UFO-Forschung - Weiterer Background zu Pentagon-UFO-Story -Teil 2/3






One down, two to go. Although it's questionable if the Gimbal should even be regarded as a separate incident, as the footage seems to have been taken by the same crew less than 10 minutes apart, although a recent NYT article claims they were actually taken a few weeks apart. That article states the Gimbal footage was taken on January 20, 2015

off the coast of Jacksonville, Florida, and attributes the videos to VFA-11 Red Rippers aboard USS Theodore Roosevelt during training exercises. Thus conSrming my earlier analysis about the time, place and participants.

If it was the same crew, there's a pretty obvious question of how likely it is that the same crew that was already fooled by something ordinary would have seen an actual out of this world UFO so soon after? And even if they weren't the same crew, but possibly another one from the same squadron a few week later during the same training, if one was fooled, doesn't it make it more likely the other one was too?

So what supposedly made that video extraordinary? The TTSA description begins by emphasizing how:

This footage, and all ocial USG footage you will see on TTS Academy’s Community of Interest (COI), comes with essential chain-of-custody documentation validating that it is received in its original and unaltered form and is authentic. The US Department of Defense uses this process in order to meticulously ensure that information and material retain their integrity without revealing sources and methods. This documentation is what sets this footage apart from anything else that has previously made its way to the public domain, by establishing its authenticity and thereby giving it enormous historical significance.


And yet, after all this time, they still haven't provided any such documentation, and none of the videos they have published are actually originals, but versions they altered by

adding their own advertisement and recompressing them, thus introducing more loss of quality. Question is, if they actually cared about the stuff in their marketing talk, why haven't they provided anything closer to the originals (such versions seem to be available here instead)?

Here are their key claims about the supposedly extraordinary features:

• Low observability in both electro-optical and electromagnetic spectrums. • No distinguishable aight surfaces.
• Lack of obvious propulsion system.
• Never-before-seen aight capabilities.

• Possible energy or resonance [eld of unknown nature.The [lename “GIMBAL” seems to be traceable to the unusual maneuvering of the UAP.

And the implications according to them:

With the chain-of-custody documentation, GIMBAL can ocially be designated as credible, authentic “evidence” of a UAP. Evidence of a aying vehicle with a shape normally associated with something out of science [ction. Currently there are no other known technologies that we can

compare to what is being observed in both performance and design, which means there’s a craft that demonstrates aight characteristics unlike anything we know, understand, or can duplicate. Because we cannot duplicate these aight characteristics, we can conclude that the object is employing technologies that are more advanced than our own.

GIMBAL is just one of several ocial videos obtained by TTS Academy that can be interpreted as credible proof that the physics of advanced aight exists. We are also in the process of collecting additional data from both military and civilian personnel and sensors. The question now changes from “Can it be done?” to “How is it done?”

And here's the detailed analysis from Metabunk, which pretty conclusively shows none of that is true, with examples from videos of known aircraft that replicate similar effects. And as detailed there too, similarly to Go "Fast", the parallax effect fooled the pilots again. What the video really shows is most probably just another plane, the most obvious option being another participant of the same training.

But once again, it's not terribly important whether we can identify that exact plane. The important part is once again that all the supposed mystery is provably gone, there's no reason to assume extraordinary explanations. Even more signiScantly, what Mick West and others have demonstrated not only shows such effects are easily explainable in this case, such explanations also apply to other similar cases. And where else have we for example seen a blob that doesn't look like a plane on the video, but now demonstrably can be one anyway? Yep, in the Nimitz clip.

And once again, the same groups that were fooled by the Go Fast footage were fooled by the features seen on this one too. And you can add David Fravor to that list as well. He also clearly didn't realize such apparent features can have the kind of prosaic explanations that have now been demonstrated.

While the TTSA explained the Slename, Gimbal, as possibly referring to the "unusual maneuvering of the UAP", it would better apply to the gimbal mechanism of the camera, which explains why that target appeared to be rotating. Which could indicate whoever named it was already aware of a signiScant part of that explanation. Which would raise even more questions about how little Elizondo and others new about the material they have now showcased.

The Nimitz incident

While the Nimitz incident has been commonly described as a single incident, conSrmed both visually and by multiple sensors, that's not really true. Some things were seen on radar, some visually, some with the ATFLIR, but none appears to be seen be even two of them at the same time, or even described to behave similarly (apart from the

misinterpretation what the FLIR footage shows).

The incident is really best described in three parts:

1. Anomalous radar returns
2. Visual encounter by Fravor and 3 others 3. FLIR footage

There's no evidence those were related.

The radar returns were deemed to be false targets by the radar computer itself, and reportedly described as weather phenomena by radar experts at the time. Since there's also no available radar data, there's little to be explained. It also doesn't help that the radar operators and some others from those ships who have publicly told their versions of the story seem to have invented stuff out of thin air. Fravor has called bs on such claims a couple of times. Apparently, as Robert Sheaffer reported on the latter link, that inconvenient situation has led to some censorship as well:

Reporter George Knapp and documentary [lmmaker Jeremy Corbell were also on the panel. Fravor sharply criticized the accounts of certain other people who were involved and have been speaking about the incident. He seemed to be singling out the account of the radar operator, Kevin Day, as being non-factual. He dismissed claims of Air Force personnel coming on board the Nimitz and con[scating evidence as being untrue. Fravor also referred to Dave Beaty’s “Nimitz UFO Encounters” documentary as a “cartoon.” This prompted Knapp to say to Fravor, “I guess you’re being diplomatic, but some of the stories and claims that have been made by people, who may have been on those ships, are just bullshit.” When people began commenting about these remarkable disagreements, Corbell pulled the video off YouTube.

Nimitz FLIR video

As for the FLIR footage, it was taken hours after the visual encounter, and as mentioned in the "Executive report", one of the pilots who took that video:

was clear in that he couldn't con[rm that it was the same object as described by the FASTEAGLE aight. He never had visual, only seeing the object via the FLIR.

It seems the reason Fravor and others were so conSdent it was the same object was conSrmation bias. It looked like a blob, and seemingly accelerated fast, like what they said to have seen. But as was already demonstrated with the Gimbal footage, having a small blob in the video doesn't mean the distant target was actually shaped like that. And as my earlier analysis showed, the supposed fast acceleration is best explained as camera artifact, and that target also wasn't hovering in place as has been described.

And so once again, all the key claims by the TTSA have fallen apart.

Considering the similarities, the most probable explanation for the Nimitz video is also a distant plane, just like for the Gimbal video. And similarly the obvious Srst option would be another participant of the same training.

It also seems like an interesting coincidence that Fravor has described the CAP points being some 40 nautical miles apart, in north-south direction, like in this map I madeearlier:




The initial radar tracks to the FLIR target indicated a similar distance of 30-40 nautical miles. Fravor's _ight played the role of blue air and went to the norther CAP closer to

Nimitz, and according to the navy event log, the next FAST EAGLE _ight played the role of blue air as well, and to my understanding, went to the same CAP. Which means that while they were _ying there, they would have been looking towards south, towards the other CAP, to where the red air was going or possibly already was. If that's the case, there's a good chance the UFO was an F/A-18E single-seater from VFA-14 "Tophatters" (callsign CAMELOT). Especially since there doesn't seem to be much civilian air traNc at that location, and presumably even less during such trainings.

The visual Nimitz encounter

So how about the one remaining actually interesting part of the story then? Even if we discard the likely unrelated radar returns and some later plane on FLIR, the visual encounter itself seems hard to explain, especially since it happened in the presence of multiple witnesses and in broad daylight.

But let's not forget that it wouldn't be the Srst time mundane things have been misidentiSed even under such conditions, and we also know Fravor was too overconSdent with his claims about those videos. Paco Chierici also described him as "Smart and sharp witted, with a typical Sghter pilot’s overestimation of his skills." So let's just keep those typical estimation errors in mind, and assume Fravor is just as likely to make them as the rest of us, and so many pilots before and after him, instead of


believing every detail happened just as described.



In fact, we can go a bit further and safely conclude that every detail didn't happen as described, as available descriptions by the other pilots and various documents contradict on several occasions. It's particularly noteworthy that when it comes to the supposed extraordinary capabilities, there's few if any that were reported similarly by multiple witnesses.

The parts that deSnitely seem to be supported by multiple witnesses, and hence look likely to be more accurate, include that disturbance in water and the object being white and mostly featureless tic-tac/capsule shape. Although we should keep in mind they saw that with naked eyes only, several miles away, so at least smaller details would have been hard to see.

Disturbance in water

The most obvious explanation for that disturbance would be a submarine, USS Louisville to be exact. According to the Executive report:



There was a live [re exercise conducted by the USS Louisville during the

period of and in the vicinity of the AAV sightings; however, the weapon in use did not match the aight pro[le or visible characteristics of the AAV. Additionally any live [re would have been coordinated throughout the CSG and all air tra[c would have been well aware of the launch and operation of the weapon system. Aircraft would not have been vectored for the intercept of a US Weapon in-aight.

That vague and in some ways even self-contradictory statement has to be the most annoying part of that report. It just screams for further details. How close is that "vicinity"? Weren't they then vectored within that "vicinity"? If it wasn't close, why do they even bother to mention it had a different _ight proSle? What kind of weapon?

If that report and investigation aimed to Snd some explanation, it deSnitely should have paid more attention to that sub. Especially since the pilots, such as "Source" in the TTSA Pilot report initially though it may have been "an unannounced, classiSed missile test by a U.S. Navy submarine" and even after it all, back in the ship, reportedly "believed it was a _ight safety issue at a minimum, especially if they were deliberately vectored to a testing location of a blue-force weapon system." So if someone says that couldn't be an explanation, here we have a pilot who was there, saw it, and though so, even after the encounter.

If that report wasn't written with the aim of public release, what prevented it from stating what kind of weapon it was? If it was, say, a Tomahawk missile, which everyone knows they had, why couldn't they just say it? Is that indicative of something less conventional,

or just excessive secrecy or poor investigation?

That brings us to some deeper issues with that report. It appears to have been written at the time the program was still led by Lacatski. If it had been an oNcial UFO program at the time, and this clearly was a signiScant UFO event, if not the most signiScant they had, why only an informal report with parts copied from Wikipedia and so on? And why is the general tone like one written by a believer for other believers, with some hints of having avoided saying things that could raise doubts? I think that's another indication that the program never was a UFO program as such, even if it was allowed to oNcially touch some such topics due to that threat aspect. When it went any further, it may have been only through some informal network of like-minded people, all along.

White tic-tac shape

If we consider the shape alone, and forget how it reportedly _ew, what's the Srst thing that pops into your mind? Doesn't it sound like a balloon, or a blimp or aerostat due to being oblong in horizontal direction? Such as something that's shaped like this (source) with barely visible tail Sns against that background:


Quelle: Parabunk
Raumfahrt+Astronomie-Blog von CENAP [-cartcount]