detect width height depth density speed and trajectory on its own.

or do the separate arrays all work in unison to compute a more accurate 3d image ?

is the summed result greater or equal to the sum of each contribution?
 
1 radar can't create 3d picture, you need returns in multiple directions.

a phased array radar like a spy 1 isnt really a lone radar, it has multiple emitters and receivers.

the capability is based on a prior claim it can determine density which it would need XY and Z to do.
 
The AAV's were first noticed over the Catalina Islands at 80,000+ feet at 100 knots. [115 mph]. Page 6.

Interesting.

Petty Officer Gary Voorhis in the CEC indicated that an underwater object was tracked at 500 knots. [575.4 mph]. Page 8.

How do you track an underwater object with radar?
 
1 radar can't create 3d picture, you need returns in multiple directions.
True, and that is what the CEC system does, see link below.

Each object is tracked with Latitude, Longitude, height, and speed from each vessel's location and the CEC system then integrates the object or objects data into a 3-D composite spatial map with a time stamp.

Each vessel, whether it be a ship or an airborne radar system, sends it radar results to the CEC via a data link and the CEC then integrates all target information into a 3-D composite spatial map with a time stamp.

 
Last edited:
I'm familiar with traditional radars, but am fuzzy on phased arrays. Does the SPY1 pulse rate actually allow it to track a target that moves that fast? Usually a short pulse rate equals shorter radar range.
 
I'm familiar with traditional radars, but am fuzzy on phased arrays. Does the SPY1 pulse rate actually allow it to track a target that moves that fast? Usually a short pulse rate equals shorter radar range.
Here is a tutorial on Phased array radars, but basically each radar "panel" has a series of small antenna emitters mounted on it that can steer the radar beam in any direction off the face of the panel by phasing adjacent emitters.

The SPY-1 has eight panels in its latest configuration allowing 360 degree coverage.


and a paper on its development

 
Last edited:
I'm familiar with traditional radars, but am fuzzy on phased arrays. Does the SPY1 pulse rate actually allow it to track a target that moves that fast? Usually a short pulse rate equals shorter radar range.

Spy 1 can track a ballistic missile with a nominal trajectory and is often used as a positioning assist to ground based radar.

The CIC guys describe some of the objects as disappearing from one place an appearing in others sometimes the radar shows a streak.

It theoretically has a 310 KM radius, but no ones really sure.

From Raytheons site

SPY-6(V)1 simultaneously defends against:

  • Ballistic missiles
  • Cruise missiles
  • Anti-surface and anti-air threats
  • Jamming/clutter and electronic warfare
some more from wiki

The Aegis BMD system, coupled with the RIM-161 Standard missile (SM-3), has also demonstrated a limited capability as an anti-satellite weapon against satellites in the lower portion of low Earth orbit. On February 20, 2008, USA 193 was destroyed by a group of Aegis ships in the Pacific; the stated reason was concern that satellite's hydrazine payload might contaminate land area upon re-entry from an uncontrolled orbit. The launching vessel was USS Lake Erie, and one SM-3 missile was used. Interception was at an altitude of 133 nautical miles (247 kilometers).
 
The AAV's were first noticed over the Catalina Islands at 80,000+ feet at 100 knots. [115 mph]. Page 6.

Interesting.

Petty Officer Gary Voorhis in the CEC indicated that an underwater object was tracked at 500 knots. [575.4 mph]. Page 8.

How do you track an underwater object with radar?

Seems like they got confirmation of this from a sub(s) as the next sentence mentions sonar.

Witness testimonies referring to sonar contacts of any underwater objects were negative with one
exception. Petty Officer Gary Voorhis in the CEC indicated that an underwater object was
tracked at 500 knots. No additional confirmation confirming sonar contacts has been obtained.11
 
Seems like they got confirmation of this from a sub(s) as the next sentence mentions sonar.

Witness testimonies referring to sonar contacts of any underwater objects were negative with one
exception. Petty Officer Gary Voorhis in the CEC indicated that an underwater object was
tracked at 500 knots. No additional confirmation confirming sonar contacts has been obtained.11
Which means the Sonar contact is, in question.

What page was that? Found it, page 8.

Where's Maverick when we need him? 🤠
 
Last edited:
Which means the Sonar contact is, in question.

What page was that? Found it, page 8.

Where's Maverick when we need him? 🤠

Haha!

I guess the way I read that is they can only confirm the one object on sonar but not anything else.

There was some interesting discussion elsewhere about whether that was active or passive and the feedback it was all passive and they never actively pinged.
 
"Mr. Grusch, too, provided sworn testimony during the congressional UAP hearing of July 2023. Asked whether the US has the bodies of the pilots of the recovered UAPs, he said: “As I have stated publicly already … biologics came with some of these recoveries.” Pressed on whether these “biologics” were nonhuman, he confirmed without ambiguity: “Nonhuman, and that was the assessment of people with direct knowledge on the program I talked to that are currently still on the program.” Mr. Grusch understands that the penalty for lying under oath is jail, and offered several times during his testimony to confidentially—as required by law—provide specific details to lawmakers.

For instance, oceanographer and retired US Navy Rear Admiral Timothy Cole Gallaudet has acknowledged having seen footage of UAPs while on active duty. Some of these UAPs have displayed the capability to go underwater (the so-called ‘transmedium’ capability described often in UAP reports). He has also expressed his belief that Mr. Grusch’s claims are true Recently retired US Army Colonel Karl E. Nell—currently an aerospace executive—along with Christopher Mellon, who spent nearly twenty years in the US Intelligence Community and served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defence for Intelligence, have lent credibility to the claim that there are active UAP crash-retrieval and reverse-engineering programs Defence Intelligence Agency Programme Manager Dr. James T. Lacatski did the same

Even the former head of the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office of the US Department of Defence—Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick, a man widely reviled in the UAP community as a prejudiced gatekeeper working against UAP disclosure—has made very consequential revelations during an official NASA press briefing there are seemingly metallic spheres out there that, somehow, move and maneuver without any signs of propulsion or flight control surface

The sphere shown moves fast, in a controlled, non-ballistic trajectory. Dr. Kirkpatrick then stated that this is just “a typical example of the thing we see most of; we see these all over the world.” That the spheres are described as making “very interesting apparent maneuvers” is significant, as it rules out balloons and ordinary drones. That they are seen frequently and all over the world also rules out elaborate, expensive hoaxes.

Also, the fact that UAPs often seem to defy our understanding of physics doesn’t line up with the black-technologies hypothesis, as it would require not only the engineering to be secret, but also the very advancement of the human understanding of physics. This isn’t impossible, but isn’t very plausible either."
 
I hate to sound like project bluebook but the "tic-tac encounter" appears to be another air plane based on sensor ball footage.
If they recorded something incredible on radar where is it? They recorded radar data.
 
I hate to sound like project bluebook but the "tic-tac encounter" appears to be another air plane based on sensor ball footage.
If they recorded something incredible on radar where is it? They recorded radar data.

Take the time to watch Senior Chief Kevin Days analysis of the encounter.

This is an extremely credible individual.

It was the very last intercept of his career before retirement.

He refers to the tech he witnessed/ tracked and uses a term I've been castigated here for - "non newtonian".


 
Last edited:
"Non-Newtonian?" to me implies a transition into the Quantum Mechanical regime.

What is your definition of "non-Newtonian?"

In this context it would be a device/ object that "seemingly" operates without regard to Newtonian laws.

Absence of any visible or measurable action-reaction. (no heat, flame, or visible form of propulsion)
Movement with no regard to conservation of momentum. (near instantaneous acceleration and deceleration, turning)

Perhaps these devices are not in violation, but are able to operate in such a way that we cant conceive of.
 
In this context it would be a device/ object that "seemingly" operates without regard to Newtonian laws.

Absence of any visible or measurable action-reaction. (no heat, flame, or visible form of propulsion)
Movement with no regard to conservation of momentum. (near instantaneous acceleration and deceleration, turning)

Perhaps these devices are not in violation, but are able to operate in such a way that we cant conceive of.
That’s a technology issue, then, not a physics issue.

“Non-Newtonian” is a term used by physicists to describe something very different than what is described here.

Here, it is a term used to sound more sensational, more dramatic.

But physics still applies to these phenomena - Big A is the result of big F applied to the same M.
 
That’s a technology issue, then, not a physics issue.

“Non-Newtonian” is a term used by physicists to describe something very different than what is described here.

Here, it is a term used to sound more sensational, more dramatic.

But physics still applies to these phenomena - Big A is the result of big F applied to the same M.
I hear it most often regarding fluids … Shear stresses etc …
 
If these aren't some type of anomaly or false observations this becomes a diferent subject. If real, a matter of millions or billions of years head start may obviously equip an entity to possibly achieve technology which we feel is magic and destroys many of our known principles in physics. Time is not constant if I am to understand the theory. Concurrent dimensions are a speculation that supports many paranormal belief's if true. I am pretty skeptical, but have witnessed things that don't have a good explanation. Believe me I have tried.
 
Back
Top