The IDs of the Parties involved in the 2007 Nimitz UFO Video Leak are Known!!!

I had followed all the crumbs in that TFT/TFTR threads years back and found a person I believe could well be TFT/TFTR

The persons name , which I will keep private since he wants that, has the initials A B

Is that correct?

Feel free to DM me if you prefer

a reply to: jackfrost71
Well, this is all awkward as hell for me as I know a few folk here have followed this for awhile and with interest. And that interest for a variety of individual and sometimes collective reasons.

So, I was both bored and interested enough to retrace some old ground and see what things looked like these days. I'm kind of regretting I did a scout's honor thing back during the relevant time. But I did and like a marriage "I do."

There's gold to be mined there for any social media sleuths though I do believe.

Having said that I ain't doing no "initials" thing in public but I am wondering if you're a jack frost I've come across in certain research circles? If so, yeah we probably have something to talk about.

a reply to: The GUT

Tried DMing you , but I get the message below. perhaps you could try DMing me.

"You may not send private messages to anyone but ATS Staff"

In regards to my research, you may have seen my long research post on Bob Lazar, ie this one : www.reddit.com...


I'd be happy to discuss research with you. Send me a DM, and we can chat privately. Actually I have been trying to contact you for a while, so would appreciate it if you could reach out

originally posted by: jackfrost71
a reply to: The GUT

Tried DMing you , but I get the message below. perhaps you could try DMing me.

"You may not send private messages to anyone but ATS Staff"

ATS has a minimum post limit for starting new threads and for sending private messages. The minimum for both used to be 20 posts, but the minimum for starting new threads was lowered to only 5 posts. Apparently the minimum was never lowered for sending private messages, but after you have 20 posts you should be able to send them. You have 7 posts at this moment.

a reply to: The GUT

Remain vigilant. There's something off about this whole backstory GUT.

It's the place where few seem to want to venture into the details. I've rarely seen it discussed outside of ATS. When it is, there seems to be some cognitive dissonance on display. Someone in another thread even questioned whether the alphabets would be monitoring ATS? Surely they would? It's the very place where the leak occurred.

Others appear to miss the whole point of this thread. Which was:

Why did the US intel services appear to fail to find the perpetrator of the video [and document] leak?

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: The GUT

Remain vigilant. There's something off about this whole backstory GUT.

I want to be vigilant. I mean, my neck is on pivot with all of this. But lately I just feel resigned to watching it play out. Partly because of the oddity you point out:

It's the place where few seem to want to venture into the details. I've rarely seen it discussed outside of ATS. When it is, there seems to be some cognitive dissonance on display.

It's the damnedest thing and, to me, it's happening across the geo-socio-poli board. It forces me to some weird personal conclusions---not always fully formed.

Someone in another thread even questioned whether the alphabets would be monitoring ATS? Surely they would? It's the very place where the leak occurred.

TBH, if I had to do it all over again I never would've signed up here and thus would never have done some probably foolhardy hard-headed things in pursuit of this aspect of the mystery.

It's my personal conviction that some of the reasons this campaign is working on the public is because what was learned here--and elsewhere in ufology--by some of the players. A further guess: Pretty soon, if you don't buy what they're selling those hypnotized by the narrative will tear a doubter to pieces for them---cognitive dissonance can get scary as hell.

Others appear to miss the whole point of this thread. Which was:

Why did the US intel services appear to fail to find the perpetrator of the video [and document] leak?

This is the kind of question I sometimes reference. It's the best kind of question because it actually suggests it's own answer.

a reply to: mirageman

Is anyone here active on Twitter and following any of the "influencers?" I see potential there to pull some back from the brink of cognitive dissonance. At least I did a year or so ago when I was checking some of it out.

So many new enthusiasts that have pretty much zero knowledge of historical ufology and therefore easy targets. I only know one guy that could probably do some real damage to false narratives and it ain't me. I could offer some nice assists however.

One problem is how to condense the suggestion that some of the players have been playing with heads for a long time. If you can get them to look into that aspect then it's game on. Or lights on.

Okay, I'm spitballing' here and maybe it's stoopid. Then again maybe it's noble all things considered. Some kind of organized team responding in kind with meme warfare. When I say meme I'm just talking about chunky bits of info that carry impact weight. For example:

Why did the US intel services appear to fail to find the perpetrator of the video [and document] leak?

A similar question: How are all the whistleblower and forced-disclosure types keeping their clearances over the years?

We know there are gaping holes in the narrative ready to be torpedoed...but there ain't much of an audience here these days. Some good threads to link to though.

a reply to: The GUT

I got your DM, but it wont let me reply unfortunately. Seems I need to make 20 posts on this forum even to reply to a DM.

I've been researching the whole Nimitz and NAVY vids for a while. Kind of my next project after the Lazar research.
Gathering bits and pieces together etc for some time.

Can you please DM me if my question re TFTRs intials which I found are correct, I wont repeat it, it's in a previous reply post which I'm sure you saw. The less times I repeat the initials the better

I promise to keep your verification to my self.
There is a number of things I have kept secret, to do with Lazar mainly, from other researchers who have expanded on my research and will be putting their stuff out there at some point.

I know the names of the Pilot of Underwoods jet, Fravors WSO as a number of people do. It just helps to know who is involved to piece things together.

a reply to: mirageman

MM……how would you scrutinize the words, the sentences below? What do you read between the lines?


👽

originally posted by: jackfrost71

Can you please DM me if my question re TFTRs intials which I found are correct, I wont repeat it, it's in a previous reply post which I'm sure you saw. The less times I repeat the initials the better

Nah. Good luck though.

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1
a reply to: mirageman

MM……how would you scrutinize the words, the sentences below? What do you read between the lines?

👽

There are a few crucial passages of text there.

...circulating in the public domain after unauthorized releases in 2007 and 2017.

Signifies that these videos were not intended for public consumption. In TFTs case that was fairly obvious. In 2017, TTSA claimed there was a full chain of custody, but were unable to ever produce one.

...After a thorough review, the department has determined that the authorized release of these unclassified videos does not reveal any sensitive capabilities or systems

Someone went to the trouble of scrubbing the 'sensitive' data before these videos reached the public domain the first time around. Hmm.

DOD is releasing the videos in order to clear up any misconceptions by the public on whether or not the footage that has been circulating was real, or whether or not there is more to the videos...

Does this statement actually clear up whether the footage is real?

Or that there is more to the videos?

Because TFT claimed there was a longer version of the FLIR video.

The "full version" is about twice the length of this and has more ufo movement etc. But for some reason I can't get it to play , it says codec error..

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Others have alluded to a longer video too. So the Navy has not really clarified whether there is more to the video(s).

The videos were out there. Those involved had already freely discussed details in the media. The release only confirms these videos were originally Navy videos of unidentified aerial phenomena.

a reply to: The GUT

I have a Twitter account, but that is for my own private use and I don't interact with the UFO crowd on there. Any accounts that seem similar to my moniker here, they are not me.

It's amazing how so many folk on UFO Twitter openly 'know' that Lockheed-Martin have been illegally concealing an alien spaceship for decades, while the highest authorities in the land remained oblivious. It shows how a 'mind virus' works and how people can be influenced and become entrenched in their beliefs.

From what I've seen, there's a strong gang mentality on there. Us v Them. The brevity of the platform also presents a problem getting a point across. So it can become toxic rapidly. Although there are some personalities that swim against the tide I think the only ones they can influence are the ones on the fence.

Reads to me like "we acknowledge the video was taken by Navy personnel, we dont think it shows anything exotic OR classified -but we had to investigate the unauthorised release".

Reading between the lines:
"We found out how it leaked but would prefer for you (the taxpayer) and our adversaries not to know there is an established internal "black market" for UFO curios generated by rich/influential believers who want validation".


Given that the object in the video displays none of the characteristics associated with a UFO ( i.e none of the 5 observables)- not sure what else needs to be uncovered.

a reply to: mirageman

As you stated….

Why did the US intel services appear to fail to find the perpetrator of the video [and document] leak?

What comes to mind is at the very beginning…….and again further in the statement.

unclassified Navy videos

As for the Nimitz video in question and why U.S. intel services appear to fail to find the perpetrator….a.k.a TFT……could be as simple as “unclassified” was not worth the effort to track down TFT.

Now the “unclassified” video could merely have been put on a secured server while on the ship for general storage purposes….perhaps by the person who’s job is to designate whether any footage goes onto a unsecured server or secured server….(of which TFT would have access to.) A simple mistake of a person (other than TFT) could have misdirected where the footage was suppose to go….sh1t happens.

I suspect the violation of downloading from a secure server is not as important as the content being downloaded.

Ergo the material footage being “unclassified” material did not warrant the extent and resources, cost of on shore Intel services. Looking for the perpetrator was irrelevant based on the “unclassified” classification of the video footage….imo

I also suspect that the raw footage was already scrutinized, from the very beginning, by the intel personnel, security and other command personal onboard the Nimitz itself and made the determination that the footage fell under the “unclassified” classification. The “thorough reviewing” post the Nimitz time at sea and the “unauthorized release” ……was to confirm the initial review, screening, performed on the Nimitz which designated the footage “unclassified” in the first place…..imo.

Aircraft Carriers have there own

Intelligence Department – the focal point for all activity concerning how, where, and when the Strike Group takes the fight to our enemies and provides early warning of potential threats.

Legal Department – responsible for advising the chain of command on all legal matters including non-judicial punishments, administrative separations, personnel law, administrative law, investigations , ethics, and operational law.

So I can see why (external to the Nimitz) Intel may not have been contacted or needed to be contacted to investigate how “unclassified” material footage got accessed and downloaded by a perpetrator (TFT).

In general……it makes sense not to put Secret determined material on an unclassified server. But putting Unclassified material as temporary storage(till the Nimitz retuned from the sea to its home port)….would be allowed to be put onto a secured server….either intentionally or by mistake.

As for your focus in your reply on the longer version video and docs….I’ll get back to you with my opinion based on an an article I recently read that addresses that speculation. If I recall the “docs” was just a single PowerPoint presentation….which is not addressed by the Navy statement I posted….and so if it was a factor…it also would have been mentioned…apparently not…only the videos.

I suspect TFT will not be prosecuted by anything said or discovered on this ATS forum….the “perp” will remain free….much to your possible Chagrin …..imo. 😉

👽

a reply to: Ophiuchus1

It's all possible. But why have we been told there were three separate investigations in 2007, 2009 and 2015 [see page 1 ] if the video and other files were deemed "unclassified"?

You see, folks, it’s too ingrained in the architecture of this cultural ufo meme, embedded like a rock. All you hear is ATTIP this and AATIP that and Elizondo and never that AWWSAP was the real group.

You might get TFT in a Popular Mechanics story, but the true investigative reporters left, the mainstream others now report on crime on TV, aren’t interested in the ufo stuff, so they have little aversion to the disinformation spiel. It’s a roaring successful operation.

TFT may have been a cutout, chosen by one of the thugs to disseminate this video, and TFT was given a couple of hundred and told to shut his mouth and disappear.

I think he said something about a superior who mysteriously told him to make a copy. Sure.

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: Ophiuchus1

It's all possible. But why have we been told there were three separate investigations in 2007, 2009 and 2015 [see page 1 ] if the video and other files were deemed "unclassified"?

Welp I haven’t been discussing anything about “unclassified” files because “unclassified files” is not mentioned in the DOD statement.

As for the 3 separate investigations……I take it as being part of the sum total of the “thorough review”. As you point it out…..the years of the separate investigations were 2007, 2009, and 2015.

The year of the DOD release statement 2020…..that tells me that the 2007, 2009, 2015 investigations were summarized under, and for the “thorough review”.

In other words the DOD release statement of 2020 was the final word, to dispel any and all misconceptions and took into account the 2007, 2009, 2015 investigations.…….At least as of that time….imo.

Since this thread topic is focused on the Nimitz……then it should remain so…imo.

Otherwise to start including the compilations of the Go-Fast and Gimbal videos from the USS Roosevelt into the mix……when your thread is just focusing on the Nimitz. I’ll suggest that you start a new thread on the USS Roosevelt.

Bare in mind…that the DOD statement also includes the Go-Fast and Gimbal videos, but not stated, just like the Nimitz Tic-Tac is not stated by name.

So as for the Roosevelt Go-Fast and Gimbal videos….which were also unauthorized release (leaks) ….so who’s the “original” leaker behind that? Certainly not TFT.

Lou Elizondo requests the vids in 2017 for his leaking “unclassified” vids (3) purposes to the public. Which then caused all kinds of rumors. The DOD 2020 release statement was to put the Kibosh on what Lou started as far as misconceptions, and I might add…miscommunications…imo.

That’s why we should just focus on your topic Nimitz…..jus sayin…

The Nimitz origin is actually a done deal for me…….

It could be both TFT and the ADP Officer made copies unbeknownst to each other.

Since there’s been no ATS member that’s competing with TFT as a leaker of the Nimitz vid….then I think revealing the ADP Officer from 2007 is fair game and can be named. The cruise book for 2007 shows his name.

You can check and see if his name is associated to anyone in this Nimitz saga and or Bigelow and or members of his mob…since your appearing to be intimately obsessed with them…..😊

Maybe you’ll get a hit.

I’m still sticking with TFT. 😉

👽

a reply to: Ophiuchus1

Welp I haven’t been discussing anything about “unclassified” files because “unclassified files” is not mentioned in the DOD statement.

OK. But my point is that files were obviously part of the package with the videos, as someone leaked the "Event Summary" in 2007 and posted it to ATS shortly after the video. Surely there would be concern about such material being passed to an unknown foreign national?

The year of the DOD release statement 2020…..that tells me that the 2007, 2009, 2015 investigations were summarized under, and for the “thorough review”.

I don't know what you are getting at here.

In 2016 Jeremy Corbell claimed there was an intelligence investigation in 2007 on a Jimmy Church radio show. Despite confusing ATS with Reddit.

Then in 2009 a further investigation when the powers of the American military intelligence services failed again according to the Pentagon. This is the only official statement.

Susan Gough... saying Navy officials became aware that the video had been posted online in 2009.

“With respect to the 2004 sighting by aircraft from the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz (CVN 68); that video was widely shared throughout the ship at that time,” Gough writes. “In 2007, one of those crewmembers posted the video onto the public web.”

But in terms of investigating the video leak, Gough writes, “Given the time since recording (approximately 5 years), the widespread distribution of the recording within the ship at the time of recording, and the size of the crew at the time (approximately 5,000), it was determined that there was no way to accurately determine who might have released the video.”…

Popular Mechanics Jan 2020

David Fravor told Pacho Chierichi that someone from the DoD had also been investigating in 2015 during an interview for his article in Fightersweep in 2015..

Maybe Corbell and Fravor were misinformed? And the DoD really believe 5000 crew members could have accessed the material so gave up?

I still feel there's something off about the story. But if you choose to believe differently, then that's fine.

a reply to: mirageman


It's an interesting one. They do take action it seems at times. Like in this case when video was leaked of a F35C crashing on the deck of a carrier. They pursued it and 5 sailors got in trouble


www.military.com...#:~:text=The%20Navy%20has%20revealed%20that,aboard%20the %20USS%20Carl%20Vinson.

originally posted by: jackfrost71
a reply to: mirageman


It's an interesting one. They do take action it seems at times. Like in this case when video was leaked of a F35C crashing on the deck of a carrier. They pursued it and 5 sailors got in trouble


www.military.com...#:~:text=The%20Navy%20has%20revealed%20that,aboard%20the %20USS%20Carl%20Vinson.

I wouldn't include anything in the link after html, here it is with the characters after that deleted, looks cleaner on ATS (and I don't think ATS can use what comes after the # symbol, apparently).

www.military.com...

That story doesn't say anything about classification status, but I presume it's also unclassified, but not authorized for release, like the video this thread is about was before 2020. It's interesting that they only charged sailors in one of the three investigations of that incident, so even in that example, 2/3 of the leaks didn't result in any charges after the investigation was complete.

The video was the third leak of material from this particular crash...

Harrell said that the Navy is not releasing the names of the sailors charged.

According to Harrell, the sailors in the other two leaks will not be charged. “That was the determination made by the commanding officer of the USS Carl Vinson based upon the findings of the respective investigations,” he explained.