Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
bison

Release of Executive Summary 2004 Nimitz UFO

74 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

preacherman76
10 hours ago, stereologist said:

More blather about you that have nothing at all to do with the topic. Let me refresh your memory.

 

You have several posts complaining about the relevance of others posts not having any relevant posts of your own. 

It is you who is causing the diversion to continue. Stop acting like a child. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
stereologist
On 6/2/2018 at 9:04 AM, lost_shaman said:

The UAP I witnessed seem to be all those things you cited.

Check.

 

Check.

 

Check.

I'm not saying this "Tic-Tac" or my close encounter were Aliens, only that it is in our best interest to study and understand what we are all seeing. 

Another ludicrous post. You seem unable to be truthful.

You quoted me but in fact it was Bison that made those statements.

Do you like to misrepresent posts and lie about what I posted?

Your story continues to be off topic no matter how much you lie about my posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
17 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

You have several posts complaining about the relevance of others posts not having any relevant posts of your own. 

It is you who is causing the diversion to continue. Stop acting like a child. 

Another off topic post. Stop encouraging Lost Shaman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76
51 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Another off topic post. Stop encouraging Lost Shaman.

Another off topic post.

LS’s post wasn’t off topic at all. Other people’s person similar experiences seem to me to be a perfectly reasonable response. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
7 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

Another off topic post.

LS’s post wasn’t off topic at all. Other people’s person similar experiences seem to me to be a perfectly reasonable response. 

The topic is a report that appears to be a sham. Are you suggesting that Lost Shaman's off topic story is of the same nature?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
15 hours ago, stereologist said:

Another ludicrous post. You seem unable to be truthful.

You quoted me but in fact it was Bison that made those statements.

Do you like to misrepresent posts and lie about what I posted?

Your story continues to be off topic no matter how much you lie about my posts.

I quoted you because you quoted those things in you post and directed all that towards me so I answered you, whether you plagiarized from someone else is your problem! You didn't provide a link to someone else's post or even suggest that part of your quote was from another member! 

Don't play games. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
8 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

I quoted you because you quoted those things in you post and directed all that towards me so I answered you, whether you plagiarized from someone else is your problem! You didn't provide a link to someone else's post or even suggest that part of your quote was from another member! 

Don't play games. 

I see that reading and comprehension are lost on you. Pretending those were my statements is a huge failure in reading and comprehension.

Please learn the meaning of plagiarize. I properly quoted the text. Are you really that inept? Are you that daft?

I believer you are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
On 6/4/2018 at 9:56 AM, stereologist said:

I see that reading and comprehension are lost on you. Pretending those were my statements is a huge failure in reading and comprehension.

Let us read a few things and see who tends to FAIL at comprehension.

i) Did I "Pretend" those were your statements? No! I quoted you because you included those statements in YOUR POST. I replied to you and those statements by addressing YOU not Bison, because again I was replying to you who had copied Bison. I feel no reason to address Bison, I was addressing YOU, YOUR POST, and YOUR copy/paste from another poster (the OP).

On 6/4/2018 at 9:56 AM, stereologist said:

Please learn the meaning of plagiarize. I properly quoted the text.

Go look back. You did not. You did not credit Bison or that what you quoted was the OP.

See your post #49!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
3 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

Let us read a few things and see who tends to FAIL at comprehension.

i) Did I "Pretend" those were your statements? No! I quoted you because you included those statements in YOUR POST. I replied to you and those statements by addressing YOU not Bison, because again I was replying to you who had copied Bison. I feel no reason to address Bison, I was addressing YOU, YOUR POST, and YOUR copy/paste from another poster (the OP).

Go look back. You did not. You did not credit Bison or that what you quoted was the OP.

See your post #49!

It has nothing to do with post #49. Learn to read and follow a thread. Stop being a wacko.

The material was quoted, therefore not my material, and referenced the OP.

Please put on your thinking cap for a change. Stop trying to show the world you inability to read and comprehend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

See your post #50

In that post you attributed quoted material from my post and assigned those comments to me. What a dunce move.

If I quote material then I am not the source of that material. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
On 6/3/2018 at 6:52 PM, stereologist said:

Are you suggesting that Lost Shaman's off topic story is of the same nature?

Of course it is when you consider the similarities, Prima Facie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76
On 6/3/2018 at 7:52 PM, stereologist said:

The topic is a report that appears to be a sham. Are you suggesting that Lost Shaman's off topic story is of the same nature?

It’s probably better if I don’t reveal what I’m saying. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Occams Razor
On 5/20/2018 at 1:07 AM, 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

 

What makes me suspicious about this being some sort of "official release" is: There's a few Wikipedia links in it, the video footage does not match the fighter pilot's description of the event, George Knapp is involved somehow and he believes Bob Lazar's ridiculous story, and there's no departmental logo on the top of the first page. Oh, and the Pentagon said they never released it... I nearly forgot that bit.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs
4 hours ago, Occams Razor said:

What makes me suspicious about this being some sort of "official release" is: There's a few Wikipedia links in it, the video footage does not match the fighter pilot's description of the event, George Knapp is involved somehow and he believes Bob Lazar's ridiculous story, and there's no departmental logo on the top of the first page. Oh, and the Pentagon said they never released it... I nearly forgot that bit.

It's not entirely unheard of to put WIKI links in an official report, but it is, in my opinion, a completely daft and lazy thing to do, and gives a strong clue as to the complete un-professionalism of the writer.  It points to the sort of I-looked-it-up-on-Google instant armchair experts we sometimes see here at UM...

So overall, I agree - it's a fake, from a source now well-known for fakery.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Erno86
Posted (edited)

2004 Nimitz Radar Operator Report on the Tic Tac UFO Event - June 13, 2018

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VWVzaww1eU

Edited by Erno86

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
16 hours ago, Erno86 said:

2004 Nimitz Radar Operator Report on the Tic Tac UFO Event - June 13, 2018

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VWVzaww1eU

What is in that long winded video with nothing to see. It's all talk as far as I went.

What I heard is very to me. There were intermittent radar contacts and this operator decides they represent the same object. He gives no explanation as to why he thinks they are the same object. He calls it "that object" yet the rest of the crew don't think it is important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Erno86
1 hour ago, stereologist said:

What is in that long winded video with nothing to see. It's all talk as far as I went.

What I heard is very to me. There were intermittent radar contacts and this operator decides they represent the same object. He gives no explanation as to why he thinks they are the same object. He calls it "that object" yet the rest of the crew don't think it is important.

It's interesting to note...that Trevor, who claims that he was the 2004 radar operator aboard the Nimitz, says he saw a film that day (from people higher up in the Navy command structure) that showed 2004 military jet camera footage of a domed, flat bottom flying saucer and not a tic tack shape. Whether this is all a hoax...remains to be seen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
15 minutes ago, Erno86 said:

It's interesting to note...that Trevor, who claims that he was the 2004 radar operator aboard the Nimitz, says he saw a film that day (from people higher up in the Navy command structure) that showed 2004 military jet camera footage of a domed, flat bottom flying saucer and not a tic tack shape. Whether this is all a hoax...remains to be seen.

I did not listen that far into the story.

I wonder if an operator such as he was, would have the clearance to see the video. That occurs after 10:30 in the conversation. He mentions it was on SIPRNet whch limits the classification to seret.

He suggests that he saw no motion of the object, but that  he considered the various radar contacts as being the same object. He admits he has no idea if it was one or more objects.

I believe his tagging is the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identification_friend_or_foe

The fact that it was placed on SIPRNET suggests this is a secret classification or maybe just FOUO, for official use only. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIPRNet

The video contents report start around 15:00. Oddly, he describes what he saw on radar. In some frames it was there. In other frames it was not. He infers from this that it was a real object and not a video system problem or lens flare.

If this was a secret level video then we can infer from this that it did not meet the standards for higher classification.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classified_information_in_the_United_States#Secret

Quote

This is the second-highest classification. Information is classified Secret when its unauthorized disclosure would cause "serious damage" to national security.[18] Most information that is classified is held at the secret sensitivity.

Suppose that the incident actually demonstrates that someone was able to trick the systems used in the military using EW  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_warfare

That would be problem suggesting the possibility of "serious damage" to national security.

Trevor does more than make a report. Trevor draws conclusions from this event. These include that the radar returns implied a single object which he later suggests might not be the case, but he has already stated that being a single object meant it moved quickly. If it were multiple objects it could mean there was no movement.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14

Why would the ship's air search radar see the object but not the Super Hornet's which is at the scene?  

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Erno86
Posted (edited)

I'm really suspicious of this Trevor (Nimitz radar) guy, because he seems to exude an overconfidence of a film he saw that the public has never seen. I mean...he claims to have seen dozens of tic tacs coming down from 80,000 feet to dock with a submerged flying saucer (USO). I just find that a bit overboard in his claims, because he seemed to hedge on the same second question in the interview of whether he really saw that happen in the film.  Could they be that lucky enough to catch a scene like that on film? If so...more power to them, but it just sounds too good to be true.

Trevor claims he was one of the senior people of the Seneker Low Visibility 5PO Radar, so maybe that radar was more sensitive than the F-18 radar. He also said that the object was moving very fast "jumping around" on his radar screen, which was his explanation for why the bogie was so hard to track.

 

Edited by Erno86
spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Erno86 said:

I'm really suspicious of this Trevor (Nimitz radar) guy, because he seems to exude an overconfidence of a film he saw that the public has never seen. I mean...he claims to have seen dozens of tic tacs coming down from 80,000 feet to dock with a submerged flying saucer (USO). I just find that a bit overboard in his claims, because he seemed to hedge on the same second question in the interview of whether he really saw that happen in the film.  Could they be that lucky enough to catch a scene like that on film? If so...more power to them, but it just sounds too good to be true.

Trevor claims he was one of the senior people of the Seneker Low Visibility 5PO Radar, so maybe that radar was more sensitive than the F-18 radar. He also said that the object was moving very fast "jumping around" on his radar screen, which was his explanation for why the bogie was so hard to track.

 

The Seneker Low Visibility 5PO Radar what?

 

Edited by Merc14
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
1 hour ago, Merc14 said:

The Seneker Low Visibility 5PO Radar what?

 

When Google never heard of it, you KNOW its super-secret- badass -  :w00t: 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Erno86
18 hours ago, Merc14 said:

The Seneker Low Visibility 5PO Radar what?

 

That's what I thought the Nimitz radar operator said in the interview on the video I supplied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Occams Razor
On 6/14/2018 at 2:05 PM, ChrLzs said:

So overall, I agree - it's a fake, from a source now well-known for fakery.

DeLonge is now well-known for fakery is he... what other nonsense has he been spruiking?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.