Analysis of the Nimitz UAP encounter

[UncleDave]

I think you misunderstood my original hypothesis, and people keep using the word 'hoax.'

My original Laser hypothesis was this: this whole scenario was a coordinated and a planned exercise. During this exercise no one was explicitly looking for or trying to detect any laser emissions, assuming it was lasers that were projecting those "Tic-Toc" images.

The other public and prevailing hypothesis was that many of the radar images were software generated, with the observed images being laser generated, again a coordinated effort and not a hoax.

Again, these are only hypotheses based upon current radar and laser technologies.

Hypothesis: Science - a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

Hypothesis: Philosophy - a proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth.

If the 2004 occurrence was not a coordinated effort, then we need to make some serious investigations using our current knowledge of physics.

I never used the word "hoax" in this thread until just now - maybe Z?

I get an understand the hypothesis, just postulating in its liekleyhood.

By their nature a carrier battle group is always looking to identify everything it see or detect so its going to be continuously searching and attempting to identify anything that it can pick up.

I find it amusing Raytheon was quick to be the first to brag about its products.

“We might be the system that caught the first evidence of E.T. out there,” said Aaron Maestas, director of engineering and chief engineer for Surveillance and Targeting Systems at Raytheon’s Space and Airborne Systems business.
“But I’m not surprised we were able to see it. ATFLIR is designed to operate on targets that are traveling in excess of Mach 1. It’s a very agile optical system with a sensitive detector that can distinguish between the cold sky and the hot moving target quite easily.”

Im really curious if the big boy radars land based radars like an AN/TPY-2 were around to picked anything up. These things can track a baseball sized object 3K away.

 

[ZeeOSix]

I never used the word "hoax" in this thread until just now - maybe Z?

Yes I did. The definition of a hoax is doing something to make someone believe it's something it's not. If some kind of super secret sophisticated method of lasers was used by who knows who to try and make people and instrumentation see objects that behaved like nothing known to man just to see what their reaction was, then it was basically an elaborate planned and coordinated hoax.

 

[UncleDave]

Yes I did. The definition of a hoax is doing something to make someone believe it's something it's not. If some kind of super secret sophisticated method of lasers was used by who knows who to try and make people and instrumentation see objects that behaved like nothing known to man just to see what their reaction was, then it was basically an elaborate planned and coordinated hoax.

I think its an interesting concept - and if indeed our best guys were fooled by projections we created it means we can fool enemies radars planes people and subs.

The sheer number of days the occurrences took place, the number of radars, eyes, pods, and concurrent devices tracking them across space, water, and air makes that hypothesis extremely unlikely.

I would feel much better about this whole thing if I found a terrestrial explanation like that.

I certainly dont want come off as not appreciating the contributions not at all - Mola is a super smart guy I really enjoy, and a real asset to bitog.

As this sits today I dont like this at all....not one bit.

History is clear what happens when two civilizations of radical different levels of tech come togther

One gets completely dominated, enslaved or simply wiped out.

 

[ZeeOSix]

As this sits today I dont like this at all....not one bit.

History is clear what happens when two civilizations of radical different levels of tech come togther

One gets completely dominated, enslaved or simply wiped out.

Hard to say, but another possibility would be friendly and willing to share some advanced technology that could be used in good ways, or maybe we'll just be food on the other hand, like in the episode of the Taillight Zone called "To Serve Man". Watch that episode if you've not seen it.

To Serve Man (The Twilight Zone) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[AdmdeVilleneuve]

Readers of this thread with an interest in unusual UAP/UAS/Drone activity can obtain a thorough look at over 10,000 FAA incident reports with an interactive tool prepared by The War Zone.

Explore Thousands Of FAA Drone And Unidentified Aircraft Incident Reports With Our Interactive Tool

The FAA has a little-known database with over 10,000 incident reports. Our new application intends to crowdsource the investigation into them.

www.thedrive.com

 

[UncleDave]

Hard to say, but another possibility would be friendly and willing to share some advanced technology that could be used in good ways, or maybe we'll just be food on the other hand, like in the episode of the Taillight Zone called "To Serve Man". Watch that episode if you've not seen it.

To Serve Man (The Twilight Zone) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Saw that as a kid alone in grandparents basement in the middle of the sticks...good episode. Love the twighlight zone.

 

[MolaKule]

Saw that as a kid alone in grandparents basement in the middle of the sticks...good episode. Love the twighlight zone.

I am a fan of Richard Kiel as the Kanamit in that episode and as Jaws in the James Bond series.

Richard Kiel - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Tom NJ]

Sounds to me like someone, us or an enemy, may have been experimenting with a new technology that projects ghost images. The ideal test would be to fool our best observers and equipment. Such technology would be a nifty tool in aerial warfare.

 

[Tikka]

I have always been sceptical of so called 'UFO' sightings. Were the witnesses drunk, high or just attention seekers? They always seemed to lack credibility somehow. This changed when i saw the interview with Commander Fravor. If i wanted a credible witness then they do not come any better. US Navy pilot and CO of the 'Black Aces'.

He saw the 'tic tac' with his own eyes and not just with his flir pod. He also saw the '737 size' object submerged underneath the 'tic tac'. He also went on to say that other military aviators had since approached him and related similar experiences.

The laws of physics state that faster than light travel is impossible, so they are not ET.

Surely the only logical explanation is that these objects are the latest in American, experimental technological advances.

 

[ZeeOSix]

The laws of physics state that faster than light travel is impossible, so they are not ET.

Based only on what humans understand and perceives about physics at this moment in time.

 

[ZeeOSix]

When underwater the subs can track it and did so passively.

In one doc it claims the objects were traveling 500kts at one point underwater.

I highly doubt anyone could fake/simulate that with lasers (from above the surface) and such. There are lots of UFO sightings/stories about UFO going in and coming out of water.

 

[IndyFan]

This is all the same to me as Bigfoot. When I see Bigfoot poo, I'll believe. When I see alien poo. I'll believe that, too.

 

[MolaKule]

...The sheer number of days the occurrences took place, the number of radars, eyes, pods, and concurrent devices tracking them across space, water, and air makes that hypothesis extremely unlikely...

And this presents the problem of verification for each of these alleged occurrences.

For example, were they really concurrent, i.e., can these multiple targets be verified in terms of the same moment in time while existing at the same spatial coordinates? This is something the TF needs to determine.

One thing we do know is that when science cannot give an immediate answer, this gives rise to all kinds of conspiracy theories and conjectures abound.

 

[UncleDave]

And this presents the problem of verification for each of these alleged occurrences.

For example, were they really concurrent, i.e., can these multiple targets be verified in terms of the same moment in time while existing at the same spatial coordinates? This is something the TF needs to determine.

One thing we do know is that when science cannot give an immediate answer, this gives rise to all kinds of conspiracy theories and conjectures abound.

Good question - are all object demonstrating the same capability? If they all descended from 80K thats a starting point.

IF it were anyone else reporting we'd immediately tell them to put the pipe down, but these are pentagon reports.

Much of the reports focus around the videos, but at some point in one of the recordings you can hear a guy say - "there's dozens of them".

The stuff reported by fighter pilots on the East coast is even more bizarre - one being a a triangle inside e translucent sphere.

Science hasn't given us an answer for 70 years other than to tell us "these aren't the droids we're looking for and to go about our business" all the while knowing something WAS up and telling us to shut up.

Any kind of admission like this has had plenty of time in the oven.

 

[UncleDave]

This is all the same to me as Bigfoot. When I see Bigfoot poo, I'll believe. When I see alien poo. I'll believe that, too.

It doesn't matter what you've (Or I) have seen or believe.

The governments talking.....sort of.

 

[MolaKule]

Good question - are all object demonstrating the same capability? If they all descended from 80K thats a starting point.

I was thinking more in terms of multiple sensors tracking objects with the same 3-D spatial coordinate and with the same time stamp.

Let's say for example we have three spatially separate UAP's ( A, B, and C) flying around in a 3-D space within an ~ 50 mile radius and each is being tracked by multiple sensors on multiple platforms.

To further explain the example, let's say we have one airborne radar sensor in the air and three on the sea surface. We pick out and compare all four tracks of UAP B for analysis. All tracking sensor records for UAP B should have recorded the 3-D spatial coordinates with a commensurate time stamp for each X, Y, and Z (3-D) position.

If all 4 sensors agree on the exact same 3-D spatial coordinates with the exact same time stamps, then most likely these were spoofs programmed into the computers. If each sensor return has slightly different 3-D position|time stamps recorded, then they may have been objects that were actually metallic or ionized enough to return radar signals.

Furthermore, if these objects were of advanced technologies from advanced civilizations, then why would they not use their advanced technology 'cloaking' capabilities to monitor instead of standing out like deer in the headlights?

[One has to remember that just like weather radar, any FLIR or radar return is "interpreted" and fed into an algorithm where these returns are then displayed as a 2-D or 3-D image].

Here is one more question the SCU report brings up: It is alleged that one of the radar operator's on one of the ships (which was reported to be a female operator) had requested the investigation of these objects. Right before or during engagement (I can't recall which, I'll have to re-read the report), one of her comments was, "What ordinance and type do you have on board?" Now if this was purely a training exercise, shouldn't she have known that only dummy weapon 'stores' were on board the F-18's?

 

[IndyFan]

It doesn't matter what you've (Or I) have seen or believe.

The governments talking.....sort of.

Then I'll add that I don't believe much of what I hear from the government, either. But I do see a lot of poo from them.

 

[UncleDave]

Then I'll add that I don't believe much of what I hear from the government, either. But I do see a lot of poo from them.

Im skeptical of everyone and everything.
Ive become an old curmudgeon yelling at kids to get off my lawn.

 

[UncleDave]

I was thinking more in terms of multiple sensors tracking objects with the same 3-D spatial coordinate and with the same time stamp.

Let's say for example we have three spatially separate UAP's ( A, B, and C) flying around in a 3-D space within an ~ 50 mile radius and each is being tracked by multiple sensors on multiple platforms.

To further explain the example, let's say we have one airborne radar sensor in the air and three on the sea surface. We pick out and compare all four tracks of UAP B for analysis. All tracking sensor records for UAP B should have recorded the 3-D spatial coordinates with a commensurate time stamp for each X, Y, and Z (3-D) position.

If all 4 sensors agree on the exact same 3-D spatial coordinates with the exact same time stamps, then most likely these were spoofs programmed into the computers. If each sensor return has slightly different 3-D position|time stamps recorded, then they may have been objects that were actually metallic or ionized enough to return radar signals.

Furthermore, if these objects were of advanced technologies from advanced civilizations, then why would they not use their advanced technology 'cloaking' capabilities to monitor instead of standing out like deer in the headlights?

[One has to remember that just like weather radar, any FLIR or radar return is "interpreted" and fed into an algorithm where these returns are then displayed as a 2-D or 3-D image].

Here is one more question the SCU report brings up: It is alleged that one of the radar operator's on one of the ships (which was reported to be a female operator) had requested the investigation of these objects. Right before or during engagement (I can't recall which, I'll have to re-read the report), one of her comments was, "What ordinance and type do you have on board?" Now if this was purely a training exercise, shouldn't she have known that only dummy weapon 'stores' were on board the F-18's?

Fravor claims the objects could selectively (turn on and off) and actively jam him which is alarming as its considered and act of war.
Thing is he could see the object so I wouldnt go so far as to call a jam a cloak...
The insinuates that what was tracked wanted to be seen.

Brings rise to the question of a prior claim that at least one radar could determine mass...you need 3 dimensions to do that plus a host of other parameters.

When the " system" creates a unified view of the situational awareness does each target get assigned a 2d or 3d XY&Z space?

 

[ZeeOSix]

If a pilot can visually see an object with eyes, and that object is also showing up on instrumentation (and especially from multiple platforms), then it's not a false "instrumentation artifact".