The Nimitz Encounters Documentary

But 20 000mph in seconds without making sonic booms?

Do humans know how to build something which doesn't make sonic booms at that rate of acceleration?

It appears this technology works on a higher level than humans are capable of.
Possibly redefining the laws of physics.

500 knots underwater,making precise turns and stopping on a pin.
Sounds outside of our technological capabilities to me.

Just watched it earlier this evening, or last night now, and it was interesting.

Absolutely nothing was proven...either false or true. So, it was somewhat disappointing. Some sort of conclusion, otherwise, what's the point??

Something happened, that much is, or seems to be, obvious. These men have no reason to lie, and every reason not to. I doubt, very much, if they're making any great coin off this...little, if any, fame--more like infamy in some circles...and if they did sign non-disclosure agreements...they're in trouble.

If MIB, or who ever, did take all the electronic data...seems something did happen, and why not say what you think it was, folks.

Here, I'll say it. Mysterious, very high performance aircraft--very reminiscent of the infamous WWII foo fighters--were observed making mockery of the US Navy's very best and brightest. Not sayin' it was aliens...but, well, y'know. It quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, I doubt it was a goose.

originally posted by: moebius
a reply to: tjocksteffe

Drone? Yeah right.

What is seen in the released videos, could very well be a drone.

The issue here imho is that you have videos that are sold as proof of a fantastic story, while the videos don't contain anything fantastic. In fact the videos could be completely unrelated, and you wouldn't know.

So you are left with a fantastic story but no actual data to support it, sensationalized to maximize its entertainment value.

And lets be honest, that's what Ufology is for most people. Entertainment. So enjoy it I guess. It is certainly a cool story.

So radar data confirmed by multiple highly credible witnesses is not evidence in your opinion?

a reply to: seagull

So you do not class radar as proof?

a reply to: Jay-morris

Ah, but that proof isn't where we can see it, is it?

Confiscated, disappeared...gone.

I'm not saying something out of the ordinary didn't happen, but what it was...? I doubt we'll ever know for sure.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Jay-morris

Ah, but that proof isn't where we can see it, is it?

Confiscated, disappeared...gone.

I'm not saying something out of the ordinary didn't happen, but what it was...? I doubt we'll ever know for sure.

Yes, not proof as in you have not seen it, or I have not seen it, but when you have militery personnel witnesess, plus radar evidence, then that should be good enough that they saw something strange backed up with radar.

But i must stress, that does not mean it's ET, so I agree with you there, but there is overwhelming evidence that something is flying in our airspace. Be it ET, secret militery craft or whatever, but it's see real.

a reply to: tjocksteffe

If you ask a team of engineers to design a system that produces the behaviors portrayed by the Nimitz objects. Dimes to dollars, I guarantee they could come up with something.

Either a projection of illusion, ultra light material controlled and powered by high energy beams, or some clever utilization of high density energy.

It's possible imo, Navy has room temp super conductance now. Frictionless vehicle movement can't be too far off. Also, room temperature super conductance can power some very, very, high energy yield battery systems.

Quite.

If you think the last time we had hidden technological leaps (SR-71) was the last time we had secret tech far in advance of what anyone knows about publicly... You're naive.

I know a few theoretical energy prop systems, that if I had a couple billion black budget dollars, I could probably build on my own. No doubt, Uncle Sam is already doing it.

a reply to: Jay-morris

I'm not really disagreeing with you, Jay. But for many people, it's going to come down to "he said, he said"...and too many of us buy into the nay-sayers. We've been burned far, far too often not to be at the least somewhat skeptical.

I've had it pointed out to me on a number of occasions that for someone who has seen Sasquatch, I'm awfully skeptical of the entirety of the UFO thing.

I, too, believe that there is definitely something going on in the skies of our planet. I had my own MUFON reported episode not all that long ago.

Some interesting background facts on these weird readings:
badufos.blogspot.com...

Just one flight operations engineer's [my own] assessment of the basic nomenclature of the program's claims:

The '5 observables' allegedly demonstrated by the bizarre events reported by Navy pilots are NOT ‘observations’, they are INTERPRETATIONS of what the raw obervations might mean. What IS ‘observable’ is that the author of the list knows less than zero about the proper function of a military intelligence officer or any investigator of unknown causes of eyewitness perceptions, which is to observe and record, NOT to interpret or explain. To jump to such interpretations preemptively is a notorious intellectual fallacy that REAL investigators have learned must be avoided because once formulated, an explanatory theory can subconsciously flavor the interpretation of new evidence, and even skew the direction of follow-on research, and through lines of questioning, even skew the memories of direct witnesses. As NTSB accident investigators know, pilots are among the MOST susceptible witnesses to memory editing, probably because of their entirely proper professional instinct to reach fast assessmsnts of unusual observations in terms of potential hazard to themselves. This is a very valuble bias in terms of flight safety, at the cost of dispassionate intellectual curiosity.

So what was really observed?

Anti-gravity lift. [objects] have been sighted overcoming the earth’s gravity with no visible means of propulsion.

This would be ‘observable’ only through its effect on the motion of the object, or more precisely, on changes in its measured azimuth/elevation relative to Earth horizon [not to a viewscreen]. With objects of unknown size, any eyeball estimate of range is worthless.

Sudden and instantaneous acceleration. The objects may accelerate or change direction so quickly that no human pilot could survive the g-forces

Effective acceleration determination requires knowledge of a time history of the object’s angular rate, observer-to-object range rate, and accurate range value. There seems to be no description of reliable capture of any of these parameters, so ‘acceleration’ CANNOT be observed.

Hypersonic velocities without signatures. If an aircraft travels faster than the speed of sound, it typically leaves "signatures," like vapor trails and sonic booms

Determination of raw velocity requires these same parameters, so without them the ‘velocity’ is not observable.

Low observability, or cloaking. Even when objects are observed, getting a clear and detailed view of them—either through pilot sightings, radar or other means—remains difficult.

‘Observability’ can be observed qualitatively but needs more details about which sensors are involved, from human eyeball [under what attenuation/illumination conditions] to visual sensors [visible light, IR, etc] to ground or airborne skin-track radar, lidar, or other technology. Without time history of quantifiable measurments in an environment of potentially rapidly changing range and aspect angle, the ‘observation’ observability is a dubious characteristic.

Trans-medium travel. Some UAP have been seen moving easily in and between different environments, such as space, the earth’s atmosphere and even water.

This is yet another INTERPRETATION of low-observable imagery, involving a target of unknown size and range.


Some of these interpretations may well be validated by investigation of the actual raw observables, but beginning an investigation based on pre-existing conclusions [and then selecting the evidence that fits] is a recipe for confusion and frustration and dead-ended detours. It demonstrates the sad unsuitability of such sloppy methodology to attempting to make sense of these undeniably interesting reports.

a reply to: JimOberg

I understand what you ate saying, but it is quite obvious something strange happened that day. Not to mention the fact that they were told not to say anything, that this event never happend. It's great we got the clip, but what about the footage that the witnesess said was more detailed, to the point that you could see the shape of the object and how it moved.

Why was this footage not released? Why would they not release that footage. It's obvious that something odd happened. What it was, we do not know.

a reply to: JimOberg

Jim Oberg,

They provided a firsthand account of the technical altitude and position rate change in the video, from one of the involved military officers.

I pulled the snippet out:
"The object descended from 24,000 feet, to 50 feet above the water in 0.78 seconds."

That's what he said that he saw on the sensor he was using.
That is a very specific detail to just make up, and gives us a viable comparator to determine information such as acceleration and velocity.

I didn't get granular with my math, but that's nearly 5 miles in less than a second.
Normally when we have something move at that speed, we have to have multi-booster stage solid-liquid rocket propellant and rocket nozzle engines.

To do that with something the shape of a Tic Tac is like nothing I've ever seen.
If this is some kinda guerilla marketing ad to get people to buy more TicTacs, I'm sold, and someone needs to get that marketing guy a promotion.

All that aside, I am capable of believing it is something we ourselves, developed.

It was an ideal field test scenario, if this thing came from the southwest desert skunkworks. Right there off the coast of the southwest, they knew the jet fighters wouldn't fire live ordnance at it, since they were training jets only, and they had multiple sensors on hand and tried to track it with everything.

All of that information, to me, points to black op field test.

originally posted by: Archivalist
a reply to: JimOberg

Jim Oberg,

They provided a firsthand account of the technical altitude and position rate change in the video, from one of the involved military officers.

I pulled the snippet out:
"The object descended from 24,000 feet, to 50 feet above the water in 0.78 seconds."

That's what he said that he saw on the sensor he was using.
That is a very specific detail to just make up, and gives us a viable comparator to determine information such as acceleration and velocity.

I didn't get granular with my math, but that's nearly 5 miles in less than a second.
Normally when we have something move at that speed, we have to have multi-booster stage solid-liquid rocket propellant and rocket nozzle engines.

To do that with something the shape of a Tic Tac is like nothing I've ever seen.
If this is some kinda guerilla marketing ad to get people to buy more TicTacs, I'm sold, and someone needs to get that marketing guy a promotion.

All that aside, I am capable of believing it is something we ourselves, developed.

It was an ideal field test scenario, if this thing came from the southwest desert skunkworks. Right there off the coast of the southwest, they knew the jet fighters wouldn't fire live ordnance at it, since they were training jets only, and they had multiple sensors on hand and tried to track it with everything.

All of that information, to me, points to black op field test.

It could be ours. But that is crazy technology, and makes you think they are sitting on technology that could change this planet. I am talking about anti gravity technology. Makes you think what other advanced technologies these sociopaths have if it is one of our own

originally posted by: Archivalist
a reply to: tjocksteffe

If you ask a team of engineers to design a system that produces the behaviors portrayed by the Nimitz objects. Dimes to dollars, I guarantee they could come up with something.

Either a projection of illusion, ultra light material controlled and powered by high energy beams, or some clever utilization of high density energy.

It's possible imo, Navy has room temp super conductance now. Frictionless vehicle movement can't be too far off. Also, room temperature super conductance can power some very, very, high energy yield battery systems.

Quite.

If you think the last time we had hidden technological leaps (SR-71) was the last time we had secret tech far in advance of what anyone knows about publicly... You're naive.

I know a few theoretical energy prop systems, that if I had a couple billion black budget dollars, I could probably build on my own. No doubt, Uncle Sam is already doing it.

Perhaps they could produce something like that or perhaps not. But this thing was making fools of frontline navy assets ( ac, surface ships, radars and submarines ) a decade and a half ago. So they should have been able to produce the needed tech in the '90s. And that I won't buy.

originally posted by: JimOberg
As NTSB accident investigators know, pilots are among the MOST susceptible witnesses to memory editing,

Out of curiosity, how do they know that?

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum
a reply to: TheGreazel

Didn't look very well mate, the initial details of the Nimitz encounter broke right here on ATS back in 2007

theaviationist.com... at-it-was/

I have been on a Bill and Tedd excellent adventure today trawling the Hall of Records of ATS .


I only have one question.

Why in 07 would a yank in California (I'm assuming that's where they were on the Nimitz) who nicked Navy footage, find a random young film making kid in Germany to post their video and then both end up here?

Whhhhyyyyy?


NB/ Security had jack # to do with it.

originally posted by: Silcone Synapse
But 20 000mph in seconds without making sonic booms?

Do humans know how to build something which doesn't make sonic booms at that rate of acceleration?

It appears this technology works on a higher level than humans are capable of.
Possibly redefining the laws of physics.

500 knots underwater,making precise turns and stopping on a pin.
Sounds outside of our technological capabilities to me.

The '5 observables' allegedly demonstrated by the bizarre events reported by Navy pilots are NOT ‘observations’, they are INTERPRETATIONS of what the raw obervations might mean. What IS ‘observable’ is that the author of the list knows less than zero about the proper function of a military intelligence officer or any investigator of unknown causes of eyewitness perceptions, which is to observe and record, NOT to interpret or explain. To jump to such interpretations preemptively is a notorious intellectual fallacy that REAL investigators have learned must be avoided because once formulated, an explanatory theory can subconsciously flavor the interpretation of new evidence, and even skew the direction of follow-on research, and through lines of questioning, even skew the memories of direct witnesses. As NTSB accident investigators know, pilots are among the MOST susceptible witnesses to memory editing, probably because of their entirely proper professional instinct to reach fast assessmsnts of unusual observations in terms of potential hazard to themselves. This is a very valuble bias in terms of flight safety, at the cost of dispassionate intellectual curiosity.

So what was really observed?

Anti-gravity lift. [objects] have been sighted overcoming the earth’s gravity with no visible means of propulsion.

This would be ‘observable’ only through its effect on the motion of the object, or more precisely, on changes in its measured azimuth/elevation relative to Earth horizon [not to a viewscreen]. With objects of unknown size, any eyeball estimate of range is worthless.

Sudden and instantaneous acceleration. The objects may accelerate or change direction so quickly that no human pilot could survive the g-forces

Effective acceleration determination requires knowledge of a time history of the object’s angular rate, observer-to-object range rate, and accurate range value. There seems to be no description of reliable capture of any of these parameters, so ‘acceleration’ CANNOT be observed.

Hypersonic velocities without signatures. If an aircraft travels faster than the speed of sound, it typically leaves "signatures," like vapor trails and sonic booms

Determination of raw velocity requires these same parameters, so without them the ‘velocity’ is not observable.

Low observability, or cloaking. Even when objects are observed, getting a clear and detailed view of them—either through pilot sightings, radar or other means—remains difficult.

‘Observability’ can be observed qualitatively but needs more details about which sensors are involved, from human eyeball [under what attenuation/illumination conditions] to visual sensors [visible light, IR, etc] to ground or airborne skin-track radar, lidar, or other technology. Without time history of quantifiable measurments in an environment of potentially rapidly changing range and aspect angle, the ‘observation’ observability is a dubious characteristic.

Trans-medium travel. Some UAP have been seen moving easily in and between different environments, such as space, the earth’s atmosphere and even water.

This is yet another INTERPRETATION of low-observable imagery, involving a target of unknown size and range.

Some of these interpretations may well be validated by investigation of the actual raw observables, but beginning an investigation based on pre-existing conclusions [and then selecting the evidence that fits] is a recipe for confusion and frustration and dead-ended detours. It demonstrates the sad unsuitability of such sloppy methodology to attempting to make sense of these undeniably interesting reports.

a reply to: JimOberg

But you have to look at the sighting as a whole. The radar hits, the pilot sightings, the men who viewed the object from the ship, the fact the officers came on board and told them to not talk about this, making them sign this promise. The fact that they took away all the data. Officers on the ship said there was clearer footage of the object. Why was this not released with the other footage?

Not saying it's ET. Could be some of our own tech. If it is, then that's some crazy technology we have.

One thing is for sure, something unexplained happend.

It's clarified on the video that you would expect not one but multiple sonic booms over and over again.

This is not ours.

originally posted by: zazzafrazz

Why in 07 would a yank in California (I'm assuming that's where they were on the Nimitz) who nicked Navy footage, find a random young film making kid in Germany to post their video and then both end up here?

Whhhhyyyyy?

A long day, my brain hurts, and I may be behind the times but, as discussed on ATS in yet another older Nimitz thread, are we absolutely certain beyond a shadow of a doubt that the video clip was NOT part of Chris Kenworthy's "immersive artwork project", or alternatively inspired by it?

Are the current witnesses rather elaborately fitting a story around the video? Or vice-versa? (A kind of 'chicken & egg' question.)