New York Times : "The Pentagon's Mysterious UFO Program" (plus DeLonge's new website/videos)

a reply to: KenTodd

Social media is a more powerful medium than regular media outlets these days. My guess is TDL knows how to use these efficiently for marketing purposes, allready had a following in the right demography (impact) and did some good networking as well to attract some people in.

I think he deserves (some) credit in that regard.

Okay, I've given in to temptation and started looking into the 2004 Nimitz video again now that more information and material is (finally) available - albeit there remain serious limits on that further information...

I thought it might be helpful to begin pulling together some resources about the Nimitz video.

Firstly, here is a list (probably incomplete) of the threads discussing this video:

3rd February 2007, ATS thread entitled “Observations of an Actual UFO”, 0 Flags:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

4th February 2007, ATS thread entitled “Fighter Jet UFO Footage: The Real Deal”, 28 flags:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

10 October 2017, ATS thread entitled “Tom DeLonge Anouncement: October 11th 9:00 AM PST/12:00 PM EST”, 132 flags
www.abovetopsecret.com...

16 December 2017 – ATS thread entitled “New York Times : ‘The Pentagon's Mysterious UFO Program" (plus DeLonge's new website/videos)’, 165 Flags
www.abovetopsecret.com...

16 December 2017 – ATS thread entitled “The US Government Just Released Authentic Footage of UFOs”, 33 flags
www.abovetopsecret.com...

17 December 2017 – ATS thread entitled “Weird object or UFO as seen from a U.S. Navy F/A-18F Super Hornet’s ATFLIR (ATS referenced )”, 37 Flags
www.abovetopsecret.com...

19 December 2016 – ATS thread entitled “UFOS 'ARE REAL': ex-navy Pilot Describes Encounter With TIC-TAC-Shaped Extraterrestrial”, 10 flags:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

20 December 2017 – ATS thread entitled “USS Nimitz the UFO incident interview with pilot David Fravor”, 15 flags
www.abovetopsecret.com...

21 December 2017 – ATS thread entitled “ATS mentioned in Popular Mechanics Navy UFO story”, 56 Flags
www.abovetopsecret.com...

28 December 2017 – ATS thread entitled “Is the David Fravor USS Nimitz UFO Incident bigger than Roswell”, 8 flags
www.abovetopsecret.com...

2nd January 2018 – ATS thread entitled “Fighter Pilot Chases UFO - Shares Story on Tucker Carlson Show”, 16 Flags
www.abovetopsecret.com...

3rd January 2018 – ATS thread entitled “Fighter pilot chases UFO, urges world leaders to take the threat of aliens seriously”, 5 Flags
www.abovetopsecret.com...

4th January 2018 – ATS thread entitled “UFOgate: a serious examination of the F-18 encounter by Bright Insight”, 5 Flags
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Other noteworthy discussions on Internet forums other than ATS:
GLP Forum discussion commenced on 7th March 2007:
www.godlikeproductions.com...

Mick West’s MetaBunk forum:
15 October 2017 – MetaBunk thread entitled “Explained: Photo of "UFO" Used in Connection with Nimitz Incident [Balloon]”
www.metabunk.org...
24 October 2017 – Metabunk thread entitled “2004 USS Nimitz Tic Tac UFO FLIR footage”:
www.metabunk.org...


Other public resources online:
2015 Fightersweep.com article by Paco Chierici entitled “There I was : The X-Files Edition”:
fightersweep.com...

16th December 2017 New York Times article entitled “2 Navy Airmen and an Object That ‘Accelerated Like Nothing I’ve Ever Seen’”:
www.nytimes.com...

2017/2018 - “To The Stars” webpages:
“2004 USS NIMITZ FLIR1 VIDEO”:
coi.tothestarsacademy.com...
“2004 USS NIMITZ PILOT REPORT”:
coi.tothestarsacademy.com...
"CDR STRIKE FIGHTER SQUADRON 41 INTERVIEW"
coi.tothestarsacademy.com...

2017/2018 - NICAP webpage collating relevant resources:
www.nicap.org...

2017/2018 - Giuliano Marinkovic’s media archive collating relevant audio visual material:
omnitalkradio.weebly.com...

a reply to: IsaacKoi

Interesting.
So that video has been knockin about for quite some time.
Tom delonge has not made any new announcements

a reply to: IsaacKoi

According to an article www.grenzwissenschaft-aktuell.de...


A German UFO blogger (Andreas Muller) has asked a VisionUnlimited "Manager" about the video and he said:

“Unfortunately, I can’t help at all. We don’t know where the file came from and can only say that it hasn’t been on the server for a long time since. Because the case is so strange, we also wanted to investigate. But quickly this showed to be fruitless because the file was on an old server and all data (LOGs etc.) are no longer available. I’ve also talked to former employees who had access to the server, but no one could tell me anything about it.” On a further inquiry to clarify that the video in question is NOT a product of “Vision Unlimited”, Schneider summarizes the situation again from VU’s point of view: “Yes correct – we have nothing to do with the video!

This Nimitz pilot report is interesting.


coi.tothestarsacademy.com...

It was written 4 months ago. Why? And who directed the generation of this report 14 years after the incident? The author and agency are redacted. ( also interesting is there is a line item to track “ expenditures” which is also redacted.

My guess is this is an official AATIP report. Specifically directed and possibly conducted by Elizondo himself before his resignation from the AATIP. Elizondo knowing that this incident would be one of the first rolled out for TTS.

But was there no investigation and report generated by AATIP in the 14+ years before this? Seems strange that this incident is front and center with The December roll out of info but it wasn’t investigated and reported previously. Or is there additional report(s) to follow?


Also interesting is the “ female controller from the USS Princeton that re-vectored the 2 fighters”.
She remained unidentified. But inquired what weapons either fighter had on board. When the pilots stated they were low on fuel she stearnly repeated her commands - primarily saying ‘too bad- go where I am telling you to go!’

She potentially had more information on the situation or possibly was being directed by higher ups whom had more information. That shows that a deeper more integrated DOD reaction and investigation of UAP. The report to me reveals the immediacy and importance that seems to be coming from a higher authority. There is disregard for adequate fuel levels of the fighters and inquiry about onboard weapons capacity hinting at the very least of encountering a hostile subject. Both issues are disregarded with what looks like a push to gain intelligence on the unknown subject with deregard of safety protocols. ( maybe a more experienced person can shed light on their situation and did they have to blatantly disregard safety protocols? )

I am all for the AATIP and TTS to continue to try to establish themselves but I feel the real pertinent information on the subject has been collected , analyzed, and archived for a long time behind the scenes by high level DOD whom quietly continue to gather intel on incidents exactely like the Nimitz and the mysterious female controller and whom ever directed her to direct the two fighters to investigate is a good example of that.

originally posted by: Guest101


So within just 0.5 seconds, the object is able to jump to a speed of 430 km/hr (270 mph). This requires an acceleration of 240 m/s2, or 24 g’s!!
Amazing …

Isn't it just a direction change rather than acceleration ?

originally posted by: Hyperboles
a reply to: IsaacKoi

Interesting.
So that video has been knockin about for quite some time.
Tom delonge has not made any new announcements

He’s brought a government agent and a group of government sponsored think tank types along for the ride

originally posted by: Jukiodone
According to an article www.grenzwissenschaft-aktuell.de...

A German UFO blogger (Andreas Muller) has asked a VisionUnlimited "Manager" about the video

Thanks. Interestingly, I got a somewhat different answer from the same person in 2007. I think he may simply have forgotten. I've sent him a long email today about the emails I exchanged with him in 2007 and 2008, together with some other information I've put together in the last few days with French researcher (and ATS member) Antoine Cousyn. Hopefully this will prompt some memories and provide further information. If so, I'll pass it on.

a reply to: Jukiodone

But quickly this showed to be fruitless because the file was on an old server and all data (LOGs etc.) are no longer available.

So To the Stars big release traces back to a German film production company , why am I not surprised.

That is fantastic Isaac, this thing has legs and now it needs a sequel to score a knockout. I wonder what they are sitting on now, and if they do have anything close to this, it would be a great time to keep the momentum going.

a reply to: Paddyofurniture

The pilot of the aircraft is the ultimate decision maker. If low on fuel the pilot has the authority to disregard the female or male controller

originally posted by: chunder

originally posted by: Guest101


So within just 0.5 seconds, the object is able to jump to a speed of 430 km/hr (270 mph). This requires an acceleration of 240 m/s2, or 24 g’s!!
Amazing …

Isn't it just a direction change rather than acceleration ?

You mean that is was traveling with a speed of 120 m/s from or to the ATFLIR (showing no apparent motion on the screen) and then makes a 90 degree turn in 0.5 s maintaining that speed?

I don't think you would want to be in that thing because that requires an even bigger acceleration than 24 g’s.

Let’s do the math:

The centripetal force in a turn is m.v2/r (v2 stands for ‘v squared’). According to F = m.a, the centripetal acceleration is v2/r.

We already have v (120 m/s) and we need r (the curve radius).

The object crosses the curve (a quarter of a circle) in 0.5 s, so the curve length is 60 m (the path travelled in 0.5 s at a speed of 120 m/s).
The length of a quarter circle with radius r is pi x r/2 (a full circle would be 2 x pi x r). This length must be 60 m, so now we can calculate the curve radius r:

pi x r/2 = 60 so r = 120/pi = 38 m.

With the curve radius we can calculate the centripetal acceleration, which is v2/r = 380 m/s2 ... 38 g’s …

originally posted by: IsaacKoi

originally posted by: Jukiodone
According to an article www.grenzwissenschaft-aktuell.de...

A German UFO blogger (Andreas Muller) has asked a VisionUnlimited "Manager" about the video

Thanks. Interestingly, I got a somewhat different answer from the same person in 2007. I think he may simply have forgotten. I've sent him a long email today about the emails I exchanged with him in 2007 and 2008, together with some other information I've put together in the last few days with French researcher (and ATS member) Antoine Cousyn. Hopefully this will prompt some memories and provide further information. If so, I'll pass it on.

The answer why this video ended up on a German server may be in the oldest thread on this topic here on ATS. You posted a link to it earlier.
Hint: Greetings from Germany.

originally posted by: Guest101
The answer why this video ended up on a German server may be in the oldest thread on this topic here on ATS. You posted a link to it earlier.
Hint: Greetings from Germany.

Understood. I've been following up that line of attack (with others, particularly Antoine Cousyn) for the last few days.

We've been making good progress - which may, of course, ground to a halt at any moment.

(I'm currently having email and Facebook exchanges with people at Vision Unlimited, renewing contact I had with them in 2007/2008).

originally posted by: Hyperboles
a reply to: Paddyofurniture

The pilot of the aircraft is the ultimate decision maker. If low on fuel the pilot has the authority to disregard the female or male controller

Thank you. I figured that the case.

Though As with anything at the level of complexity of military aerial platforms running real life operations I’m sure there can be a number protocols in place ( percentage of fuel left vs distance back to carrier vs weather conditions etc.) the report doesn’t go into more detail of what the female controller responded when the pilot stated the issue of low fuel other than they were being directed to continue.

My hopes are the AATIP asked these types of questions in their reporting. Like, in-depth questioning of this specific topic. I’m just a mook off the street but I would pursue a line of questioning like

1) How specifically did the female controller respond when you replied to her that low fuel issues were an issue?
2) at that point before you were re-vectored how long before you had to return to the carrier safely?
3) what exact level of fuel did you need to return safely? Did you encroach / exceed those safety fuel levels
4) why does an unidentified controller from an entirely different operation have authority to have you drop what you are doing and re-vector to an unknown operation?
5) obviously the controller her self likely didn’t have the ultimate authority. The ranking officer (whom ever that was) that was standing next to her directing her to direct the pilots had the ultimate authority. Do you know who that was? Did the controller refer to that ranking officer? What / whom made you “nervous” about this re-vectoring as he stated - do you have educated opinion as to whom was really directing this re-vectoring and investigation op?

Obviously difficult questions that likely a Commanding Navy pilot wouldn’t want to answer and even in asking the questions may just shut down and stop the inquiry/ reporting. But hopefully the AATIP and Elizondo felt comfortable in their support by Reid and Co. to ask the hard questions without repercussions

PaddyO,

These are great questions and the level of research here is great. Allow me to give my perspective on this.
***disclaimer*** I wasn't there, but I have a few hours of Navy flight time and have worked with CV controllers, small boy controllers and Joint Controllers.

1) In this case, after the Aircrew informs the controller that they are tight on gas, I would expect something along the lines of "Roger that, I know you're tight on gas, go do this." In most cases, when vectored to something in that situation, the aircrew might ask for some considerations to help them, like getting some gas airborne, or gettting priority landing (I've had both).
2) This is likely just their recovery time which usually has about 15 minutes of slop in it.
3) It's possible to go low, but when you're heading back, you need to tell the ship that. They will either land you first, or get some fuel airborne.
4) This is the important question. When airborne, the controller is essentially the voice of God. Sometimes the controller can be an E2 or an AWACS or a Ground controller, but because of the situation of the aircraft, they can't aggregrate all the battlespace intel that available. The controller can get info from internal Intel networks, ELINT from other assets, intel from other aircraft, etc. Whenever I've been retasked airborne, the aircrew has questions, but usually not the total info. In general, if the controller has told you to get retasked, it did NOT come from the controller, it typically would come from someone fairly high up. I'm guessing at least an O-5, likely higher.
5) This info would only come after you've landed and have debriefed in CVIC. Perhaps even somewhere else with someone else. In most cases, the information about the battlespace goes through your own squadron Intel officer, who gets everything relayed to them. But the squadron intel officer is not usually very high ranking, maybe an O-3, so I'm guessing that CDR Fravor went to the Carrier Intel Officer to understand what happened. This person is typically an O-5. So, while airborne, the aircrew know that someone who is responsible for a lot of assets, has just revectored you. The biggest responsibility that the aircrew have is to relay whatever info they gather, and the constantly update the controller about their fuel state/aircraft state.

It happens rarely, but the idea of being on "government time" was a real world topic that we briefed. It doesn't occur often, and is kind of a throw back to when pilots would dive bomb, but the idea is as follows: When you are in a certain situation, being ordered/directed to an objective, there are times when your safety takes a lower priority than mission accomplishment. When A-6 pilots would roll in to drop their bombs, after travelling hundreds of miles, even if they were being shot at, they had to track that target and deploy their bombs, even if they were getting all torn up. That's "government time."

On rare occasions, you get the controllers telling you to do something and there might be pauses in the radio transmissions or a certain tone by the controller, and you know that you are approaching government time.

Just my 2 cents.

originally posted by: cosmania
PaddyO,

These are great questions and the level of research here is great. Allow me to give my perspective on this.
***disclaimer*** I wasn't there, but I have a few hours of Navy flight time and have worked with CV controllers, small boy controllers and Joint Controllers.

1) In this case, after the Aircrew informs the controller that they are tight on gas, I would expect something along the lines of "Roger that, I know you're tight on gas, go do this." In most cases, when vectored to something in that situation, the aircrew might ask for some considerations to help them, like getting some gas airborne, or gettting priority landing (I've had both).
2) This is likely just their recovery time which usually has about 15 minutes of slop in it.
3) It's possible to go low, but when you're heading back, you need to tell the ship that. They will either land you first, or get some fuel airborne.
4) This is the important question. When airborne, the controller is essentially the voice of God. Sometimes the controller can be an E2 or an AWACS or a Ground controller, but because of the situation of the aircraft, they can't aggregrate all the battlespace intel that available. The controller can get info from internal Intel networks, ELINT from other assets, intel from other aircraft, etc. Whenever I've been retasked airborne, the aircrew has questions, but usually not the total info. In general, if the controller has told you to get retasked, it did NOT come from the controller, it typically would come from someone fairly high up. I'm guessing at least an O-5, likely higher.
5) This info would only come after you've landed and have debriefed in CVIC. Perhaps even somewhere else with someone else. In most cases, the information about the battlespace goes through your own squadron Intel officer, who gets everything relayed to them. But the squadron intel officer is not usually very high ranking, maybe an O-3, so I'm guessing that CDR Fravor went to the Carrier Intel Officer to understand what happened. This person is typically an O-5. So, while airborne, the aircrew know that someone who is responsible for a lot of assets, has just revectored you. The biggest responsibility that the aircrew have is to relay whatever info they gather, and the constantly update the controller about their fuel state/aircraft state.

It happens rarely, but the idea of being on "government time" was a real world topic that we briefed. It doesn't occur often, and is kind of a throw back to when pilots would dive bomb, but the idea is as follows: When you are in a certain situation, being ordered/directed to an objective, there are times when your safety takes a lower priority than mission accomplishment. When A-6 pilots would roll in to drop their bombs, after travelling hundreds of miles, even if they were being shot at, they had to track that target and deploy their bombs, even if they were getting all torn up. That's "government time."

On rare occasions, you get the controllers telling you to do something and there might be pauses in the radio transmissions or a certain tone by the controller, and you know that you are approaching government time.

Just my 2 cents.

Cosmania,

That was great. Thank you for your thorough response.

I really believe understanding and pursuing the minutia of these incidents leads to much more in-depth research. Keep up the good work . Your insight is appreciated and needed.

I’m a proponent of the AATIP and TTS. But I’ll be honest before the info dump in December and the roll out of info I was a Stark apponent of Delonge and his antics.

It’s still a wait and see for me in regards to where this is all going but if real hard data continues to roll out in the form of AATIP reports and audio/video that are thorough it will be interesting.

Thanks again.

Oh what a wicked web we weave when first we practice to deceive. And the 2nd and 3rd time too. 4th time's the charm maybe with TTSA?

Does the past inform the present? We all know, generally speaking, the answer to that question is Yes.

If you are invested with some hope or interest that TTSA might be some spear-tip of Disclosure, then you owe it to yourself to dig into some history. While I don't totally agree with all the conclusions of the RU team (who were/are also ATS members) they did some fantastic detective work upon which to form your own conclusions.

I would start with the following link to get your bearings and then dig into the emails linked at bottom of this post.


Project Serpo Uncovered: www.realityuncovered.net...

From the first page (Bolding emphasis mine) :

Introduction - Just The Facts, Please

All of the information presented to Victor Martinez and Bill Ryan by "Request Anonymous" came in fact from Richard C. Doty. Martinez may have suspected Doty's involvement, but Bill Ryan knew from the very start that he was getting the Serpo material directly from the former AFOSI security guard. Doty has continuously denied having any involvement in the story, despite the mountains of evidence to the contrary. In addition to Doty, Martinez and Ryan, the behind the scenes "Team of Five" who collaborated extensively on the project is completed by Dr. Christopher "Kit" Green - a former analyst with the CIA, and physicist Dr. Harold (Hal) E. Puthoff.

The material to follow will show that Serpo was not a lone-gunman operation, but a collaboration between three friends, who between them already had many years experience of scamming the UFO community.

Reality Uncovered Project Serpo Investigation - Emails

a reply to: The GUT

That can of worms should be reopened and completely dug through in light of recent events.

That said, it's still the same old stale can of worms it was a decade ago...

Lots of scamming going on from all sides.

originally posted by: Springer
That said, it's still the same old stale can of worms it was a decade ago...

Gee...I use the 'S'-word, and it all comes back.
A decade ago, there was a sophisticated attack, SERPO, on the sensibilities of the UFO community. Heads were exploding. Then it was found to be a hoax, and end of story. We were played. The identities of the known puppetmasters is disconcerting, to say the least. Has there yet been a final analysis from the ground up? I mean a final, final analysis?