Tuesday, August 28, 2018

New-Witness Angle to Nimitz Tic Tac UFO Incident

Bookmark and Share

New-Witness Angle to Nimitz Tic Tac UFO Incident

NY Times is MIA

     “Oh my god! Oh my god! I’m engaged, I’m engaged! Shit!’ He’s screaming on the radio.”

Excerpts from the podcast testimony of radar operator Kevin Day, former senior chief petty officer aboard the USS Princeton, relaying the words he heard in real time from an F-18 pilot in hot pursuit of what may turn out to become the best-documented military UFO challenge ever. Day was being interviewed by Air Force veteran John Burroughs at KGRA.
Billy Cox
By Billy Cox
De Void
6-18-18

“I found out later this thing did a barrel roll around him,” Day recalled during a two-hour Q&A last week on Phenomenon Radio Live. “And just basically kicked his butt in a dogfight.”

This is a new-witness angle to what’s being called the Nimitz Tic Tac incident of 2004, an update to the story broken by the New York Times last December. Day said he was in charge of air defense for the Nimitz Carrier Strike Group as it conducted training exercises 80 miles off the coast of San Diego. And he was on duty in the second week of November when a pilot with the elite “Black Aces” captured the now-famous Tic Tac-shaped UFO with an infrared gun camera.

But Day wasn’t the only Navy veteran to spill the beans last week about what he saw. On Wednesday, “Extraordinary Beliefs” podcaster Jeremy Corbell bagged a 23-minute interview with an operations specialist who would give only his first name, Trevor. During nearly week-long interactions with the furtive UFOs, Trevor was watching the radar scopes aboard the Nimitz’s Combat Direction Center, the nexus of the entire task force. Early on, he described watching high-flying blips dart across his grid in jerky movements that sound (to De Void, anyway) like a cursor on a computer screen. Trevor said he “couldn’t tag it” because the thing(s) “kept jumping around.”

But the news peg here is Trevor’s claim about what he didn’t see on radar. The day after the F-18s returned from their intercept mission, colleagues, including officers and a pilot, invited him to check out gun-cam footage that had been downloaded into the Secret Internet Protocol Routing Network (SIPRNet) system. This anomaly looked nothing like the Tic Tac. This was your classic flying saucer – flat below, rounded dome on top. The video resolution was sharper than the Tic Tac. Furthermore, when they slowed the action down, frame by frame, the UFO disappeared in sequential frames before reappearing in others. “And then boom,” says Trevor, “it was gone.”

Again, what set these new accounts into motion was the Times’ original reporting six months ago. And what ultimately led to Day’s interview is an enduring public appetite for more info on the Pentagon’s Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program, the $22 million UFO research initiative, exposed by the NYT.

Hal Puthoff
“This is the first chance that I’ve had a chance to actually appear before the public and speak about details of the program and not go to jail” — Hal Puthoff, June 8/CREDIT: To The Stars Academy
Less than two weeks ago, during a Society for Scientific Exploration conference in Las Vegas, engineer and research insider Hal Puthoff reminded listeners there were 38 related papers logged by the Defense Intelligence Agency, prepared by contractors as part of the Pentagon’s Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Project during 2007-12. Two of those broad theoretical reports, written in 2010, one by Puthoff himself (“Acquisition Threat Support”), went public in May.

But those were tame compared with the May release of yet another paper addressing the Nimitz incident specifically. Though its author was anonymous and it bore no government markings, the summary was detailed enough to create a firestorm of Internet speculation over who wrote it.

Known for co-authoring a bangup radar analysis the 2008 Stephenville Incident as well as bringing critical scrutiny to the infrared UFO footage shot by airborne federal Customs agents over Puerto Rico in 2013, Robert Powell had been keeping an eye on the Nimitz story long before the Times’ coup. Working leads for volunteer researchers called the Scientific Coalition for Ufology, Powell located crew logs and started reaching out to potential Tic Tac witnesses. He recorded an interview with Kevin Day in either late December or early January; Trevor (“that’s his actual first name, he’s real,” Powell says) never replied to his email.

Powell kept his SCU teammates looped in, aiming to publish a fuller accounting of the Nimitz mystery online in August. But with the legitimacy of the “executive summary” of the Tic Tac being hotly contested, one of the SCU members jumped into a cyberdebate and speculated the author might’ve been the hitherto unknown Kevin Day – and dropped Day’s name in the middle of it. Powell issued a WTF to his colleague, who deleted the post. By then, it was too late. Alternative media was hot on Day’s trail.

“Once witnesses start going public,” Powell explains, “they start getting contaminated. The more they tell their stories, they begin to change. It’s weird how the mind works.”

Powell said he heard some contradictions between what Day told him several months ago and what he told Burroughs. For instance: Did the UFO(s) drop from 28,000 feet to sea level within the snap of a finger, as Day said last week, or did it/they go from 80,000 feet to 28,000 feet, as he told Powell? There are other discrepancies, most of them minor. “It wouldn’t matter to most people – this thing happened and that’s all they care about,” says Powell. “But the inconsistencies can create openings for debunkers to say it never happened.”

And what about Puthoff? Best known for his government research into the quantum mechanics behind things paranormal, the Vice President of Science and Technology for the To The Stars Academy was a key character in the Times’ scoop. On June 8 in Vegas, Puthoff openly discussed the AATIP’s research into material allegedly recovered from a UFO years ago. It was a “multi-layered bismuth and magnesium” artifact that early investigators couldn’t get to bond in the lab; furthermore, the embroidery served no discernible function.

“Well, years later, decades later actually, finally our own science moves along,” Puthoff told his audience. “We move into an area called metamaterials, and it turns out exactly this combination of materials at exactly those dimensions turn out to be an excellent microscopic waveguide for very high frequency electromagnetic terahertz frequencies.”

De Void isn’t sure what that means, exactly. But how is this not interesting?

Two days after co-authoring the Times piece on the AATIP, veteran reporter Ralph Blumenthal wrote how the story “has dominated the most emailed and most viewed lists since.” He reiterated the point on MSNBC a day later, saying “This is probably the most watched and looked-at story the New York Times has run in a long time, because people are fascinated by the subject.” Queried by the network host about what kind of stuff the Pentagon experts had investigated, Blumenthal replied, “They don’t know, they’re studying it, but it’s some kind of compound they don’t recognize.”

That was six months ago. Where is the New York Times followup? Are they really walking away from a story they started? Because?

Given the readership market for this information, as described by Blumenthal, this isn’t just bad journalism. This is a bad business decision.

No comments :

Post a Comment

Dear Contributor,

Your comments are greatly appreciated, and coveted; however, blatant mis-use of this site's bandwidth will not be tolerated (e.g., SPAM etc).

Additionally, healthy debate is invited; however, ad hominem and or vitriolic attacks will not be published. Please keep your arguments "to the issues" and present them with civility and proper decorum-FW






LIVE SIGHTING REPORTS BY MUFON