Release of Executive Summary 2004 Nimitz UFO

[bison]

A document reported to be an executive summary of the Nov. 2004 'Tic-Tac' UFO incident involving the Nimitz Carrier Strike Group has just been released.The thirteen page summary was reportedly declassified by the Pentagon. Among the salient points of the summary are the following:

The object was no known aircraft, U.S. or foreign.

The object displayed advanced aerodynamic performance.

The object appeared to have advanced propulsion capabilities, including horizontal and vertical velocities greater than any known aerial vehicle. 

Please find a link, below, to the executive summary, if full.

https://media.lasvegasnow.com/nxsglobal/lasvegasnow/document_dev/2018/05/18/TIC TAC UFO EXECUTIVE REPORT_1526682843046_42960218_ver1.0.pdf

 

[Minimalists]

Thanks for this.

[Shiloh]

If this is a real release, it backs up what Commander Fravor has already stated.

[Dejarma]

1 hour ago, bison said:

A document reported to be

 

1

reported by who?

[bison]

The source for the release of the executive summary is George Knapp, investigative journalist.

Mr. Knapp is a respected journalist, having won the the Edward R. Murrow and Peabody awards, among others.

He has been an instructor at the University of California, Berkely, and holds a master of arts  degree in communications.

[Minimalists]

4 hours ago, seanjo said:

https://www.metabunk.org/2004-uss-nimitz-tic-tac-ufo-flir-footage.t9190/

See you been to old Mick's site. That guy thinks he's knows it all.

[Guyver]

5 hours ago, bison said:

A document reported to be an executive summary of the Nov. 2004 'Tic-Tac' UFO incident involving the Nimitz Carrier Strike Group has just been released.The thirteen page summary was reportedly declassified by the Pentagon. Among the salient points of the summary are the following:

The object was no known aircraft, U.S. or foreign.

The object displayed advanced aerodynamic performance.

The object appeared to have advanced propulsion capabilities, including horizontal and vertical velocities greater than any known aerial vehicle. 

Please find a link, below, to the executive summary, if full.

https://media.lasvegasnow.com/nxsglobal/lasvegasnow/document_dev/2018/05/18/TIC TAC UFO EXECUTIVE REPORT_1526682843046_42960218_ver1.0.pdf

 

Thank you for including the salient points.  

[Guyver]

Interesting.  It does seem to substantiate the "word of mouth" accounts of this event.  It would be nice to know it it's confirmed authentic.  Without the header, who knows?

[bison]

The article linked below, written by George Knapp, explains how the executive summary was obtained in Washington D.C.,  and confirmed to be a Pentagon document.  

Mr. Knapp places his considerable reputation on the line by asserting that this document is what it's purported to be. It appears that he is in earnest, and that he and his 'i team' colleagues took the necessary steps to confirm the authenticity of this executive summary.

http://www.lasvegasnow.com/news/i-team-exclusive-confidential-report-analyzes-tic-tac-ufo-incidents/1187688105

 

Edited May 20, 2018 by bison
corrected link address

[Timothy]

3 hours ago, bison said:

The article linked below, written by George Knapp, explains how the executive summary was obtained in Washington D.C.,  and confirmed to be a Pentagon document.  

Mr. Knapp places his considerable reputation on the line by asserting that this document is what it's purported to be. It appears that he is in earnest, and that he and his 'i team' colleagues took the necessary steps to confirm the authenticity of this executive summary.

http://www.lasvegasnow.com/news/i-team-exclusive-confidential-report-analyzes-tic-tac-ufo-incidents/1187688105

 

I like that you used the term ‘considerable reputation’, he seems like a bit of an idiot, so ‘considerable reputation’ works for me. 

Slapping his name on anything would cause me to doubt legitimacy.

[bison]

By 'considerable reputation' I meant that Mr. Knapp has received numerous journalistic accolades attesting to his professional excellence. Besides the Peabody and Edward R. Murrow awards, mentioned above, are many commendations from the Associated Press and United Press International, and over a dozen Emmy awards. In addition, he has a respectable academic standing, having taught at at least two universities, including the University of California at Berkeley.  

[bison]

It's been remarked that this document contains no mark or stamp, or the like, to connect it to the U.S. Navy. This is not the case.

I went over the executive summary with some care and found the following: On page 5 is figure one, a map of the coastal region of northern Baja California and the part of the Pacific Ocean nearest it, where the 'Tic-Tac' incidents occurred.   There is a caption beneath the map, somewhat blurred in this copy, but still readable. Part of it reads thus:

Data SIO, NOAA, US Navy, NGA, GEBCO.

Some of the data presented on this map obviously has the U.S. Navy as its source. NGA refers to the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, a combat support agency, under the Department of Defense, and a part of the United States Intelligence Community.  I don't believe that someone putting together a bogus document in order to mislead, would have access to sensitive data from a military intelligence agency, or from the U.S. Navy. 

NOAA refers to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. GEBCO stands for General Bathymetric Chart of the Ocean. SIO apparently refers to the Scripps Institution of Oceanography.

Edited May 20, 2018 by bison
added information

[ChrLzs]

Quote

See you been to old Mick's site. That guy thinks he's knows it all.

And more often than not, he does.  What is it about the analyses offered that you dispute?  While Mick isn't always initially 100% correct (is anyone?), once those threads take their full course, they usually have arrived at the solution.

I think handwaving is counterproductive and rather ad hominesque, so let's focus on actual verifiable facts.  But before we do that, may I observe that George Knapp.....is the George Knapp of Cost to Coast Paranormal radio fame...... {cough}

I have started browsing over the document and would have to ask what made anyone think it is authentic, other than a lot of official looking words...?  On the issue of any markings that would appear on an official document..

Quote

It's been remarked that this document contains no mark or stamp, or the like, to connect it to the U.S. Navy. This is not the case.

So, Bison, you think that a caption on a map that includes the names of organisations, connects it to the US Navy?  Really?

Here's my first few obs, and I shall be back later when I have more time... but my initial impressions is that either the US Navy (or whoever authored this) has gone down the toilet, or that the document is fake, and here's just some of the reasons why:

• no headers/footers or title page or stamps to verify the nature of the document and when/where it was copied.  These are major red flags.
• no final Summary or Recommendations/Conclusions - without the latter, the document is virtually pointless - within the document there are many references to problems/issues, but I could find few or no recommendations.
• very vague/wooly/subjective/grammatically incorrect waffle purvades the entire document.  Even the first sentence is vague - don't they know their own fleet movement dates?  Why not specifically give the incident dates, instead of that unprofessional sounding 'approximation'?
• the document is filled with word salad, subjective judgments, loose & non-technical terminology, along with numerous emotive appeals to the reader, and omission of vital information, as exampled below with just the first few issues I found from a quick skim.

Is this meant to be technical briefing document?  It's language is completely inappropriate, if so, and it is missing the data and evidence required..  Or is it perhaps a document meant for a politician, perhaps?  Who wrote it, and who is it for?  Without a title page or any information, this document is really dead in the water before it even gets started.

From the very first paragraph (which I guess is meant to be the executive summary of the Executive summary?), it makes numerous claims of events and alleged aircraft behavior and does not initially clarify whether these were measured by equipment, or were just pilot anecdotes.  So for anyone who just read what appears to be the 'summary', you would think this was all documented and evidenced.  As you read on, you realise that almost nothing was properly recorded, and if any was, we can't see that data.

The first sentence would make an English teacher wince, and is not what I would expect from a professional Defence Dept document - it says:

"During the period of approximately 10-16 November, the Nimitz Carrier Strike Group..".
"During the period of" ???  "On" would have sufficed.  "approximately" ??? - off to a highly accurate start... and on it goes..

"On the 14th November after again detecting the AAV.."
"again" ???  They didn't give a date for any earlier events..  "the AAV" ???  Earlier it was a number of these "Anomalous Aerial Vehicles"  - so how did they know this was one of the earlier ones, given no identifications or sightings had been made?  BTW, as far as I can tell, the term AAV was not (and is not) used by the Navy/Air Force before Elizondo arrived to make it up...

"The USS Princeton took the opportunity of having a flight of two FA-18s returning from a training mission to further investigate the AAV."
English is clearly not this person's first language...  Talk about grammatically challenged - that is a load of useless wordy waffle.. and then in the very next sentence:

"The USS Princeton took over control of the FA-18s from... and vectored in the FA-18s for intercept leading to visual contact approximately one mile away from the AAV, which was reported to be.."
I'm losing the will to live - how can someone write this badly, and repeat so many things in just two sentences?  The verbiage is ridiculous.

Later examples of this claptrap include gems like:

"The AAV possibly demonstrated the ability to 'cloak'"... {possibly?  Forgive my mirth.. but pigs might fly too}

 "The AAV exhibited advance propulsion capability by demonstrating the ability to remain stationary with little to no variation in altitude transitioning to horizontal and/or vertical velocities far greater than any known aerial vehicle with little to no visible signature."  {of course no numbers or supporting data was given..}  (Oh, and please stop this god-awful author from using the silly term "demonstrated the ability to..", over and over and over and over again...).

"Unfortunately in the E-2C, it is not routine to have any kind of recording engaged unless it is pre-coordinated.. There was no recording of the event."  {Mmm.  Good policy - unless they know there will l be something anomalous to record, they don't record...yup, can't see any problem with that logic.....}

""LT {redacted} noted that the sailors in CIVC had donned tinfoil caps and wanted to know about the UFO flight"...
Ohhh, so UFO reports were obviously not unknown from the pilot/s in question?

"There is no question in anyone's mind that he followed any and all regulations and guidance.."
If ever there was a sentence that doesn't belong in any sort of a report, there it is - I'm beginning to wonder how many logical fallacies can be crammed into a single report?

It is also full of WIKI references (grin), and lots of what appears to be copy pasted (with a bit of thesaurusal license) descriptive text, much/most of which is not relevant.

It contains no references to allow examination of the data from the radar, nor any discussion of the radar's limitations, false positives, etc.

So .. my summary is a single word.

Seriously?

That load of unsupported drivel is what counts as an executive summary in today's Navy?  Wow.

And you know what.. all this text sounds a LOT like Luis Elizondo's own work.  Any one wish to take a bet?  And anyone now waking up to why Elizondo's little division was wiped out almost as soon as it was created?

 

Geez - ask me what I really think...

Now, I'll happily admit I didn't go over every point in the document.   If anyone wishes to point out the key item that is the deal breaker, the smokin' gun, then do let me know and I'll explain in much further detail why this particular document is absolutely useless and almost certainly faked...

 

Edited May 21, 2018 by ChrLzs

[toast]

In summary, we have a 13 page PDF file, which nearly everyone can create, published on the HP of a local TV station. That`s all.

 

 

[bison]

The author of this report is obviously not a prose stylist. I tend to overlook this sort of verbal awkwardness; it's encountered quite frequently, even among some otherwise highly intelligent and proficient persons. Granted, too, that the document does not follow the expected forms of a military document.  

The introduction to the document, written by George Knapp, states that it was prepared by and for the military. I interpret this to mean that the account of, and data pertaining to, the 'Tic-Tac' incident was provided by the U.S. Navy to a contractor, who wrote out its analysis. We see few technical details here, presumably because this was merely an executive summary-- a brief overview provided for busy, non-technical persons, such as those in upper echelons in the Navy.

The same contractor presumably also provided a more technical report in depth, which we have yet to see. As these technical details of how, and how well intruding aircraft can be detected would likely be considered military secrets, I don't think we can expect to see it  anytime soon.

 

    

[Dejarma]

5 hours ago, bison said:

We see few technical details here, presumably because this was merely an executive summary

or fake BS!?

[bison]

Fakery in this instance seems to imply that Mr. Knapp, his team of colleagues, and his employer, the Columbia Broadcasting System affiliate in Las Vegas, Nevada  are all in on the chicanery. Either that, or at least four independent sources inside the military and/or intelligence community lied to them, when they confirmed the veracity of the account given in the executive summary, plus whomever actually supplied the document. 

Personally, I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories, but if you have any actual, solid evidence of wrong-doing, please bring it to light. 

[ChrLzs]

22 minutes ago, bison said:

Fakery in this instance seems to imply that Mr. Knapp, his team of colleagues, and his employer, the Columbia Broadcasting System affiliate in Las Vegas, Nevada  are all in on the chicanery.

Not necessarily.  Personally, I think all of this foolishness is coming directly from Elizondo or his cronies, under the pretense that he/they created it, it was done while he was in charge of his ill-fated investigative unit (I suspect that is false and this was done later, but until I can motivate myself to investigate those screenshots I can't be sure), and thus is above criticism.  But that document is a mess, be it an executive summary (from whom to whom?) or a technical report.

Given the lack of data / supporting evidence, given the lack of scrutiny/questioning of the pilot's anecdote/s, given the lack of discussion of radar issues/false positives, given the reams of completely irrelevant copy-paste information, given the appeals to credibility that are completely out of place and inappropriate.. - I'm sorry, I'm just not buying this for second.

Quote

Either that, or at least four independent sources inside the military and/or intelligence community lied to them, when they confirmed the veracity of the account given in the executive summary, plus whomever actually supplied the document.

What?  Can you point out exactly where the 'veracity' of anything was 'confirmed'?  NONE of the supporting data is included - it is full of claims, nothing more.  If you claim otherwise, cite the {best} section and let's look at it how it stacks up.  Plus, Knapp has not given a useful explanation of how he got the document - indeed, I challenge you to post what he said about how he got it.  It's vague and at best embarrassing.  It certainly involves no 'confirmation of veracity'.

Quote

Personally, I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories, but if you have any actual, solid evidence of wrong-doing, please bring it to light. 

That's NOT how it works.  We are looking for actual evidence - and *you* brought this document here - if it has something that convinced you, point it out.  If not.. then why bring it?  I've already pointed out some of the glaring bulldung - why should I waste more iof my time and pick out other stuff, when the standard modus operandi of the tinfoilhat brigade is just to say "Yeah but that's not the key part, here check this bit out.." and repeat ad infinitum.  It's the Gish Gallop and I'm not playing.

Oh, and may I point out that we have already pointed out serious wrongdoings, in regard to Elizondo falsely claiming various FLIR images related to cases when they DID NOT.  I haven't yet checked, but I won't be surprised if that has happened here as well.  So there is ALREADY "actual solid evidence of wrong-doing".

Edited May 21, 2018 by ChrLzs
added purple bit to clarify

[cyclopes500]

I reckon its man made. The secret side of the US military have technology ten years in advance of anything we see everyday on tv. In the future "that" will be run of the mill and the less advanced enemy will have stuff like what's chasing it now, so it would be common sense for the creators to play games with the pilots and the planes. While watching this I find myself wondering what the UK has up its sleeve come that bad day. In this case I think we might be looking at a sub launched, hypersonic, perhaps even space capable recon drone with advanced A.I, perhaps with electro rubber or plastic body that can morph into any shape in an instant at the push of a button, and able to change the layout of its multiple spectrum camouflage and position of centre of gravity. Chances are the only hard parts on that craft are the engines.

[cyclopes500]

 This one has fascinated me since I was a kid.

[Vox]

I'm calling BS on this report.

What sort of authoritative document references Wikipedia? In this report Wikipedia is referenced a few times. 

It smacks of amateurism, like something a teenager or some bright but poorly educated individual might put together.

Yeah, I'm an academic snob.  

 

*Just realised @ChrLzs beat me to the punch. Well played sir.

Edited May 27, 2018 by Vox

[Dejarma]

On 21/05/2018 at 10:29 PM, bison said:

but if you have any actual, solid evidence of wrong-doing, please bring it to light. 

i feel no need to try- but it seems you're in need of something otherwise why start this thread?

so what is it you need/ want from this, bison me ol' mucker?

[bison]

The question at hand was about any sort of misleading behavior by Mr. Knapp, and/or his team, or those providing information to them, in connection with this executive summary. I have yet to evidence of this.  

 

[Minimalists]

On 5/21/2018 at 1:42 AM, ChrLzs said:

And more often than not, he does.  What is it about the analyses offered that you dispute?  While Mick isn't always initially 100% correct (is anyone?), once those threads take their full course, they usually have arrived at the solution.

I think handwaving is counterproductive and rather ad hominesque, so let's focus on actual verifiable facts.  But before we do that, may I observe that George Knapp.....is the George Knapp of Cost to Coast Paranormal radio fame...... {cough}

I have started browsing over the document and would have to ask what made anyone think it is authentic, other than a lot of official looking words...?  On the issue of any markings that would appear on an official document..

So, Bison, you think that a caption on a map that includes the names of organisations, connects it to the US Navy?  Really?

Here's my first few obs, and I shall be back later when I have more time... but my initial impressions is that either the US Navy (or whoever authored this) has gone down the toilet, or that the document is fake, and here's just some of the reasons why:

• no headers/footers or title page or stamps to verify the nature of the document and when/where it was copied.  These are major red flags.
• no final Summary or Recommendations/Conclusions - without the latter, the document is virtually pointless - within the document there are many references to problems/issues, but I could find few or no recommendations.
• very vague/wooly/subjective/grammatically incorrect waffle purvades the entire document.  Even the first sentence is vague - don't they know their own fleet movement dates?  Why not specifically give the incident dates, instead of that unprofessional sounding 'approximation'?
• the document is filled with word salad, subjective judgments, loose & non-technical terminology, along with numerous emotive appeals to the reader, and omission of vital information, as exampled below with just the first few issues I found from a quick skim.

Is this meant to be technical briefing document?  It's language is completely inappropriate, if so, and it is missing the data and evidence required..  Or is it perhaps a document meant for a politician, perhaps?  Who wrote it, and who is it for?  Without a title page or any information, this document is really dead in the water before it even gets started.

From the very first paragraph (which I guess is meant to be the executive summary of the Executive summary?), it makes numerous claims of events and alleged aircraft behavior and does not initially clarify whether these were measured by equipment, or were just pilot anecdotes.  So for anyone who just read what appears to be the 'summary', you would think this was all documented and evidenced.  As you read on, you realise that almost nothing was properly recorded, and if any was, we can't see that data.

The first sentence would make an English teacher wince, and is not what I would expect from a professional Defence Dept document - it says:

"During the period of approximately 10-16 November, the Nimitz Carrier Strike Group..".
"During the period of" ???  "On" would have sufficed.  "approximately" ??? - off to a highly accurate start... and on it goes..

"On the 14th November after again detecting the AAV.."
"again" ???  They didn't give a date for any earlier events..  "the AAV" ???  Earlier it was a number of these "Anomalous Aerial Vehicles"  - so how did they know this was one of the earlier ones, given no identifications or sightings had been made?  BTW, as far as I can tell, the term AAV was not (and is not) used by the Navy/Air Force before Elizondo arrived to make it up...

"The USS Princeton took the opportunity of having a flight of two FA-18s returning from a training mission to further investigate the AAV."
English is clearly not this person's first language...  Talk about grammatically challenged - that is a load of useless wordy waffle.. and then in the very next sentence:

"The USS Princeton took over control of the FA-18s from... and vectored in the FA-18s for intercept leading to visual contact approximately one mile away from the AAV, which was reported to be.."
I'm losing the will to live - how can someone write this badly, and repeat so many things in just two sentences?  The verbiage is ridiculous.

Later examples of this claptrap include gems like:

"The AAV possibly demonstrated the ability to 'cloak'"... {possibly?  Forgive my mirth.. but pigs might fly too}

 "The AAV exhibited advance propulsion capability by demonstrating the ability to remain stationary with little to no variation in altitude transitioning to horizontal and/or vertical velocities far greater than any known aerial vehicle with little to no visible signature."  {of course no numbers or supporting data was given..}  (Oh, and please stop this god-awful author from using the silly term "demonstrated the ability to..", over and over and over and over again...).

"Unfortunately in the E-2C, it is not routine to have any kind of recording engaged unless it is pre-coordinated.. There was no recording of the event."  {Mmm.  Good policy - unless they know there will l be something anomalous to record, they don't record...yup, can't see any problem with that logic.....}

""LT {redacted} noted that the sailors in CIVC had donned tinfoil caps and wanted to know about the UFO flight"...
Ohhh, so UFO reports were obviously not unknown from the pilot/s in question?

"There is no question in anyone's mind that he followed any and all regulations and guidance.."
If ever there was a sentence that doesn't belong in any sort of a report, there it is - I'm beginning to wonder how many logical fallacies can be crammed into a single report?

It is also full of WIKI references (grin), and lots of what appears to be copy pasted (with a bit of thesaurusal license) descriptive text, much/most of which is not relevant.

It contains no references to allow examination of the data from the radar, nor any discussion of the radar's limitations, false positives, etc.

So .. my summary is a single word.

Seriously?

That load of unsupported drivel is what counts as an executive summary in today's Navy?  Wow.

And you know what.. all this text sounds a LOT like Luis Elizondo's own work.  Any one wish to take a bet?  And anyone now waking up to why Elizondo's little division was wiped out almost as soon as it was created?

 

Geez - ask me what I really think...

Now, I'll happily admit I didn't go over every point in the document.   If anyone wishes to point out the key item that is the deal breaker, the smokin' gun, then do let me know and I'll explain in much further detail why this particular document is absolutely useless and almost certainly faked...

 

Quote

And more often than not, he does.  What is it about the analyses offered that you dispute?  While Mick isn't always initially 100% correct (is anyone?), once those threads take their full course, they usually have arrived at the solution.

Don't like him....Have a nice day.

[ChrLzs]

6 hours ago, Alien Origins said:

Don't like him....Have a nice day.

That's your 'response'?  In future, could you just quote what you are responding to, to save the poor readers of this forum from scrolling interminably thru my waffle a second time?

And also maybe think about whether your post contains any useful content.. if not, perhaps you could save us the trouble of reading it.