The Nimitz Encounters Documentary

a reply to: ConfusedBrit

We are all losing our gosh darn minds

I thought we were talking about this video ? :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

That was the alleged stolen naval footage by this member that was loaded to a German server and added to ATS in '07 that TTSA re-released in '17, Not the aussie film makers crappy vid.


Admittedly I didnt watch the OP, I just replied to a post further down that I thought was discussing the TFT thread.

Sonic boom acoustic cancellation is easy to imagine.

Sonic booms are caused by massive dispersals of energy as pressure waves are left by an object moving faster than the speed of sound.

Ultimately, they're just really loud noise.

Have you guys been asleep for the last two decades of advancement in noise and audio cancellation technology?

Hunters can buy earplugs now, that filter out gunshots, but enhance the sounds of a deer trustling in leaves 200+ feet away.

Airpods. Beats headphones. Studio music recording. Hollywood level sound proofing. Simulated 7.1 surround sound in headphones!

Sonic booms at the end of the day, are just really loud noises. We know how pressure waves move through the medium of our atmosphere. We know how to utilize many different types of technology to redirect, cancel, and modify energy in our atmosphere.
HAARP showed us that we could literally lift part of our O-zone layer with nothing but broadcast power. (Not a conspiracy fact, that was an observed effect from the HAARP usage.)

Take noise suppression as it stands in the public today, with advance surround sound and cancellation hardware and software. Now, add a couple billion dollars, and some of the most intelligent aerodynamic engineers on the planet.

Where do you think you end up??????

originally posted by: Archivalist
Sonic boom acoustic cancellation is easy to imagine.

Sonic booms are caused by massive dispersals of energy as pressure waves are left by an object moving faster than the speed of sound.

Ultimately, they're just really loud noise.

Have you guys been asleep for the last two decades of advancement in noise and audio cancellation technology?

Hunters can buy earplugs now, that filter out gunshots, but enhance the sounds of a deer trustling in leaves 200+ feet away.

Airpods. Beats headphones. Studio music recording. Hollywood level sound proofing. Simulated 7.1 surround sound in headphones!

Sonic booms at the end of the day, are just really loud noises. We know how pressure waves move through the medium of our atmosphere. We know how to utilize many different types of technology to redirect, cancel, and modify energy in our atmosphere.
HAARP showed us that we could literally lift part of our O-zone layer with nothing but broadcast power. (Not a conspiracy fact, that was an observed effect from the HAARP usage.)

Take noise suppression as it stands in the public today, with advance surround sound and cancellation hardware and software. Now, add a couple billion dollars, and some of the most intelligent aerodynamic engineers on the planet.

Where do you think you end up??????

Noise cancellation as in modifying the sound wave at the receiver end. Yes.

But there is still no trace of any evidence of how to make a jet engine silent.

a reply to: JimOberg

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.

Totally agree, and with the predictable way TTSA are selling their show, it isn't helping anything, aside from just making more noise around the event.

I would suggest writing to the CIA in order to request the data that they confiscated, however something tells me any correspondence in relation to the event would just end up through the shredder

originally posted by: zazzafrazz
a reply to: ConfusedBrit

We are all losing our gosh darn minds

I have a genuine headache, no joke!

That was the alleged stolen naval footage by this member that was loaded to a German server and added to ATS in '07 that TTSA re-released in '17, Not the aussie film makers crappy vid.

The notion that the German server video was 'inspired' by the other was the messy point I was trying to make. But I need to step away from this for a while - if I hear the name "Nimitz" again, I may well projectile-vomit.

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.

EXACTLY! A most excellent post SS. This is why I am voting for you in 2020.

For all of you who are afraid of saying it, I will say it for you

It's Aliens okay!

Gosh, grab a clue and grow a pair.

originally posted by: spiritualarchitect
For all of you who are afraid of saying it, I will say it for you

It's Aliens okay!

Gosh, grab a clue and grow a pair.

Prove it. There is no way enough information available to be sure of anything, however it is fact that all information relating to this event and others like it is definitely being kept.

The reasoning is unknown, as are the reported objects

a reply to: tjocksteffe

You don't have to make the jet engine silent.

You only need to direct the sound away from observers.

If a sonic boom happens towards the east, and your listeners are to the west, the boom has to go across the entire world, for them to receive it.

We made a freakin' stealth Sikorsky helicopter. That tech was used publicly, in 2010.

Makes me wonder if the activity viewed in the water, was from the redirection. I would expect some pretty powerful chop, in that case.
Anyone have any buoy or NOAA data from the water in that area, during that time frame? If your booms go straight downward, probably tough to imagine planes in the air picking it up. Not to mention, I'm sure it's "very easy" to hear something like that... Over the sound of your F-18 Super Hornet engine.

originally posted by: Silcone Synapse
Sounds outside of our technological capabilities to me.

That would be a reasonable thing to assume.

However, when Lockheed is patenting parts of a nuclear fusion generator small enough to fit on the back of a truck, and the Navy is patenting stuff like room-temperature superconductors and ships where the inertial mass is reduced through high-frequency resonant EM/gravity fields (and I assume generating vectored thrust a la Eric Laithwaite's maglev trains), you gotta wonder.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: Silcone Synapse
Sounds outside of our technological capabilities to me.

That would be a reasonable thing to assume.

However, when Lockheed is patenting parts of a nuclear fusion generator small enough to fit on the back of a truck, and the Navy is patenting stuff like room-temperature superconductors and ships where the inertial mass is reduced through high-frequency resonant EM/gravity fields (and I assume generating vectored thrust a la Eric Laithwaite's maglev trains), you gotta wonder.

A patent doesn't mean it's operational tech. None of what the Nimitz witnesses saw was man made. We do not have that tech and most likely never will in our lifetime.

You don't have to label it as ET technology if that makes you uncomfortable but it sure as hell isn't man made tech either.

originally posted by: Archivalist
a reply to: tjocksteffe

You don't have to make the jet engine silent.

You only need to direct the sound away from observers.

If a sonic boom happens towards the east, and your listeners are to the west, the boom has to go across the entire world, for them to receive it.

We made a freakin' stealth Sikorsky helicopter. That tech was used publicly, in 2010.

Makes me wonder if the activity viewed in the water, was from the redirection. I would expect some pretty powerful chop, in that case.
Anyone have any buoy or NOAA data from the water in that area, during that time frame? If your booms go straight downward, probably tough to imagine planes in the air picking it up. Not to mention, I'm sure it's "very easy" to hear something like that... Over the sound of your F-18 Super Hornet engine.

It is a far stretch from a silent helicopter to a silent craft that can travel at 20k+ mph.
How do you avoid to create the sonic booms?
We have zero evidence of any such technology.

a reply to: tjocksteffe

I am not suggesting to avoid the sonic booms. I am suggesting that the energy which produces the booms, be redirected.

Either way, the necessary technology to pull this off has been around since, at latest, 2004.
Some of it cropped up in 1993, as a chemistry discovery.

I'd love to discuss those subjects with you, but I'm under one hell of an NDA.

Energy content of a sonic boom vs medium of absorption and redirection. If the redirecting medium can convert a high enough percentage of that acoustic vibratory energy into something else, no boom.
Doesn't have to absorb or stop all of the wave, just needs to cut down enough amplitude to bring it back down out of full boom territory. After that, standard interference wave cancellations, and noise reduction, can be used to nullify leftovers.

originally posted by: 1point92AU
A patent doesn't mean it's operational tech. None of what the Nimitz witnesses saw was man made. We do not have that tech and most likely never will in our lifetime.

I'm sure you can back that up.

You don't have to label it as ET technology if that makes you uncomfortable but it sure as hell isn't man made tech either.

Sez you.

It is a fact...that any magnetically contained plasma shield surrounding an aerial craft traveling at hypersonic speeds, will simply absorb any pressure waves that causes sonic booms.

a reply to: Zcustosmorum

All those flying saucers and cigars that were seen in the 40’s, 50’s, 60’s, 70’s and 80’s, they are not in any museum or on any runway near you. So if they were man-made military aircraft ~ where are they?
If they are so old and outdated ~ why hide them?

a reply to: spiritualarchitect

I'm talking specifically about the Nimitz event, the other encounters you mention also require answers, although obviously there's much less chance than any of them being secret military tech

The point is, neither you or me, or any other regular person, has any idea just how far advanced the most hi-tech military stuff is these days

a reply to: Zcustosmorum

Point taken but nah, I'm still going with aliens.

Is it proof when a ground radar station detects a UFO, sends a jet to intercept it, the jet pilot sees it, and locks on with his radar, only to have the UFO streak away at a phenomenal speed?

To those of you who suspect human technology: Those words were written in 1955 by E.J. Ruppelt, in his book ‘The report on unidentified flying objects’.

E.J. Ruppelt headed project Blue Book from 1951 to 1953 and describes a very similar case that took place in the summer of 1952. A target was picked up on radar, two F-86’s were directed towards the area, one searched high, the other low. The pilot flying low found and chased the object.

From Ruppelt’s book:

By now he had been following the object for about two minutes and during this time had closed the gap between them to approximately 500 yards. But this was only momentary. Suddenly the object began to pull away, slowly at first, then faster. The pilot, realizing that he couldn't catch it, wondered what to do next.

When the object traveled out about 1,000 yards, the pilot suddenly made up his mind - he did the only thing that he could do to stop the UFO. It was like a David about to do battle with a Goliath, but he had to take a chance. Quickly charging his guns, he started shooting. A moment later the object pulled up into a climb and in a few seconds it was gone.

Again, this was the summer of 1952 …
(The pilot’s story was not believed by his superior and his report was ordered destroyed.)

The pattern here is ‘maneuverability’ folks, and it has been since the late 1940’s:

The 1947 Twining memo already mentioned the ‘extreme rates of climb’ and ‘maneuverability’ as typical characteristics of UFO’s and adds that these reported ‘objects as large as man-made aircrafts’ are ‘something real and not visionary or fictitious’.

Special Report Nr 14, a statistical analysis of UFO cases published in 1954, stated that most of the 434 ‘unknowns’ were classified as such because ‘they were reported to have performed maneuvers that could not be ascribed to any known objects.’

From the report:

Of the [434] UNKNOWNS, there were approximately 20 sightings that were observed in such a way that they should have been recognized easily if they had been familiar objects, that is, there was little possibility that their shapes, as seen, could have been distorted sufficiently by one cause or another to render them unrecognizable. There were a very few that would have been identified as guided missiles or rockets, but that were not so identified because of the geographical location in which they were seen.
All of the remaining UNKNOWNS were classified as such solely because they were reported to have performed maneuvers that could not be ascribed to any known objects.

Note that the percentage of unknowns was highest for the best reports (reports that were factual, consistent, complete, and made by credible observers): 25% of the ‘good’ reports was an ‘unknown’, 33% of the ‘excellent’ reports was an ‘unknown’.

So back in 1954, maneuverability already was the statistical hallmark of the true unknowns. It was the main characteristic that set them apart from airplanes, balloons, planets, stars, swamp gas, birds, etc.

‘Maybe they were ours’ was an often-heard speculation in those years as well. But over the years I think we can conclude that this consistent maneuverability pattern seems to point to a technology far ahead of ours.
The only way to escape this inconvenient truth is speculation about observational errors, malfunctioning equipment, and exaggerating witnesses.

But if you think about it:

O 4 eye witnesses, 3 of them have gone public (albeit one of them does not seek publicity).
O A physical, maneuvering object with no visible wing surfaces.
O Visually observed in broad daylight under perfect weather conditions from two different angles.
O Capable of maneuvers and accelerations that baffled the eye witnesses, one of them a very experienced fighter pilot.
O Observed at the same spot where a sophisticated radar system picked up unidentified targets.
O That same radar measured extremely rapid descends of these objects.
O Visual and IR footage that shows a tic-tac shaped object with no apparent engine heat signature.

…you do start to wonder…

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.

If this patent was built, it's possible to create a zero fluid resistance vehicle. As for the mass/inertia, humans wouldn't survive it, but I see no reason that proprietary electronics wouldn't.
Patent for such a device held by the US Secretary of the Navy