Off shoots from the navy UFO sightings

Lets look at a couple of weird facts here.
1) they just installed new software in the planes that "Allowed them to see" the UFO's
2) After the event all hard drives from all ships that could have viewed the situation were confiscated

The conficaction appearantly took place with hours after the event. That lends itself to simple explanation.
A) The data was setup as a replay within the aircraft and then fed the fleet OR
B) the data was put in the software and then syncronized with the aircraft.
In either case it makes a convincing narrative that some thing the isn't there was there.

That makes it sound like a spoof job. If our competitors think we have something radical in hiding they might waste a lot of time doing a wild goose chase instead of going down a more rational path that might yield results.
Yes there are holes in this idea but there is a little bit of truth in it too.
Comments welcome


Y

I agree! I think it’s a total sham! The pilot said none of the navy jets had ammo but they were directed to confront possible hostile aircraft? Things don’t add up for me. UNLESS .... the Navy already knew these things are harmless or they were ours! Just my thoughts. reply to: datasdream

a reply to: pizzaphace

If they were yours, the airforce/navy would be using them. The fact is they are not yours and you are a real cannon fodder for the coming NWO invasion Agenda.

So you're saying the software also spoofed the eyes of the witnesses?

originally posted by: Blue Shift
So you're saying the software also spoofed the eyes of the witnesses?

Would it be so difficult to synchronize a holographic projection to a software spoof?

a reply to: Bhadhidar

you're hypothesising a holographic capability far beyond anything witnessed in the civil world [which, sure, is possible but so are ufos], coupled with a simultaneous massive software hoax pulled across multiple systems and perpsectives, followed by an immediate and flawless coverup/recovery, all for no readily apparent purpose

surely at this point a genuine unexplained phenomenon counts as a more rational explanation

a reply to: datasdream

Regarding alleged 'confiscations' of anything by shady IC guys, it may be useful to heed Commander Fravor's own advice on approaching these kinds of rumours...

"The radar tapes from the USS Princeton - those were supposed to be pulled and archived. There are rumours they pulled into port and some guys in suits came in and took them off. I will say this: I'm doubtful; I'm sceptical.

I could probably track down the CO, who I know, and ask him, because if anyone's gonna come on board the boat and take something off that ship, the captain has to approve it, okay?

So watch you read on the internet... There are some witnesses that I will not be associated with, I'll just say that."

Fravor swinging a brick-filled handbag there at radar op Kevin Day et al.

If I had to pick your theory over it’s aliens

I’d go with aliens in a heart beat

Do you have any idea how nuts you sound, more so than the ET probed my bum brigade

If anything, the objects in question are probably black projects, all the patents are there for the technology, even in the documentary the skunkworks guy says he knows of technology in which the objects display, but he doesn’t know of them all in one craft

Consider this... the SR-71 is a 1950s airframe and flew in the 1960s

Now try to imagine that passing a commercial propeller aircraft with nanny and grandad onboard going on their first exotic holiday 60 years ago,

You are almost certainly right about it's black projects,IIRC they had civilian contractors onboard at the time.That should be all the proof you need for it being black projects.a reply to: TritonTaranis

a reply to: Bhadhidar

Synchronize? Hell!

We do have "live" concerts w Prince, Elvis "holograms" already....synced to a live band playing live...in real-time, and perfectly synced

a reply to: datasdream

If the US had the tech that I saw in the released video, which is what I think you're talking about, then they would have far more land in their empire than they have right now. It's why I do believe it isn't known technology.

a reply to: TritonTaranis

I'm more into the idea of it being a 'black project' too, I think it was a test of new developments on it's own fleet. It was probably released by a sub, caused the fracas and retreated back to the sub.... hence the object turning back up where the incident started.

But.... who knows.

a reply to: TritonTaranis

If I had to pick your theory over it’s aliens

I’d go with aliens in a heart beat .....

Well as we know, despite some claims to the contrary, we have not established the existence of aliens never mind their capability to visit Earth.

Let's remind ourselves what was going on. The US Navy were upgrading systems and testing new tech out during this time period.

Nimitz CSG Practices the Art of War at Sea -
Without Getting Underway

NORTH ISLAND, Calif. (NNS) -- Tactical Training Group Pacific (TACTRAGRUPAC) and four ships of Commander, Carrier Strike Group (CCSG) 11 conducted a virtual exercise Oct. 26-27 via secure wide area network and satellite, while they remained in port at bases in San Diego and Hawaii.....

San Diego-based USS Nimitz (CVN 68), USS Princeton (CG 59) and USS Higgins (DDG 76), and the Hawaii-based USS Chafee (DDG 90) took part in the exercise, along with the staffs of CCSG 11 and Destroyer Squadron 23.

"The San Diego-based ships connected via Link-16, Chafee connected via Link-11, and we all saw the same picture," said Lt. Rob Hauck, the CCSG 11 tactical flag command center officer and a key training leader for the BGIE-WC. "All the ships see radar, video, IFF (Identification Friend or Foe); there's no difference. You can't see the difference between real world now and what the operators were seeing during the exercise."

Source : www.navy.mil...

That of course doesn't prove or disprove anything in itself. But it's strange how this 2004 case became TTSA's main focus. AAWSAP did not begin until around 2009. Why the focus on the 5 year old Nimitz 2004 case? In fact Elizondo never interviewed Fravor during his tenure as Head of AATIP. He waited until he joined TTSA. The FLIR1 video first appeared on a German film website in 2007.

Is it not possible something else is going on here? Such as an intelligence operation with perhaps some of the so called 'witnesses' being even paid intelligence 'assets' telling a tale. The objective not being anything to do with UFOs at all. But more to do with leaking of military secrets?

a reply to: mirageman
Bigelow hired Col. Doug "Cheeks" Kurth as Program director of BAASS in Dec. 2007, a few weeks before the company was legally established. Kurth was a Nimitz witness. Remember the leaked Nimitz "Executive Summary" that Knapp presented as a 2009 government report? Most likely it was a BAASS report, and Kurth helped round up the pilots for the interviews.

So it looks like Elizondo didn't have much to do with the Nimitz story until he started packaging the material for the TTSA publicity.

originally posted by: Bhadhidar

originally posted by: Blue Shift
So you're saying the software also spoofed the eyes of the witnesses?

Would it be so difficult to synchronize a holographic projection to a software spoof?

Insanely difficult. Holograms require pretty specific theatrical setups just to be seen. In broad daylight with no clouds and viewable by numerous witnesses looking from different angles? It would be easier to just build a flying saucer.

a reply to: CardDown

Five perfect Earth women…
Brutally enslaved by the Martians…
To repopulate the dying red planet
?
Gee wiz… how many babies can one girl make?

originally posted by: CardDown
Bigelow hired Col. Doug "Cheeks" Kurth as Program director of BAASS in Dec. 2007.

“I saw something. And it was also seen, via eyeballs, by both my commanding officer, Dave Fravor, and the Marine Corps Hornet squadron commanding officer who was out there as well.”

That would be “Cheeks”. He is claiming Lt. Col. Cheeks Kurth saw it too.


“But “there wasn’t anything on it that was protected,” Underwood’s retired former commanding officer Dave Fravor told Intelligencer. The missing audio, he says, “just didn’t make the copy that was taken from the storage drive.”

Should we blame this lack of sound on The Final Theory ~ or on Cheeks?

“We pop the tapes into the playback machine. I’m like, “Here, this is where it is.” Those little video cuts — that you see of my FLIR recording — were taken there at the intelligence center. What they do with it from there, I don’t have a whole lot to deal with.”

“In a podcast interview earlier this year, Sean Cahill (Princeton’s Chief-Master-at-Arms) recalled that the name of this shortened FLIR1 video, the only version that the public has seen, was named “14November_condensed or something like that.” As Cahill told the podcast’s host, Alejandro Rojas, the video file was shared widely by crew members of the Nimitz and the Princeton using the carrier group’s low-bandwidth, circa 2004 Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNet), before much later being published by the New York Times in December 2017.”


My money is still on Cheeks as the original video releaser, with The Final Theory as his media outlet.