BREAKING: Pentagon Releases Declassified 13 Page 2004 Tic Tac UFO Analysis...AAV Not From Earth

a reply to: beetee

It depends on what we're talking about though. Are we talking about a system that is or was planned to go live? Or are we talking about a one off demonstrator that will put the technology into something else, or may not ever be used for anything else?

In the case of the former, they wouldn't be within 200 miles of a CSG. In the case of the latter, they're more flexible, because once the program has run its course, it either gets buried in the desert, or put into a deep dark warehouse somewhere and won't be seen again. They still aren't going to fly it over Los Angeles low and slow at noon, but they can control radar data and pictures from FLIR until after the program is done. At that point, prove they had something that could do that.

a reply to: mirageman

I will be the first to admit to disappointment with the evidence. The possibility remains that this was nothing more than a test of some highly classified technology (perhaps some kind of psy-op system even).

However, there is a time and place and an incident. Why has nobody asked the Navy to comment on what they think happened? What do they think it was? Do they even want to admit it happened?

I find it strange that nobody is asking them the tough questions, if only to see what they might respond with. Will it be a "we don't know" or a "didn't happen"?

I just think the US Navy gets off much too lightly.

The way I see it is:

Either nothing happened and this is all an extremely elaborate fictional event concocted for unknown purposes over many years (which is very interesting if true in its own right)

OR

Something very weird happened and nobody is asking the people who were in charge at the time, and also those who are in charge now, the very serious question about what it was that happened. Did they do it to themselves as some kind of test, or did someone else do it to them? If so, who did it?

There are a lot of potential sources for this incident as a whole carrier group was involved, with quite a few witnesses already on record describing some pretty wild things. So it's not as if there are no available avenues for research for the people who ask questions for a living.

Yet nobody seems to bother very much, because it is 'just a ufo story'..

I bet they could track down everyone and his aunt from the deployment and ask them questions, including the top brass.

Now, I have a nagging suspicion this should probably tell me something profound, but it sadly only leaves me a bit perplexed.

Cheers,
BT

a reply to: Zaphod58

Yes, I can see the distinction. If this is something that they were testing back in 2004 I am, to put it mildly, extremely impressed.

All sorts of interested parties would also sit up and take notice, I guess, so there is that.

For one thing it would explain the almost painful lack of interest. Although, I guess other explanations might also be offered.

Cheers,
BT

a reply to: beetee

Depending on the area in question, the DoD can be anywhere between 5 and 10 years ahead of the equivalent civilian field. Some of the programs that I've been lucky enough to uncover anything on tend to hold to that timeline. Some of the theorized engine tech that NASA has studied is pretty impressive.

a reply to: beetee

originally posted by: TheTruthRocks
The "evidence" Lou Elizondo claims to have seen is a single report he found in a classified records system before he retired. That report was created as a joke, and Lou thought it was genuine reporting.

Also keep in mind that his position in the U.S. DoD's Advanced Aviation Threat Identification Program (AATIP) had nothing to do with the study of so-called alien technology. It was focused on what our adversaries were cooking up and how we could detect, identify, and counter the threats. Nothing more.

Lou and his pals are seeing dollar signs. They're charging $$ for speaking engagements and selling hats and tee shirts. They will make a lot of money before this blows over.

Someone said this 5 months ago. Can we trust their word against those of the TTSA gang?

a reply to: mirageman

So, in your opinion, where does this leave the Nimitz incident? Fravor and his 'tic-tac' story from 2015, the unnamed tech guy in 2013 on reddit, the video posted to ATS in 2008?

If we leave AATIP and TTSA out of it, and even Elizondo, does the incident have any legs of it's own?

Just curious about your thoughts on this.

Cheers,
BT

a reply to: Zaphod58

There are smiley faces running all down the left-hand side of this "Report"...

a reply to: maya27

They are holes in the paper.

This is a smiley face

Rat

originally posted by: Erno86

originally posted by: wantsome

originally posted by: darkbake
I’ve heard that these UFOs could possibly be time travelers from Earth’s future. It would make a lot of sense. I also noted their ability to operate undersea. There could be undersea bases.

I've seen it with my own eyes we're not alone. There is something more advanced then us and it's here. Sooner or later we're going to find out what it's intentions are. Time travelers who knows? They could have made us for all we know. What ever it is it can travel the vastness of time and space it's a hell of a lot more advanced then we are.

Care to enlighten us on your U.F.O. experience?

Thnx...

My story isn't all that important. There's a million of them out there just like mine. Former military personnel have told their stories. They have a lot more credibility then me. One day mankind is going to wake up to find his world has changed when these things let it be known they are here. Just my take on things. I don't think they're hostile because they could wipe us out like ants if they wanted to. If they let it be known that they are here mass chaos would insure. Religious people would freak having their beliefs rocked to the core. I think it's part of the reason the government don't talk about it.

a reply to: wantsome

I kind of suspect they're afraid of us and have some kind of inferiority complex.

They might be smaller, weaker, and uglier.

We may even be smarter than them except they may have a billion year headstart.

Especially if they are kind of like primates like us by way of parallel evolution, the fear and inferiority complex may be there.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Thanks for that explanation. It helps clarify things a little more.

originally posted by: beetee
a reply to: mirageman

So, in your opinion, where does this leave the Nimitz incident? Fravor and his 'tic-tac' story from 2015, the unnamed tech guy in 2013 on reddit, the video posted to ATS in 2008?

If we leave AATIP and TTSA out of it, and even Elizondo, does the incident have any legs of it's own?

Just curious about your thoughts on this.

Cheers,
BT

The fact that the story first appeared in 2015 on FighterSweep.com and a video leaked earlier with other comments makes me wonder.

In the above linked article it was claimed Fravor said:

...a government agency with a three letter identifier had recently conducted an investigation into the AAVs and had exhaustively interviewed all parties involved...

AATIP or AAWSAP both contain more than 3 letters. So who else was involved in investigations? Or was it just a figure of speech?

The slow drip of information that has been coming is interesting.

2004 - 14th Nov when the incident occurs
2007 - The FLIR video appears on a German website : wayback machine link
2015 - The details of the incident are placed in the public domain on Fighter Sweep.
2017 - Chris Mellon reveals the incident during the TTSA launch. A couple of months later the video appears (again).
2017 - Fravor backs up his claims by appearing on TV news soundbites.
2018 - This undated, untitled report suddenly appears by TTSA friendly media source the I-Team.

** There are also as we know various forum posting around the internet concerning the incident.

A 14 year gap from (and 5 years before AATIP realistically was funded) since the incident occurred.

It could be that Cmdr Fravor and other officers involved felt higher echelons of command were ignoring, what they believed, was a serious breach of US Airspace by an aircraft of unknown origin. With this latest 'report' being part of that. A fight amongst people in command of the US Navy to recognise there is a problem (as we've heard) could well be the issue. It has been claimed that various high ranked officers are deeply religious and consider aliens to be demonic in nature. But the report and testimony steers clear of calling this unknown object 'alien' or even a UFO.

The incident was also part of the opening gameplay from TTSA. The slow build-up to its big reveal by them makes me slightly suspicious here. Despite no official confirmation that this was a declassified video they felt no qualms about placing their logo on it and unleashing it on the world's news outlets. Which then claimed the Pentagon had released the videos. One story is that Fravor copied the camera footage himself! That sounds highly irregular.

The evidence is like many classic UFO stories At first it seems like a rock solid case with reputable witness testimony, documents and even video. But when you scratch below the surface you find out that yet again the hard, undeniable proof does not exist.

a reply to: mirageman

You are wasted on your day job.

*This* is where you really shine and are needed.

Thats as high a compliment as i can give.

Kev

originally posted by: mirageman

originally posted by: beetee
a reply to: mirageman


BT

In the above linked article it was claimed Fravor said:

...a government agency with a three letter identifier had recently conducted an investigation into the AAVs and had exhaustively interviewed all parties involved...

AATIP or AAWSAP both contain more than 3 letters. So who else was involved in investigations? Or was it just a figure of speech?

Two potentially good candidates - one of which I have some familiarity with. Both do NOT broadcast much about their inner workings or 'services' provided to member user agencies. The NGA recently built an ENORMOUS complex; there are quite a few rooms in those cavernous buildings in which I'd love to be fly on the wall for a while...

NGA = National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency




or:?

DIA = Defense Intelligence Agency

a reply to: Outrageo

youtu.be...

Kev

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

A nice PR piece, Kev -that BoobTube for-public-consumption video you posted up. A couple of points to ponder:

1. It's five years old. The NGA 'mission' (and capability) has expanded exponentially since '13.

2. It's the stuff NOT shown in the PR video that may be of more interest to our discussion here. And there's a LOT that was not shown... The NGA 'customer-list' is substantial and they're doing a heluvva business as of late. Let's just say they are no longer relying on clunky cinetheodolites for capturing and tracking aerial intrusion data.

But thanks, Kev, for sharing it all the same! Not a bad diluted look into about the first layer or two. The Pentagon, CIA, etc., all have similar videos - they all have a constant need to attract bleeding-edge talent (who can also get clearances). Potential candidates need a little wizzy along with smiling/serious faces to decide if it's someplace they would consider signing their life over to. NGA is ALWAYS hiring, BTW.

The deep stuff they do will never be found on a YouTube video. You know that, of course...

a reply to: Outrageo

I posted it for entertainment value! Not for any sort of smoking gun!

They certainly seem to have a high opinion of themselves.. but
any good sales pitch comes across that way.

I guess they must interact a lot with the national reconnaissance office.

I also wonder what percent of the gross national product goes towards
this huge web of war spending.. as that's what it all comes down to..
preparation for the next war.

Or the current war.. to control the minds of the credulous.. and we
have nearly lost that war.

Kev

a reply to: mirageman

Just thought I'd add that former squadron mate of Fravor (and author of the first account of the incident published on fightersweep.com) Paco Chierici has explained on Twitter that the Navy report of the incident was created by the Naval Investigative Service (NIS). I am not sure if this is part of NCIS, but there you have it. Definitely a three letter agency of sorts.




Maybe there would be some FOIA material there, but I think John Greenwald has already tried to get UFO documents out of the NCIS. Some comments of his here

This is, however, NCIS and not NIS, so I am not sure what, if any, the differences are. Whatever the Nimitz incident was, it was hardly a crime, so it's a bit odd that the NCIS should somehow be involved in writing a report.

Maybe someone with greater insights into the Navy bureaucracy can chip in. Is NIS the same as NCIS, or some stand alone agency with its own records?

It is also a bit strange that the report, which he used as source material for his original Fightersweep article, was allegedly finished just before he wrote the article, so in 2014/15. Rather long after the fact, and one wonders why they suddenly decided to do an investigation this long after.

Maybe it's .. ah-ah, wait for it, ... NISinformation...

Cheers,
BT

a reply to: beetee

NIS was changed to NCIS in 1992. I still call BS.

articles.latimes.com...

a reply to: Zaphod58

Thanks, that was informative on the NIS / NCIS thing.

I am curious as to why you don't think the NCIS report would be real. Is it because it was (allegedly) created so long after the fact, or is there some other reason?

Do you think that it is a wholly made-up affair?

I am just curious because you certainly know more about aircraft than most of the rest of us, and perhaps about pilots too. We might be missing something, is what I worry about.

As an aviation interested civilian, what are the major red flags to you?

To me the whole thing is very odd, not least the role of the TTSA in all of this, but if we just look at the incident itself. I would certainly value your input.

Cheers,
BT