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 -

Release of Executive Summary 2004 Nimitz UFO


Recommended Posts

To be honest ChrLzs as American's we gave up bowing and the King's English 241 years ago. Nothing you've pointed out stands out as any grammatical catastrophe.  

For example you "lose the will to live" over two consecutive sentences "repeating" FA/18s. Well if they had said "the jets" in the second sentence (this would satisfy your issue) then you'd likely be asking what "Jets", "was it the FA/18s?", "where is the detail?", "why don't they tell us what "Jets" they are talking about?"? lol 

Edited by lost_shaman
  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

To be honest ChrLzs as American's we gave up bowing and the King's English 241 years ago. Nothing you've pointed out stands out as any grammatical catastrophe.  

For example you "lose the will to live" over two consecutive sentences "repeating" FA/18s. Well if they had said "the jets" in the second sentence (this would satisfy your issue) then you'd likely be asking what "Jets", "was it the FA/18s?", "where is the detail?", "why don't they tell us what "Jets" they are talking about?"? lol 

So you think it's genuine?  If not, can you clarify your point other than to dispute what I said?  Why did you focus only on that aspect, and not on the other issues?

Others have also commented on the poor language, but my major points were (emphasis added to assist):

Quote
  • no headers/footers or title page or stamps to verify the nature of the document..
  • no final Summary or Recommendations/Conclusions..
  • many references to problems/issues, but I could find few or no recommendations.
  • very vague/wooly/subjective/grammatically incorrect waffle purvades the entire document..
  • 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

How's about you:

1. Address the bolded bits - I gave examples in the post.

2. Point out the bit of that report that conclusively shows non-terrestrial/non-explainable behavior of a craft/object.  Obviously, I mean something *other* than just a known UFO-loving pilot's claim.

The data from a radar that supports the claim would be a start - yet we have never been shown any actual data, just wooly and unsupported claims from someone with a poor grasp of english, little knowledge of the technicalities of the equipment to which they refer, an unwillingness to be identified as the author, and all of this in a 'report' which has no provenance.

If you wish to dispute any of that, feel free.  Otherwise... that sort of thing is good enough for you, is it? 

Edited by ChrLzs
y duz this 'editor' insert xtra blank lines in quotes?
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We shouldn't worry either way.  If it's fake, no problem other than rattling a few brains.  IF it's real, it's been close to 14 years and no returns.  Either the visitors thought we aren't ready yet or we scared the crap out of them.  Still no problem.

:alien::rofl:

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/28/2018 at 5:07 PM, ChrLzs said:

How's about you:

 

Hey CharLzs,

How's about I tell you that in 2002, November, first week... I witnessed a close encounter with a 3 foot diameter UAP. Guess what "it" did? It "jumped" about as fast as I can snap my fingers across about 200 yards of open grassland and stopped on a "dime" and just hovered next to my car for five minutes. The UAP I saw broke the sound barrier easy, but this happened silently. After 5 minutes it flew away to the North the direction it had come from.

So this report say's a UAP flew "fast as hell" (my words), and stopped on a "dime" 50 feet above the water. I don't have a problem with that because I've seen a UAP do something quite similar.

Now IF this was a FAKE report, why would LIARS make up reports that sound like what people tend to report like myself?

  • Thanks 3
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, I'll tell you this (my UAP sighting) happened in an Air Force training space, where Sheppard AFB had the most advanced RADAR in North America at the time. The UAP I witnessed never flew above about 50 feet so even Sheppard AFB could not have seen it. 

When my close encounter happened I was wishing F-16's from Sheppard AFB would swoop in and get this UAP away, But it  was always close to the ground and I bet Sheppard AFB never saw it at all on RADAR. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

Also, I'll tell you this (my UAP sighting) happened in an Air Force training space, where Sheppard AFB had the most advanced RADAR in North America at the time. The UAP I witnessed never flew above about 50 feet so even Sheppard AFB could not have seen it. 

When my close encounter happened I was wishing F-16's from Sheppard AFB would swoop in and get this UAP away, But it  was always close to the ground and I bet Sheppard AFB never saw it at all on RADAR. 

Stuff and nonsense. 

 

  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LS, in case you hadn't noticed, the thread *isn't* all about you and your unprovable sighting....  As you simply ignored all I said, I shall not continue the derail.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 21/05/2018 at 1:59 AM, bison said:

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.  

You are a fair and balanced researcher. Many people liked Tims post.., but no one liked your response. This is a big indicator of bias imo.

On 21/05/2018 at 5:39 AM, bison said:

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.

People only seem to like posts that discredit UFOs.., and no one likes positive posts. This is a clear indicator or inherit bias amongst many users here. Thank you for looking into the matter objectively.

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

LS, in case you hadn't noticed, the thread *isn't* all about you and your unprovable sighting....  As you simply ignored all I said, I shall not continue the derail.

I never said this "thread" was all about me or my close encounter with a UAP. So stop your bad habit of putting words in my mouth! Also you asked me...

Quote

So you think it's genuine?  If not, can you clarify your point other than to dispute what I said?

That's what I did was clarify MY point without disputing your silly argument about grammatical semantics that make you "lose the will to live"! lol 

About your argument, do you have a copy of the DOD's policies and procedures regarding the authorship of a White Paper?

You becry in one instance that we don't have details about the U.S.S. Princeton's RADAR in the report. This is a highly advanced U.S. phased array RADAR system and it's specifics are almost certainly classified and the Author of this report probably doesn't even have "need to know" about the actual specifics of the RADAR much less have authorization to publish these in a White Paper! The Paper does tell that the RADAR's service ceiling is 60,000 ft, the truth is that the RADAR probably has a true classified ceiling of about 100,000 ft or more for example one of the Pilots said 80,000 ft in the New York Times article after the White Paper had been written.  

You simply are not going to see all these "details" you want to see in a White Paper where the DOD is detailing a UAP interacting in some fashion with a U.S. Carrier Group! You know good and well these "details" you are hand-waving about will not be published in a White Paper. 

 

On 5/28/2018 at 5:07 PM, ChrLzs said:

no headers/footers or title page or stamps to verify the nature of the document..

Harry Reid, former U.S. Senate Majority leader said he started the program with two U.S. Senators and the program and documents are real.

 

On 5/28/2018 at 5:07 PM, ChrLzs said:

no final Summary or Recommendations/Conclusions..

It's a White Paper, those are probably classified. Reid for example said that News Organizations in the U.S. could probably access 80% of the info from the program if they actually were interested, that implies he believes about 20% is classified and will not see the light of day. 

 

On 5/28/2018 at 5:07 PM, ChrLzs said:

many references to problems/issues, but I could find few or no recommendations.

See above.

 

On 5/28/2018 at 5:07 PM, ChrLzs said:

very vague/wooly/subjective/grammatically incorrect waffle purvades the entire document..

That's actually your personal "subjective" issue. I don't see what you are talking about honestly. 

 

On 5/28/2018 at 5:07 PM, ChrLzs said:

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

Again, see above. Stop hand-waving. 

Harry Reid, former U.S. Senate Majority leader, must be making things up just to irritate ChrLzs from OZ who posts on UM just for giggles right ChrLzs? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some posters cannot figure why a completely off topic interjection about their experiences is irrelevant to this thread.

Some posters cannot figure out that likes usually go to the posts that are well thought out statements that usually contain actual evidence rather than posts about wishful thinking.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, stereologist said:

Some posters cannot figure why a completely off topic interjection about their experiences is irrelevant to this thread.

You clearly don't care about what I said, so what? I saw a UAP up close in 2002. Why should I care what you think? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Article i was reading on front page of foxnews talks about a UFO that stalked a U.S Aircraft carrier for days. This was back in 2004, and we are just hearing about it now. It really makes you think what else is covered up.

 

"A supersonic UFO shaped like a Tic Tac stalked a U.S. aircraft carrier for days before vanishing into thin air, according to a bombshell Pentagon report.

The object, which could reportedly hover in midair and make itself invisible, bamboozled U.S. Navy fighter pilots during a training exercise in the Pacific Ocean."

 

Link: http://www.foxnews.com/science/2018/05/31/supersonic-tic-tac-ufo-stalked-us-aircraft-carrier-for-days-pentagon-report-reveals.html

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, LucidElement said:

This was back in 2004, and we are just hearing about it now

this is an old <story> & been covered in here more than once;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/19/2018 at 2:19 PM, bison said:

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.

He's also a host of Coast to Coast.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Myles said:

He's also a host of Coast to Coast.

 

Oh brother!   Credibility crater right there.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

Oh brother!   Credibility crater right there.

Yep.  I just listened to an episode he hosted and he believe giants existed and are being covered up by the governments of the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Myles said:

Yep.  I just listened to an episode he hosted and he believe giants existed and are being covered up by the governments of the world.

Weeeelll.. that seems reasonable ? I mean... giants would be difficult to cover up. It would be beyond the resources of even large corporations. It would need multiple governments operating together to accomplish it.

I can't fault the logic ?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RoofGardener said:

Weeeelll.. that seems reasonable ? I mean... giants would be difficult to cover up. It would be beyond the resources of even large corporations. It would need multiple governments operating together to accomplish it.

I can't fault the logic ?  

Well if they can cover-up the fact that the world is really flat then they can cover-up anythijng I guess. :lol::rolleyes::rofl:

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do we have a statement by Mr. Knapp, hosting that episode of Coast to Coast, wherein he states that he actually believes that ancient giants existed and that  this fact is being covered up by governments, or is this merely the opinion expressed by a guest to the program?

It became apparent, when Art Bell hosted Coast to Coast, that he did not believe the claims of every guest (some contradicted each other). Mr. Bell generally let the guests and callers say their piece without arguing with them. I would tend to assume that Mr. Knapp has adopted the same policy.   

Edited by bison
added missing words
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/31/2018 at 9:30 AM, lost_shaman said:

You clearly don't care about what I said, so what? I saw a UAP up close in 2002. Why should I care what you think? 

It is clearly irrelevant to this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Dejarma said:

this is an old <story> & been covered in here more than once;)

Can you link to where we discussed this here on UM? I didn't joint until 2006 and I don't remember ever seeing anything about this incident at all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, stereologist said:

It is clearly irrelevant to this thread.

No it's not. I witnessed something in the Atmosphere that wasn't using areodynamics to stay in the Atmosphere. What I witnessed 2 years before this event was quite similar. Why would that be irrelevant?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

No it's not. I witnessed something in the Atmosphere that wasn't using areodynamics to stay in the Atmosphere. What I witnessed 2 years before this event was quite similar. Why would that be irrelevant?

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

Quote

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

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, stereologist said:

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

Quote

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

1 hour ago, stereologist said:

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

Check.

 

1 hour ago, stereologist said:

The object displayed advanced aerodynamic performance.

Check.

 

1 hour ago, stereologist said:

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

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. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
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
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.