Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) Admits to TOP SECRET Records and SECRET Video From USS Nimitz

Discussion in 'UFOs & Sightings' started by nivek, Jan 8, 2020.

  1. Thomas R. Morrison

    Thomas R. Morrison Administrator

    Messages:
    1,179
    That's cool and all, but it has nothing to do with gravitational field propulsion or theoretical physics - scientists taking an interest in chirality is at best tangential to the level of technological capability available in the late 1940s (which is what I was talking about, albeit in a slightly hyperbolic manner).

    But that's irrelevant - being an AAV witness doesn't make anyone qualified to know what they witnessed. Following my sighting event as a child I spent over 40 years obsessively trying to figure out any way that the AAVs I witnessed could've been human tech, and I've conducted an exhaustive study of the academic scientific physics literature, and I've dug into every military science research leak that I could find, and I've examined every path forward in the direction of general relativity and gravitational field propulsion....and I can see no avenue available to mankind at present to build a vehicle with applied general relativity technology like the Tic-Tac AAV. So until someone can point out any even vaguely plausible way that we could produce such effects at this time in history, then I'm forced to conclude that such craft are not within human technological capabilities. In fact, since their performance characteristics prove that these craft are ideally suited to rapid interstellar spaceflight, (Knuth, Powell, etc), it seems like an inescapable conclusion that these craft originated elsewhere.

    We have the testimony of Cmdrs Fravor and Slaight, Kevin Day, Chad Underwood, and the absence of a heat plume in the existing Tic-Tac video, all indicating a total absence of a reaction propulsion mechanism at work with the Tic-Tac AAV. There's only one form of propulsion known to physics which can produce the erratic maneuvers seen by all four of those witnesses and depicted in the video, which is reactionless in nature: that's gravitational field propulsion - a technology totally unknown to terrestrial civilization. Ergo, there's a 99.999% chance that these babies arrived from interstellar locales.

    No that's not a reasonable dismissal - people don't just "imagine" an object zig-zagging around in complete defiance of inertia. Certainly not the Commander of the Black Aces fighter squadron. I saw the same "impossible" zig-zagging maneuvers alongside four of my neighbors, when I was a boy, and it grabs your attention like nothing else, and you never forget it, because your mind tells you that what you're seeing is impossible. Except it's not impossible - it's a feature of gravitational field propulsion technology....a technology that global human civilization can envision, but hasn't yet made the first faltering step towards yet. To date, human tech can't even move a mote of dust using a laboratory-generated gravitational field. It is possible, we're just nowhere near that level of capability yet.

    99.999% chance it wasn't human. If it was human, then somebody has rapid interstellar spaceflight technology, like in Star Trek. The military is ahead of civilian technology, sure - but are they centuries ahead of global civilization? Very unlikely. They're great at expanding existing capabilities - we've all seen that. But pioneering and perfecting interstellar spaceflight technology? I don't see it. Could be. But most probably not.

    It doesn't take a physicist to reasonably accurately report what you've seen with your eyes. Cmdr. Fravor saw that puppy bouncing around like a ping-pong ball reflecting off of invisible walls, and Kevin Day saw those things drop from 28,000 ft to the deck in .78 second. I think we can dare to take their word for it. When you start with the assumption that all witnesses are idiots and bewildered beyond all rational processing capability, then you'll tend to throw the baby out with the bathwater. So I don't do that.

    But there's no "advanced drone" that can leap from essentially a standstill, across 28,000 ft and arrive at a dead stop, in .78 second. If you're willing to believe that the US military has that kind of capability, then you might as well assume that they have human teleportation devices, replicators, wormholes, and time machines. The fact is that there's zero indication that humanity can even remotely approach such capabilities.

    On the other hand we know that the universe is chock full of Earth-like worlds orbiting Sun-like stars, and they are on average 2-3 billion years older than our planet - plenty of time for intelligent species to arise, and radically transcend our scientific and technological capabilities to thereby leap across interstellar distances with ease. Enrico Fermi figured this out in 1950, when he asked "where is everybody?" It's foolish to begin from the assumption that interstellar spaceflight will remain an insurmountable hurdle even if our civilization survives another 2-3 billion years. Apparently lots of species have figured it out, and they're dropping by for a look around (or sending probes to do that for them), and they've been doing so for millennia, at least. Given the status of modern scientific knowledge, that's the most likely scenario anyway.

    First - it's only tempting to discredit the witnesses if you start from the faulty position of "it's unlikely that alien beings visit the Earth." I see nothing unlikely about it. So when multiple witnesses explain seeing things which are A.) consistent between every witness, and B.) unexplainable by all known human technological abilities, then I don't find it surprising - they've simply had contact with a broader reality that surrounds us all.

    Four pilots saw the Tic-Tac with their own eyes. It wasn't simply some wild radar-spoofing drone - it actually moved in ways that require an applied technology of general relativity, which we don't have yet, by all indications.

    I'm fine with that - in fact, that's exactly where I started after my own sighting. Now go forth young man and spend a few decades studying theoretical physics and technology and astrophysics, and then see if you can explain the Tic-Tac as any conceivable human technology. I can't do it. And if you can, then we'll finally know how to approach the problem, and we can work towards building one of these things. I'm all for that. But you'll have to be smarter and more imaginative than I am, because I haven't found a way for human science and technology to build one of these things. [Actually I've recently had an idea regarding how to go about it, but it would require a technology that could 3D-print matter in a crystalline lattice with atomic-scale precision, but it's more fun to speak a bit hyperbolically to drive a point home in online discussions]
     
    • Awesome Awesome x 1
  2. pigfarmer

    pigfarmer tall, thin, irritable

    Messages:
    3,666
    I'm glad you're leaving a playing card in the door and not shutting it entirely.

    I hear you, I know what you're saying and have pointed out that we each had our early experiences that formed our current opinions. Thinking back over the past umpteen years of interest in this I never expected to see anything like those Navy videos. The little kid in me that had copies of UFO magazine in his book bag is beyond thrilled.

    But to be fair and leave that door open a crack - Maskirovka has been the name of the game for the past 70 years and still is. Not just in actual capability but in how your enemies perceive your capabilities. We have and continue to dump billions into this. Maybe we can't build an anti-gravity tic-tac, but letting others even suspect we can has value; even if we know for certain these things really are from Elsewhere there are those in the military who would be happy to let others think it's our hardware. I don't connect these events seen on video to anything else. I can understand comparing it to earlier sightings but caution against making too many silk purses from them.

    Yes, those machines certainly appear to be performing well beyond what we consider our current capabilities. If it's a spoof I have no idea how it's done and I suspect that might have something to do with the stuff that's still classified. Those things just may not be what they appear to be.

    But, the two camps have already formed and we need something else to stir the pot or we're just spinning our tires.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Ray

    Ray Not an intellectual

    Messages:
    18
    The study of artificial chiral molecules and their non-superimposable effect has already found some applications in nano-technology that are currently being tested, but what's more important is the knowledge we've gained out of it in a broader sense. Some studies have shown that when a gyrotropic media is applied between the plates in a Casimir Vacuum, you can obtain a certain degree of repulsivity in the Casimir force.
    Why do you think Hal Puthoff is interested in metamaterials and terahertz waveguides? he wrote several white papers and peer reviewed articles in regard of both zero point energy and the Casimir effect.

    It's not strictly related to gravitational fields, but i don't think the Tic-Tac has anything to do with it either. You can prove only what you can prove, not what you can't.

    I can't see any feasible way for humanity (or aliens) to travel anywhere without generational ships, so i agree with you that we don't have such technology. For me, neither do aliens.
    That's my opinion as this is yours, in 100 or 3000 years we may be capable of leaving our Solar System and reach within a generation Alpha Centauri, but still this couldn't be effectively defined as "Space traveling", not according to the ideal standards we have. For me it'd be more close to "Forward Time-Space traveling" to emphasize the time spent in that specific travel.
    I'm not familiar with the term AAV, so if you could tell me what this stands for i'd be very grateful to you as i'm not an english native speaker.

    You can't disregard the opinion of some witness and call other witness on the witness stand to backup your position. Only Fravor and the unnamed female pilot that was with him on the Super Hornet have seen the Tic-Tac from what we can see in the various interviews and recollections.

    They could be right and it's alien, i'm not excluding that, but i'm not excluding human error either. I'm not excluding more prosaic technologies that could've caused a serie of bizzarre effects, as bizzarre can be a project like NEMESIS.
    I'm sure that if such project was mentioned 10 or 20 years ago, when our cellphones were bricks or could take picture in black & white recoloring them in false colors, we all would've laughed very hard at that information.
    I'm not excluding as well how stressful for our physiology is flying at Mach 1, 2 or 3, even if you have a g-suite.
    I'm not excluding even aliens/anti-gravity, but before we reach that point we need to collect data or we can't affirm with absolute certainty that it is.

    No one called them idiots, liars or even incompetents, that's a point that many make for the opposite part.
    What we're saying here is that we seriously lack of data. Perhaps there are multi-dimensional creatures that lurk in the shadows of our planet and appear in conjunction with electron diffusion regions along our magnetosphere, but if only the 0.5% of the global population witness that, if there are no videos that can show these peculiar entities, the available videos are all blurred, the recollections do not match or contrast with the multiple witnesses, if there is no way to measure, quantify, study it and verify it, we can't affirm that these entities exist, especially if they manifest themselves interacting very weakly with our reality.

    In that case billions of prosaic explanations could perfectly fit the bill to justify the lack of evidences for multi-dimensional entities reported or maybe the fact that prosaic explanations exist can accidentally cover and contaminate the result of an investigation aimed at exposing them.

    We can only be so sure about what we know and even in that case we should never be adamant.
    Leaving some margin of uncertainty is what make us progress for real, which is what Lord Kelvin hasn't done back then when he said "We discovered everything that is.".
    Einstein has proved him wrong in 1905, 2 years before his death.

    I wouldn't risk my life betting on the impossibility of space traveling, but i don't strongly advocate for it either knowing how vast astronomic distances are and how fast all the matter is scattering in the universe getting farther and farther from us and colder and colder.
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2020
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Thomas R. Morrison

    Thomas R. Morrison Administrator

    Messages:
    1,179
    You’re making a lot of only loosely related connections here, but since neither of us think that it has anything to do with the Tic-Tac and related technologies, we can agree on that much.

    AAV is a recently popular alternative to “UFO,” meaning “anomalous aerial vehicle.” I prefer it to “UFO” because I’m only interested in exotic technologies in our airspace and not the wider range of unidentified aerial phenomena which could include everything from balloons to ball lightning (which is also interesting but in a different way).

    In any case, we have theoretical physics founded on general relativity describing a new form of propulsion – reactionless propulsion – which appears to be fundamentally unlimited in speed. And we have the inflationary era of early cosmology telling us that spacetime can expand many dozens of orders of magnitude faster than the speed of light. So we have both solid theoretical reasons and empirical scientific reasons to believe that superluminal spaceflight is possible once a civilization reaches the capability of engineering gravitational fields.

    And it turns out that the key performance characteristics of the Tic-Tac AAV perfectly conform to the performance characteristics predicted for gravitational field propulsion systems. Imo the observations have proven the theory, and all that remains now is for human beings to catch up with our galactic neighbors and start building such craft. By the way, the Tic-Tac demonstrated a minimum acceleration capability of over 5000 g’s, with no emitted reactant. Based on that we know that the Tic-Tac could travel from here to the Alpha/Proxima Centuari system within a few weeks. Because if it’s not using gravitational field propulsion, then at that acceleration the time dilation effect would slow the aging of the craft and occupants resulting in a subjective travel time of only about 2 weeks iirc (it’s in Kevin Knuth’s paper). And if it is using gravitational field propulsion, then it would arrive in about 3 weeks, but the time on-board the craft and the time on the Earth would agree in that case – no time dilation, superluminal transit.

    If physics were limited to the 17th century physics described by Isaac Newton, then you’d be right – generational ships would be the only option. Fortunately, physics has progressed substantially over the past 300+ years.

    You frequently confuse apples with oranges. I don’t lend any special credence to the subjective hypothetical explanations that witnesses have about their sightings, because a hypothetical explanation is only as good as the witnesses’ expertise in physics and technology. I do tend to accept the direct observations of credible witnesses, however, because it takes no special expertise to accurately convey what one has seen with their own eyes. See the difference? Apples and oranges.

    No, I’ve studied this case exhaustively: Cmdr. Slaight (Fravor’s navigator) also saw the Tic-Tac. Pilot Chad Underwood also observed the same behavioral characteristics on radar that Cmdrs. Fravor and Slaight and the female pilot (and presumably her navigator) reported seeing with their own eyes. When instruments and eyeballs agree, it's not a fluke or a spoofed signal; it's real.

    Okay but the military classified that data so we can’t see it. So all we can do is analyze the data that is available – primarily the witness testimony and secondarily those fuzzy little video clips…and seven decades of very similar credible reports…plus everything we know in the canon of modern science and technology…and arrive at the most logical conclusion.

    That’s true. Too bad the intelligence community has so stigmatized the entire subject that hardly any scientist will actually try to study it. That’s the only way we’re ever going to get the requisite data, but the government PsyOp on this subject has blocked that path forward - the only viable path forward, which I find to be infuriating.

    A high level of confidence based on a series of exhaustive analytical efforts isn’t zealousness, like Lord Kelvin’s dumb statement; it’s just an informed opinion. And like pigfarmer noted, I don’t rule out a secret human origin entirely – we can never be 100% certain of anything…all knowledge and understanding is subject to many postulates and assumptions, any one of which may be faulty.

    As an empiricist my position is very simple: I can find no evidence that humans can produce technology of this nature, therefore I see no reason to believe that the Tic-Tac and other similar devices originated on Earth. Apparently the AATIP reached the same conclusion after scouring our entire military intelligence complex and finding that no terrestrial military inventory possesses capabilities of this nature. So nothing is ever 100% certain, but we can probably be roughly 99.999% certain that these babies aren’t ours.

    Sure there’s the Hubble expansion, and dark energy on top of that, but c’mon – neither of those apply to our Milky Way galaxy and I think the > 200 billion stars in our vicinity should keep us plenty busy for awhile, once we crack the science and technology of gravitational field propulsion.

    It’s fine to be dazzled by the scale of astronomical distances, but it’s also good not to be too parochial with your perspectives. Just a few hundred years ago, the Atlantic ocean was thought to be untraversible. Now we hop over it within a few hours while sipping on cocktails and taking in a movie.

    We need to recognize that this is a pattern, and that one day we’ll be hopping across interstellar distances while sipping a cocktail and taking in a movie. Theoretical physics has shown us that it’s possible, therefore it’s inevitable (if our civilization continues to progress scientifically and technologically).
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Ray

    Ray Not an intellectual

    Messages:
    18
    Thank you very much, i had the suspect of what AAV could mean but i didn't want to speculate.
    I love theoretical topics in physics and funnily enough i linked that Knuth paper in one of these threads, however i try to keep it as real as possible because for me this is the most compelling UFO case i ever stumbled across Internet and on Twitter is mixed with any possible cause, from Extraterrestrial to Valleéian nigh-omnipotent entities that can manipulate the reality and the physical laws as they're pleased.

    I firmly believe that if we want the scientific community to take a look at this case, we must present it in a certain order:

    - Describing the incredible performance reported (as you, the witness/data operators do), leaving anyway a narrow margin that includes more prosaic explanations that we don't know of, but at the same time - read below - pointing the other inconsistencies of the case;
    - The oddity of the case (how CEC, HDD's have been confiscated from the PRINCETON by purported AFOSI members, how no one was debriefed after the Tic-Tac incident when it's normal praxis after the testing of classified technologies);
    - How the DoD contradicted itself numerous times through its spokespeople in regard of the AATIP/AAWSAP, claiming at first that they were studying UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena) and later have denied it.
    - How Luis Elizondo has left his role within the OUSDI as a way to protest for the lack of transparency of his chain of command and the reluctance of the latter to analyze the pletora of reports of potential threats trespassing with impunity the US soil;
    - How in fact, contrary to the popular belief that sees amateur astronomers or astronomers not experiencing UFO sightings at all, there are actual sightings and those are mostly reported to the local UFO organizations, much like commercial pilots report their sightings to FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) for USA. The number of reports generated are not consistent with the number of sightings as there's still some stigma on this topic and are scattered across various organizations because there's no real net of governative agencies or a world-wide tracking systems.
    Sightings are either administered locally within the contractor agency or reported to national organizations like MUFON for USA and CUN & CISU for Italy.

    This are the first thoughts that come in my mind, i could add more ways to make this case more palatable but is up to all of us to see if we want to see our confirmation bias satisfied or if we want to get to the truth.
    You can do both, however if we inquire this subject using our confirmation bias as filter of discernment, the probability to reach a dead end and lose the attention of the parts we're trying to involve (in this case the scientific community) are much higher than they could be otherwise if only we'd present the case pointing out the various inconsistencies and ask them to verify the available data with us. That's my opinion, i don't expect anybody to follow it at my command, although it feels quite reasonable for me.

    Now i get better your position, but Fravor was wrong also about the possibility that a longer video existed. Chad Underwood reported that there was a longer version and it didn't display any peculiar behavior.


    Patrick J. Hughes and Gary Voohris have repeatedly stated that Fravor was wrong on this account and there was an integral version uploaded on SIPRnet.
    Susan Gough confirmed their stance to D. Dean Johnson, saying that the video we've seen is only a part and rest was (allegedly) discarded as it held no use for the NAVY.
    This is proof for me that "trust" isn't a surrogate of truth and as much as i trust both Hughes and Voorhis, i'd rather verify everything, no matter how nonsensical the verification looks like.
    I trust a large number of people in my every day life, but for this matter i'm more cautious.

    That's why i'm playing the Devil role. I'm not denying any possibility, keep in mind that. I just base what i think on what i know and what we don't know, the latter being quite vast.

    I didn't assume you were a zealot, i can tell you're a man of culture and very knowledgeable and i appreciate this exchange, i'm just not as confident as you that the Tic-Tac case is 100% based on some propulsion which requires some form of exotic matter.

    Sorry if i didn't reply to everything you've said, i'm just busy and i've focused my attention on the most important and pertinent parts, so i'm not reducing your post with one liners because i think is enough, i'd actually go through everything gladly.
    While i'm tempted to type down wall of text, is already pretty hard for me to do so and at the moment is very impractical.
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2020
    • Like Like x 2
  6. Ray

    Ray Not an intellectual

    Messages:
    18
    Tales from the Rabbit Hole N° 36: Gary Voohris and Mick West on NIMITZ Incident, for those who are interested.
    I love this Podcast because Mick West ask any sort of questions and while i'm not always in agreement with his conclusions or his explanations, for how i see it he just tries to connect the dots in his own way and is a gentleman.



    There's also something unrelated to NIMITZ but still somehow connected: an interview with Salvatore Cesar Pais, an American Physicist who has worked for the NAVY and has generated a good amount of controversial (and public) patents that present a serie of breakthroughs if only they were actually feasible out of the theoretical realm.
    What's noteworthy is that the NAVY itself has backed his patents with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), as in the beginning they've been rejected.

    For some people these patents are somehow connected to the NIMITZ case as they're an attempt to replicate the physics of the Tic-Tac, whic his why i'm reporting the interview of Pais here.

    The Secretive Inventor Of The Navy's Bizarre 'UFO Patents' Finally Talks
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  7. nivek

    nivek As Above So Below

    Messages:
    20,099
    Witnesses Say USS Nimitz “Tic-Tac” Had Incredible Flight Capabilities, But That’s Not All

    “Up, left, down, forward… any way it wanted to go, at any speed it wanted to go. Which was hard for your brain to kinda wrap around at first.”

    This was how Gary Voorhis, former Petty Officer 3rd Class Fire Controlman aboard the USS Princeton, described the behavior of an unidentified flying object that was tracked and observed across multiple systems during a 2004 Naval incident off the coast of California. The events described here, commonly known today as the USS Nimitz UFO incident, have become one of the most widely-discussed instances involving unexplained aerial phenomena of the modern era.

    A number of key factors have contributed to the attention this incident has gained, which include the involvement of multiple witnesses, and more fundamentally, that it had been a military encounter with obvious national defense implications. Also contributing to the interest it has received had been footage obtained with the help of the Raytheon ATFLIR targeting pod systems employed by the Navy, as well as observations by radar operators and other technicians in the Navy’s Strike Carrier Group-11. All of these sources provided information about the operational capabilities of the craft, which has since been popularly likened to a bus-sized, flying “tic-tac”.

    Gary Voorhis and Ryan Weigelt, both of whom served with the Carrier Group-11 at the time of the incident, related a number of unique details to me during a recent interview I conducted with them about the incident. Voorhis, as described earlier, had been a Petty Officer 3rd Class Fire Controlman aboard the USS Princeton, and was one of the system technicians for the Cooperative Engagement Capability and AEGIS Combat systems, which included the AN/SPY-1 Bravo radar. Weigelt, a former Leading Petty Officer, had been the power plant specialist of the SH-60B Seahawk helicopter at the same time.

    [​IMG]

    One of the key elements that both men shared with me in our interview had been their recollection of seeing the now-famous intercept attempt led by Commander David Fravor, a former commanding officer of Strike Fighter Squadron 41 (and, notably, the officer to first compare the object or aircraft’s shape to a “tic-tac”). Fravor was accompanied at the time of the intercept by his weapon systems officer and two other pilots.

    “When I started watching this film to begin with,” Voorhis recalled, “they had already started the intercept. The object was moving around, and it was moving in conjunction with the pilot. It would move out of the frame, but then the pilot would adjust, and it would come back into the frame.

    “And then it would move sharp to the right, sharp to the left, up, down, any particular direction it wanted to go. It had no rudders, no props, no jet plume. You couldn’t tell which side was the front and which side was the back, except that you’d just assume that which way is going forward is front. But you can’t even assume that, because it would just move sideways.

    “You’re waiting for it to move,” Voorhis said. “Then it just moves.”

    Voorhis also said that the objects were tracked more than once on radar over the course of several weeks and that, on a few occasions when such radar detections occurred, he attempted to observe the objects with binoculars from the top deck of the U.S.S. Princeton. Voorhis described seeing what appeared to be movement of phosphorescent, albeit ambiguous objects along the horizon in the direction indicated by radar.

    And yet, perhaps the Nimitz object’s otherworldly maneuverability isn’t the only impressive thing about its capabilities. Shortly after the initial phase of the intercept, Fravor and the others were alerted via radio that the object reappeared, this time at a designated “cap point”, as indicated in interviews about the incident.

    [​IMG]
    Video footage obtained by pilot Chad Underwood shortly after the initial intercept during the 2004 incident.

    “We were at least 40 miles away, and in less than a minute this thing was already at our cap point,” Fravor told the New York Times in 2017. Although the unidentified object at no time displayed any offensive capabilities or other indications of hostile intent, the fact that it (or rather, its operators) had obvious knowledge of the Combat Air Patrol coordinates seems to indicate one of two possibilities:

    1. 1) That in addition to highly advanced maneuverability, the “tic-tac” also had the ability to decode the highly encrypted communications systems employed by the Strike Group at that time, or
    2. 2) The operators of the UAP technology may have somehow had foreknowledge or other means of access to this information.
    The implications of either scenario are significant, and may even be fundamental to understanding the nature of the technology in question.

    The various accounts of this object and its capabilities, observed at close-range by Fravor and his company during the intercept, as well as on radar by Voorhis, Day, and others, indicates something that is well beyond the capabilities of any known technologies possessed today by the United States; the same can be said of any other world superpower. This should not necessarily be alarming, as there was no indication of overt offensive capabilities displayed by the object. However, any object or aircraft with such highly advanced performance should not be ruled out as a concern.

    It could be decades (at least) before any further information is released that will give the public a clear idea as to what the 2004 Nimitz incident really entailed. That, however, relies heavily on whether the U.S. government–or that of any nation–actually possesses any significant further information in the first place.

    .
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1

Share This Page