Critical sensor data has been possibly illegally witheld from Congress and/or AARO. Incidents like the USS Nimitz Tic Tac UFO have never been debunked.

Summary:

Claims that there is no more data for incidents like the USS Nimitz, or witnesses to the events, such as stated by AARO, are so laughably stupid as to be outright offensive. They rely on the assumption that everyone else is a literal idiot incapable of basic reading comprehension.

The events in real-time would have been on various levels observed by possibly dozens of unique and discrete sensor systems, and potentially hundreds of witnesses of various levels in real-time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_UFO_videos Fravor remarks to United States Congress: https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/David-Fravor-Statement-for-House-Oversight-Committee.pdf GPT analysis short cut for the very lazy: https://chatgpt.com/share/5aaefc27-b448-4545-bf74-e2ac0cb8d3a5

Pentagon UFO incident debunking: based on a false premise

A common refrain we hear is that sightings like the USS Nimitz Tic Tac have been “debunked”. This “debunking” is always centered on various people analyzing the videos (of short edited lenght in non-HD quality) that we have of these incidents.

Consider the sequence of events if you are David Fravor and Anne Dietrich:

You take off from Nimitz in your F/A-18E/F Super Hornets. Over the next hour, you’re airborne. During that time you encounter whatever the Tic Tac was. You return to the Nimitz.

Years later, the situation is declared “debunked” based on a 80-90~ second edited video sample from one (1) source of data, which somehow encapsulates the entire incident and time from your Nimitz departure to your return. It is implied that this is it, this is all, and the matter has been adjudicated by the public, as if anyone in the public has any moral or scientific authority to declare such a thing.

It is the direct equivalent of watching the Space Shuttle Challenger (OV-099) lift off at 11:39 a.m. on January 28, 1986, and evaulating what happened 73 seconds after its launch based ONLY on the live television feeds, and specifically only on the first 70 of 73 seconds of the footage. Could you evaluate the Challenger disaster… at all, based on just that? Imagine if the video literally cut to black at the exact 0.5 seconds after the ship begins to disintegrate.

That’s what happened with these Navy videos, and with Aguadilla and all the rest. If you ask the notable “debunkers” or the debunking enthusiasts here about other data points and sources, it seems you’re either ignored or told that the data is not relevant, which is itself… an unusual position to take.

Real science does not disregard sources of valid evidence.

But there’s no other data!

“We can only evaluate the Tic Tac on what we got and there’s nothing else, so case closed!”

I assume I’m not the only person to encouter a position like this, or seen similar.

But is that accurate? Is that all that the United States government has?

Not really, no. One day I began here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Nimitz

Take a moment and open that as a new tab, then do a control-F for this text. Read the list, then come back here:

AN/SPS-48E

Here’s what Wikipedia alone lists as installed just on Nimitz:

AN/SPS-48E 3-D air search radar AN/SPS-49(V)5 2-D air search radar AN/SPQ-9B target acquisition radar AN/SPN-46 air traffic control radars AN/SPN-43C air traffic control radar AN/SPN-41 landing aid radars 4 × Mk 91 NSSM guidance systems 4 × Mk 95 radars

Feel free to independently review all that–an almost comical amount of data on the load out for the US Navy is available online for these sorts of craft. So, then, we have a few 90~ second videos, and… that’s it. Based on those videos, someone has decided these events are prosaic, mundane and normal. What came before the video started? What came after? Can we see the preceding 5 minutes either way? No.

But does that mean that’s ALL the military recorded?

No.

But there’s a LOT more data.

I am not a military aviation and technology expert, but it doesn’t require you to have gone through military training or have military-industrial complex professional backgrounds to understand how things work. I’ve read every single Wikipedia article listed in this post more than once, and followed out leads and links from all, and various supplemental readings.

For the lazy, here’s a concise GPT-write up. Keep in mind, I’ve ran this sceanario through there on multiple models multiple times, and have been working on this for quite some time. Take a moment now if you want and read this, then come back.

https://chatgpt.com/share/5aaefc27-b448-4545-bf74-e2ac0cb8d3a5

Here’s the key take away questions I opened with:

Tell me what specific named ships were part of the USS Nimitz carrier strike group as of November 14, 2004.

Answer:

USS Nimitz (CVN-68) – Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Princeton (CG-59) – Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruiser USS Chafee (DDG-90) – Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Higgins (DDG-76) – Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS John Paul Jones (DDG-53) – Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Pinckney (DDG-91) – Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Thach (FFG-43) – Oliver Hazard Perry-class guided-missile frigate

That aligns with reading on older records and the overall readout on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_Strike_Group_11.

Here’s the really important question, that comes next:

Treat each ship as a bullet point in your response. Limit all answers exclusively to validated facts here. For each ship, provide me a known list of what sort of remote telemetry and RADAR-type (or similar) systems each ship in the carrier that would have a role in remotely tracking any jets that took off from the Nimitiz on November 14, 2004, for any training or combat purposes off of the coast of San Diego, California.

For each ship give me:

Name and identification of every known such telemetry system, known if any model number and the vendor/manufacturer. For each such device/system, indented bullet point — based on known public specifications, detail tracking range/fidelity of radar–smallest size physical thing that can be tracked, to what range in miles, to what altitude, and to what velocity can it be tracked. From military data and records, probability of that specific system having been engaged and active while US Navy jets were deployed from the Nimitz during a training or combat flight. Answer in a % from 0% to 100%. After the % answer, you will explain in no less than four sentences the justification and logic that led you to that % evaluation. If known, estimate how many human staff would have been involved in the operation or oversight of each named piece of equipment during such a flight operation; for example, IF the USS Higgings was running an AEGIS system tracking a Hornet jet from Nimitz, how many humans likely had eyes on the Hornet from Nimitz on the active AEGIS system, and how many supervisory enlisted or officer staff would have seen this activity in real time?

If you do not know the answer to one of these points, do not attempt to answer; simply print the answer of [UKNOWN].

What kind of answer did that give, assuming you haven’t looked at that GPT link?

What did the Nimitz carrier strike group and the USA record that day?

An insane amount of data, it turns out… a bit more than a 90~ second video.

AN/SPS-48E 3D Air Search Radar

Range: Up to 220 nautical miles (approximately 253 miles)

Altitude: Up to 100,000 feet

Velocity: Can track targets moving at supersonic speeds

Smallest Size: Aircraft-sized objects, typically larger than 2 meters

Probability of Engagement: 100%

Justification: As the primary carrier, the USS Nimitz would have had its primary air search radar system fully operational during flight operations to ensure comprehensive airspace monitoring and safety.

Operational Staff: Typically 2-3 radar operators and 1-2 supervisory personnel monitoring the system in the Combat Information Center (CIC).

AN/SPQ-9B Radar

Range: Up to 80 nautical miles (approximately 92 miles)

Altitude: Up to 100,000 feet

Velocity: Can track high-speed, sea-skimming targets

Smallest Size: Small, fast-moving aircraft and missile-sized objects

Probability of Engagement: 90%

Justification: This radar is often used for surface and low-altitude air target tracking and would likely be active to ensure comprehensive situational awareness during flight operations.

Operational Staff: Typically 1-2 radar operators with 1 supervisory personnel in the CIC.

That’s just the two primary radar systems on Nimitz alone.

How many total unique discrete systems of technology were employed?

It’s impossible to know for certain, but this is what the involved systems would have been:

Any of those would have recorded/seen activities to the two Hornets flown by Fravor and Dietrich.

This same precise methodology would be applied to the other leaked videos.

But wait… is there more?

Yes.

There is no sane, logical, or plausible argument that the multitude of these systems were not engaged during a training operation like this… and as soon as Fravors squadron would have reported the presence of an unknown craft, you don’t think the Navy wouldn’t have lit up every last tracking thing they have, while calling the Air Force, Coast Guard, Army, Marines and NORAD to ask who has what in their restricted airspace with aviators up there?

Here is a tally (quoted from my GPT chat above) of the likely exposure as to number of unique technology systems involved and how many probable staff were involved for each, and then aggregate estimates. Again, I’ve ran these queries there repeatedly and gone over a comical amount of related public data and /r/OSINT. All the data seems to check out when cross-referenced and I encourage any of you to do likewise.

How many systems and people could have known Fravor and Dietrich had engaged something?

Low to High Estimate of Unique Discrete Technological Systems

Given potential overlaps and assuming that some systems are used concurrently:

Low Estimate:

F/A-18E/F systems: 10 (assuming minimal unique systems per aircraft) Carrier Group: 5 (most essential systems) Federal Systems: 3 (most likely high-priority systems) Civilian ATC: 1 Total: 19 unique systems

High Estimate:

F/A-18E/F systems: 20 (assuming all unique systems per aircraft) Carrier Group: 10 (all listed systems) Federal Systems: 6 (all listed systems) Civilian ATC: 1 Total: 37 unique systems Summary Low Estimate: 19 unique discrete technological systems High Estimate: 37 unique discrete technological systems

These estimates account for the various tracking, communication, and telemetry systems that would have potentially recorded the entire flight of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornets during their training operations up to 100-200 miles off the coast of San Diego.

Conclusion

Nothing–nothing–around these has been debunked, because there are hundreds of uncontacted witnesses and a veritable collection of data that has been not only apparently illegally withheld from Congress, but also illegally from AARO, or AARO deliberately failed to deliver a proper legally-mandated report to Congress.

Nothing has been debunked till all the above has been examined. Science is not about outcomes, but about answering questions.

Any ‘science’ designed to achieve a pre-determined outcome is fraud.

submitted by /u/PyroIsSpai
[link] [comments]