The Mysterious Origins of the Nimitz UFO Video

originally posted by: IMSAM
a reply to: PokeyJoe


The goat dropping or cow dung pile called ufojoe on twitter said he met grusch last year in a conference in the company of jeremy weaponizeyourhoax barbell and knapp.

Correct other than the spelling of Corbell's name but that's funny. TheBlackVault covered that at 59 minutes in this video:

Exploring the "UFO Whistleblower" Story


Greenewald Jr shows a screenshot of a post by Joe Murgia aka "UFOJoe" saying that Grush contacted Knapp and Corbell a year before he went public, and that last August (2022), he (UFOJoe) got to meet Grush along with Knapp and Corbell at a Star Trek convention, where they did a re-enactment of a scene from "The Wrath of Kahn". Then Greenewald discusses a reply from Corbell saying that he will later explain that story. Greenewald says he's looking forward to Corbell's explanation.

One thing that puzzles Greenewald, is why Corbell and Knapp weren't the ones to take on Grusch's story, if he was pitching it to them last year, but maybe Corbell will give more explanation of what happened, if we can believe anything he says.

Kean blumenthal knapp carbell is enough for me to send this entire case to the hoax bin.

You are certainly justified in having your doubts about anything coming from that crowd, especially after the recent weaponized debacle of promoting the military flares as a triangle UFO; did they ever admit that their "2 years of research" totally sucked when Greenewald and West were able to quickly see the B-roll footage of the exercise showing the same flares in a short time?

Dont forget grusch mentioned the italy ufo which has dubious origins and is probably an indication of things to come. Couple weeks more to see the finale of this charade

Greenewald said in another video that a senator (Gillebrand) has said he would like Grusch to appear in senate hearings, but we don't know when that will happen or if Grusch will allow cameras in the hearings. That's discussed here:



The main point of that video is that if the things Grusch was talking about were legitimate, then DOPSR review probably wouldn't have allowed him to talk about those things, and Greenewald shows why that's the case using some documentation. But if the "Italy UFO" story is a hoax, then DOPSR would have no problem with Grusch discussing that. So Greenewald seems to think that Grusch's DOPSR approval is a problem for all of Grusch's claims, and he's also very concerned that Grusch has apparently shown his DOPSR request to selected journalists but he won't show it to the public and he wonders why not. He says he got approval to talk about everything, so why not show it? What's he hiding?

youtu.be...

Found this guy here, popped in my feed like chuck testa


Second video

youtu.be...

Third video 3 weeks ago

youtu.be...


This is easily one of the weirdest channels

originally posted by: IMSAM
youtu.be...

Found this guy here, popped in my feed like chuck testa


Second video

youtu.be...

Third video 3 weeks ago

youtu.be...


This is easily one of the weirdest channels

I watched the first and third videos (the second didn't work for me, but it's likely a problem on my end).

The first video makes it sound like the origins of the Nimitz UFO Video are mysterious!

The third video says the two wikipedia pages covering the Nimitz incident, and the other page about the gofast and and Gimbal videos (USS Theodore Roosevelt UFO incidents) were merged in 2020 (that's when the pentagon officially released all three, a fact he neglects to mention). He claims that the USS Theodore Roosevelt UFO incidents page has been completely erased from Wikipedia except the title of it in the links he shows, which may be true. Then he says so unless someone saved a copy on archive.org it's completely gone, but he didn't bother to check archive.org on the video. I did and it's there on archive.org, here's the link:

USS Theodore Roosevelt UFO incidents

So, it's not really gone and I don't know why he didn't check archive.org. There is one statement by Raytheon on that page, maybe they wanted to get rid of in the merge, when Raytheon said it's hard to confirm it's a UFO from just the video sensor and it's better to look at multiple sensors (remember the public has had no access to the other sensor data):

Raytheon has confirmed those videos have been captured by one of their ATFLIR targeting pods mounted on the fighter jets.[23] They stated that "video images are not definitive proof that the jet pilots were chasing an actual UFO."[23] Steve Cummings, vice president of Technology Development and Execution, stated that "To really be sure, we would need the raw data", "visual displays alone are not the best evidence" and that one way to exclude any anomaly would be to observe "the same target, behaving the same way on multiple sensors."[23]

OK, I can see why someone might want to get rid of that statement by Raytheon, and they apparently succeeded, because there's no mention of Raytheon saying that in the current article:

Pentagon UFO Videos

a reply to: IndieA

what a idiotic post lol

global iq avg is around 90ish, for reference sake let's say high 70s iq score used to be considered a mental disability.
oh yeh brotha ooga booga hairless monkies on earth that eat tidepods are so smart.

look at how close they are to fusion yet never seem to be able to make a fusion reactor.

a reply to: Baablacksheep

I don't think there is for us old-time ufo buffs.

We need another ET Man or TFT showing up again would be...just on time.

Of course, this does have a bit of interest, but I have a feeling this is all hype by the same crowd who thinks the FBI is a Democratic conspiracy.

a reply to: mirageman

Yes, but the truth is that the video isn't that interesting. Not without the accompanying backstory that came with the media blitz in 2017.

I totally agree with that.

Plue the TTSA mob hype it with a little psychological programming...

I don't have any dogmatic ideas either; what I do sometimes is outline the prevailing theories of many sides.

In this case, what makes the conspiracy angle possible is the fact that they didn't do anything about it.

What goes against that is the sorry state of the US security apparatus that allowed Snowden and this recent national guard guy to happen.

So an obscure ATS thread by a Navy computer tech may have just been overlooked.

If I had to make a judgment, I would go on the side of the operation to create ufo obsession in the public; why, I don't know.

originally posted by: introufo
If I had to make a judgment, I would go on the side of the operation to create ufo obsession in the public; why, I don't know.

If that wasn't the plan, surely anyone with a stake in social-engineering/narrative control can see the exciting and varied potentialities in an aroused public.

I mean it's the top 3 of the all-time existential questions: Why are we here, Are we alone, Does God exist?

Some would argue that a case could be made for the one "answer" to all 3 questions. Somebody's gonna try I betcha!

That's power. And all you need to make it work is to make yourself the authority on the phenomena. Think about that.

a reply to: introufo

If I had to make a judgment, I would go on the side of the operation to create ufo obsession in the public; why, I don't know.

Aren’t we all just a tinsy winsy obsessed….some more than others……hence participating on this forum 😉

👽

a reply to: The GUT

I entirely agree. Those unique questions

Why are we here, Are we alone, Does God exist?

is involved and may be pertinent to the phenomenon

a reply to: Ophiuchus1

Yes, some of us seek the higher possibility, and the mystery is enticing and entertaining; never forget that paradise gene along with the mystery gene.

Alas, what is the human but in search of that lost gene...and to repel the suffering gene.

a reply to: introufo

I still find the timing of the Nimitz video leak [4th Feb 2007] very odd.

TFT was still working on the Nimitz at the time. But it was already 2 years and 3 months after the incident. He even claimed he boarded the ship while off duty to retrieve a CD [originally said was lost at a relative's home] in a very specific time period.

If it was investigated in 2007 then the original thread is the source of the leak. Yet all the clues appear to have been ignored.

Why were there supposedly further unsuccessful investigations in 2009 and 2015? What was significant enough to look at the leak again?

I wonder how much of this story is actually true?

a reply to: mirageman

If it was investigated in 2007 then the original thread is the source of the leak. Yet all the clues appear to have been ignored.


Why were there supposedly further unsuccessful investigations in 2009 and 2015? What was significant enough to look at the leak again?

We're those DIA investigations?

a reply to: introufo

It's unclear.

The 2007 investigation was claimed by the bearded man with more names than usual....

...prior to the kind of official announcement, that event series was from the 10th through the 14th of November in 2004.
There was a temporary leak that was found through reddit [it was ATS] in 2007 of a version of the footage that is now seen publicly. What people don't know, I might have stated it before, is that there was in fact an intelligence study done on the 2004 events in 2007 as well. So it didn't fly under the radar that it was leaked quote-unquote" in 2007 through reddit"

Source

The 2009 investigation was said to be a Naval investigation. That is the only one that appears to have any kind of official confirmation, made by Susan Gough

...Navy officials became aware that the video had been posted online in 2009.....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.”…

Source

The investigation in 2015 was claimed by Fravor and only mentions a three letter agency.

... last month when I called Dave [Fravor] to refresh my memory before sitting down to write this bizarre encounter, he ....told me that a government agency with a three letter identifier had recently conducted an investigation into the AAVs and had exhaustively interviewed all parties involved.

Source

a reply to: mirageman

I understand Corbell’s incorrect info, Corbell being who he is, but the others have false info, too, like Gough’s statement about 2009.

True, we can’t know but the gov’s inaccuracy can be deliberate since the conspiracy angle includes them doing this. Including Gough’s statement originally that Elizondo had nothing to do with any ATTIP, which we know is actually a fact overall. But it's all part of the confusion they want to spread over this in general.

The right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing the type of thing: or the famous JFK film aphorism: white is black, and black is white.

But isn’t that always the nature of these operations, plausible deniability?
Or, in this case, sand in our eyes.
IMO, viewing this overall, ufology psyop operations have never been a top priority in terms of other areas of intel operations, so a bit of sloppiness is expected.

There’s always contrasting info and new and old wines in this ufo info milieu; for instance, in Valle’s FS5, according to Green or Puthoff, one of the two, I recall, it said Doty was always a CIA agent. Now I’ve never heard that one before.

But whose to say Valle’s stuff isn’t part of the sand in our eyes operations?

a reply to: introufo

Yep Corbell is a grifter, possibly even used to spread misinformation, given some of the crap he's delivered.

The Gough statement implies they couldn't track down the original leak and that 5,000 people had access to the video. Which is not true and if members of ATS could track down the leaker then it doesn't say much for Naval intelligence does it?

As for the 2015 alphabet investigation, I wonder if that was Zondo sniffing about before he joined up with TTSA?

There’s always contrasting info and new and old wines in this ufo info milieu; for instance, in Valle’s FS5, according to Green or Puthoff, one of the two, I recall, it said Doty was always a CIA agent. Now I’ve never heard that one before. But whose to say Valle’s stuff isn’t part of the sand in our eyes operations?

As far as I know Doty was in the Air Force and in the late 1980s got in to a spell of bother and ending up leaving and becoming a police officer in Grants, NM.



I'd have to check FS5 for the exact claim about him being in the CIA.

a reply to: mirageman


Seeing as you mentioned Doty .


www.youtube.com...

a reply to: introufo

Yep Doty joined the Air Force at age 18 in 1968.



Don't know how he found the time to work for the CIA as well? But you never know in the world of Richard Doty.

Despite what he's done to ufology he's been welcomed with open arms by certain personalities in the UFOtainment industry now he's retired.



And to see how this all connects with what followed the leak of the video.

a reply to: mirageman

I'm not saying this Vallee said it in his book. I read it yesterday. The truth of it, of course, I can't verify.

That's why I said I was surprised since I, too, never heard that. I was aware of the history that you posted.

Don't know how he found the time to work for the CIA as well? But you never know in the world of Richard Doty.

That would be no big thing; the CIA does employ secret agents in other US gov. agencies as well in private industry.

But again, this is Valley's words which, in those books' format, one never knows the extent of his knowledge of these matters since he mixes it up with all kinds of personal stuff.

a reply to: mirageman


Welp the CIA age requirements for a job is as follows

You Must Be a U.S. Citizen and at Least 18 Years of Age You must be a U.S. citizen or a dual-national U.S. citizen to work at CIA.

If you are in the process of becoming a U.S. citizen, you can submit your resume as soon as you are awarded citizenship, but not before. We do not help individuals apply for U.S. citizenship.

Also, you must be at least 18 years of age to qualify for a job at CIA. You Must Be Willing to Move to the Washington, DC Area

👽

a reply to: introufo

The content and claim is extremely vague in FS5. In fact it doesn't come direct from the author, either.

Saturday 23 April 2005

....I had lunch yesterday with Colm Kelleher, newly installed in San Francisco where he now works at Prosetta. We met at the Garden Court. He autographed his book Brain Trust, and we reminisced about NIDS and the mutilations research project.

As we reviewed the book, he recalled that Richard (“Rick”) Doty had been a CIA agent all along, and that an abduction study conducted by Hal using small recording instruments had been done in connection with John Schuessler’s second in command at MUFON, a former NSA employee. I had never known the full story about that project whose results, according to Colm, were unfortunately inconclusive....

So does this mean he was a CIA agent while he was in the Air Force and/or NM Police? If so, when exactly?

Nothing is clear. I also haven't seen any link back to Doty with regard to the Nimitz case. So we are drifting off topic here.