An investigation of the Pentagon's UFO program

Most people have no such precise idea when they talk about "dimensions". Those who do would, when pressed, admit that even if you could be said to travel through or along some other dimension to reach another world, or even an infinity of other worlds, said dimension is not the same as those worlds, just a term for a relationship between them.

Moreover, I don't care about what people think they're saying with their crap terminology. I demand actual accuracy, or at minimum precisely delimited uncertainty, from people taking millions of dollars in government funding to write about aliens. This is not too much to ask. (You do remember the context, right? Evaluating the credibility of a purportedly factual report written under a government contract, not a bar debate about cosmology)

But we have lots of evidence about the Nimitz incident that doesn't appear to have anything to do with AAWSAP/AATIP.

There's a video that the government has confirmed as being authentic and showing an object they consider to be unidentified.

Further there are many (not sure the exact count, but I would say about a dozen) witnesses who have come forward and whose stories are broadly consistent. One of them is a retired Navy Commander who commanded a fighter squadron on the Nimitz and who has described visual observations of phenomena that appear to defy the laws of physics as we understand them. His testimony was supported by 3 or 4 other witnesses who observed the same event.

So whatever opinion one may have about AAWSAP/AATIP, I don't see how the credibility of those programs impacts that of the Nimitz incident.

> There was no visual on the object in the FLIR1 video.

Do you have a source for this? I've heard rumors there was an interview with the radar operator but haven't seen it myself. In any case, this is almost certainly the same object that was visually observed from multiple angles hours prior, which had been jamming the previous fighters' radars and observed passively from the Nimitz, considering it had been tracked in the general vicinity of the carrier strike group for over a week prior (passively by the Nimitz).

> I would argue that the "Gimbal" explanation West has is very convincing.

These radar systems do not typically suffer catastrophic breakdowns (such as locking onto a false bogie) from any causes shy of physical trauma or targeted jamming techniques. These things are sent back to the contractor for repair if they fall outside of a very tight spec range during regular testing, long before any discernible error would show up. Even when jammed, the state of the art wouldn't likely be able to create a false bogie in this spectrum; a jamming signal would manifest as intolerable noise throughout the image. If glare was not only visible, but allowed a system lock, that is a catastrophic system failure and not something that would be overlooked -- it would be sent back to the contractor for repair and the entire incident would be scrapped for this reason.

No malfunctions were reported on the receiver chipset, the pod, or any other component for either the Gimbal or the Nimitz recordings, to my knowledge.

Mick West is a smart guy, but he clearly does not know radar and is grasping at straws here. And he doesn't even attempt to describe the extremely precise relative orientations that would be required of two distant objects to keep the "glare" in the exact center of the lens while the fighter is moving about and recording the video.

I'm glad for his analysis to rule out the Go-Fast video as inconclusive at best. I have no interest in wasting time on false leads. But for the other two, we have legitimate, exotic phenomena that no one has successfully explained away, and it's increasingly seeming impossible to do so without venturing beyond the boundary of our current circle of knowledge.

I pulled most of my info from these two posts: http://parabunk.blogspot.com/2019/07/aatip-tic-tacs-and-more... http://parabunk.blogspot.com/2018/07/the-2004-uss-nimitz-tic...

>Do you have a source for this?

It seems the source used is more suspect than I'd like. It's the "executive report" from the To The Stars Academy which I am loathe to put any trust in. The quote in question is "LT ______ was clear in that he couldn't confirm that it was the same object as described by the FASTEAGLE flight. He never had visual, only seeing the object via the FLIR."

---

>a jamming signal would manifest as intolerable noise throughout the image

What sort of jamming signal are you referring to? The video doesn't involve radar, and I was under the impression that the only effective way to disable FLIR is to shine a laser at it.

>And he doesn't even attempt to describe the extremely precise relative orientations that would be required of two distant objects to keep the "glare" in the exact center of the lens while the fighter is moving about and recording the video.

I'm not sure what you mean with two objects. Can you elaborate? As I understand it, the theory is that there is a single hot object (or perhaps a two-engine jet) in the distance. The glare in the FLIR image is produced in the same fashion as the glare in a regular camera pointed at a bright object; nothing needs to be precisely positioned.

You mentioned restricted airspace, but AFAIK there's no info on the GIMBAL video apart from that it was taken somewhere on the East Coast.

> You mentioned restricted airspace etc, but AFAIK there's no info on the GIMBAL video apart from that it was taken somewhere on the East Coast.

Correct, there is significantly less background here than on the Nimitz video, to which I was referring.

I've seen all of Mick West's videos in this playlist now, and his explanation for the Nimitz footage is even weaker than for Gimbal. He skips the difficult points such as accounting for movement of the object and the momentary loss of target lock for FLIR-1. He fixates on the rotation of the targeting pod, which may be valid, but doesn't seem as interesting to me as the fact that there are no heat plumes coming from this "jet" in Gimbal. It seems like his whole gimmick is to find one nitpick and claim victory, not to try to piece together the full, most accurate story of what was witnessed given all the information. Not to mention, neither of you seem to appreciate how catastrophic of a design failure it would be to have distant glares generating opaque images and target locks. If there is one area where defense contractors innovate, it is in meeting specs and testing. If the specs are not met, you end up in F-35 hell, not in production.

Take a look at Fravor describing the video step by step which may clear up some of your questions -- my link skips right to where he walks through the videos, but the whole interview is fascinating, minus Corbell [0].

>just that the glare makes it look like something more fantastical than it is

Perhaps I misunderstand the way you were ascribing it to glare? The image is pretty much the same in TV mode and I believe the pod can even hold a target lock while flying directly into the sun. This is partially because of the radar component providing ranging, which Fravor describes is being jammed in the FLIR1 video, interestingly. Nothing else will be close to the same intensity as the sun, nor will it stay on the center of the target, if you are suggesting there are two objects overlaid. If you are instead saying the whole video is of one glare and the pod had a catastrophic system failure by allowing that, that seems like a huge logical jump.

> I was under the impression that the only effective way to disable FLIR is to shine a laser at it.

That is more or less my point.

I encourage you and Mick to keep challenging these videos, but don't be satisfied unless someone is able to replicate it (not a part of it, the whole thing). If it isn't exotic, it can be replicated, so the burden of proof has finally shifted now that we have reasonably solid evidence and credible witness testimony all together in a content treasure trove.

An aside: every legal system in existence is built around witness testimony -- even in the digital age. Do you believe Bill Cosby is innocent? (I don't) Because there is far more evidence of exotic phenomena than of Bill's criminality, and yet only one is socially acceptable (although that is slowly changing), and most people follow the herd.

Another thought experiment: if you lived in Galileo's time with your same personality - ask yourself honestly: who would you side with? The Catholic Church, or the heretic who believes in planets orbiting the Sun?

If you ever decide there is indeed "a phenomenon" occurring, and you want to learn more about it, there are far more interesting and weirder cases than the ones we've discussed, although I know of no single incident with the same volume of highly credible data as this 2017 release.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eco2s3-0zsQ&feature=youtu.be...