From The NY Times: The Pentagon's Secret UFO Program

[Realm]

Its certainly got a lot going for it.

Before this I thought O'Hare was the most interesting one, even though there's not a single photo of it, FAA doesn't admit there was an object at all, and I think there wasn't even a single eyewitness that would have talked about that publicly with their own name and face.

To be honest i knew blink 182 was a band, but i couldn't have named a single member or for that matter one of their songs.
So i was dubious when the DeLonge thing made news

Pretty much the same to me and I haven't really even paid any attention to those news before this Nimitz story hit the news.

But this case is a classic, Radar traces, multiple witness's. Trained observers who get drug tested and eyes tested. Gun cam footage, FLIR footage.
Classic UFO maneuvering, High speeds, fast turns, stops on a dime. No wings or visible propulsion systems.

I think history will record this one as one of the most compelling cases.

It sure looks like that at the moment. Although I'm still waiting to see that gun cam footage. Hope it still exists and gets published. Someone should ask Fravor about it...

 

[Realm]

Here's one more discrepancy to be solved:

FAST EAGLES 110/100 UPON TAKE OFF WERE VECTORED BY PRINCETON AND BANGER (1410L) TO
INTERCEPT UNID CONTACT AT 160@40NM (N3050.8 W11746.9) (NIMITZ N3129.3 W11752.8).
PRINCETON INFORMED FAST EAGLES THAT THE CONTACT WAS MOVING AT 100 KTS @ 25KFT ASL.

Navy event document 2004 Nov 14.pdf

The targets, dubbed Anomalous Aerial Vehicles (AAVs), would drop from above 80K to hover roughly 50 feet off the water in a matter of seconds.

Always over the same spot, a Lat/Long about 30NM off the coast of Baja, roughly 70nm southwest of Tijuana.
...
Once the Air Wing’s planes arrived aboard Nimitz, the Fire Control team on Princeton saw an opportunity to use those assets and eyeballs to help solve the AAV mystery.
...
At the same time FASTEAGLE flight was wrapping up its scheduled training, the CO of Marine Hornet squadron VMFA-232, Lieutenant Colonel “Cheeks” Kurth, was completing a post-maintenance check flight not too far away. He was the first fast-mover contacted by Princeton. The communication was strange and intriguing. He was asked to investigate an unidentified airborne contact. This wasn’t a terribly unusual request while a Strike Group was in transit or deployed far from home waters, but it was more than a little strange practically in sight of the San Diego Homeport.
...
Princeton now wanted the E-2 to guide the Super Hornets to an intercept with the AAV contact, currently hovering over their favorite spot, but now about 20,000 feet over the ocean.
...
By the time the new crew launched, rendezvoused and checked in with the E-2 for control, it was early afternoon; 1500. The planes separated, with one heading to that same southern CAP location.
...
He checked the coordinates and it was indeed hovering at their precise CAP point.

https://fightersweep.com/1460/x-files-edition/

All these fit quite well to how and where I now believe it happened. The jets took of from Nimitz, which was about 70nm southwest of Tijuana, and they flew 40nm towards south where the ufo was. "Practically in sight of the San Diego Homeport" also seems to indicate it was close enough that the port could just be seen from the plane, but not that close. I think about 95 miles from Nimitz and 135 miles from the ufo fit that bill.

But from the Nimitz report:

Both F-18s assumed combat formation en route to the new location. Source and OK-1's aircraft was approximately .3 NM behind OK-2 and OK-3's aircraft and both F-18s proceeded east at an altitude of approximately 10,000 to 20,000 feet towards San Clemente island.

That's not even close. AFAIK, San Clemente island is something like 90nm towards northwest from where Nimitz was supposed to be, 70nm northwest from Tijuana, and they were supposedly somewhere west of that if they proceeded east towards it. That would put the ufo at least 130nm off from the point those other documents indicate. That description makes no sense to me. Something's off, and a lot.

 

[Realm]

I was thinking the most likely explanation for the above contradiction would be that TTSA has mixed up something on their report. But now I watched this Fox News interview of Slaight and Fravor again:

Quick transcription of what Slaight said:

we were out flying off of the Nimitz just doing a standard training op took a vector and headed east towards sort of heading towards Mexico or the San Diego area as we approached and we were looking around we actually noticed down below just above the surface of the water was a really what's best described as a tic-tac.
...
My initial thought was well maybe it's a submarine and it had launched a missile or something

So it seems that east and towards San Diego is at least how Slaight remembers it. Which still doesn't make sense.

Fravor was in the same interview and didn't correct that, but then again neither corrected the reporter even when he was speaking about the wrong video, so I don't think that's their style, and those interviews are so short anyway, that there's not much time to make corrections.

Fravors words were also interesting:

I don't think anyone played it off because they had been tracking it for two weeks and this was the first time that manned airplanes had been airborne when they showed up.

Airborne doesn't sound like they had landed and launched from the carrier when that happened, as the log seems to indicate. Though I don't know if it excludes that either. FS article also claims they had tracked the objects for 4 days only, but some other sources also mention two weeks.

 

[Realm]

Why would it go to exactly that location? Did the UFO become interested about it because the planes kept circling there, just like the planes got interested about the favorite spot of the UFO? Or had they seen earlier on the radar that there's some action there and picked that as a CAP location to maximize chances of somebody seeing something there? Was that CAP actually the same spot where the targets were said to have always been, since the article states they swung through the CAP and saw that the turbulence in water had disappeared:

At least those spots didn't seem to be far from each other.

Returning to this, a different take:

“Well, we’ve got a real-world vector for you,” the radio operator said, according to Commander Fravor. For two weeks, the operator said, the Princeton had been tracking mysterious aircraft. The objects appeared suddenly at 80,000 feet, and then hurtled toward the sea, eventually stopping at 20,000 feet and hovering. Then they either dropped out of radar range or shot straight back up.
...
The two fighter planes headed toward the objects. The Princeton alerted them as they closed in, but when they arrived at “merge plot” with the object — naval aviation parlance for being so close that the Princeton could not tell which were the objects and which were the fighter jets — neither Commander Fravor nor Commander Slaight could see anything at first. There was nothing on their radars, either.

Then, Commander Fravor looked down to the sea. It was calm that day, but the waves were breaking over something that was just below the surface. Whatever it was, it was big enough to cause the sea to churn.
...
Hovering 50 feet above the churn was an aircraft of some kind — whitish — that was around 40 feet long and oval in shape. The craft was jumping around erratically, staying over the wave disturbance but not moving in any specific direction, Commander Fravor said. The disturbance looked like frothy waves and foam, as if the water were boiling.

Commander Fravor began a circular descent to get a closer look, but as he got nearer the object began ascending toward him. It was almost as if it were coming to meet him halfway, he said.

Commander Fravor abandoned his slow circular descent and headed straight for the object.

But then the object peeled away. “It accelerated like nothing I’ve ever seen,” he said in the interview. He was, he said, “pretty weirded out.”

The two fighter jets then conferred with the operations officer on the Princeton and were told to head to a rendezvous point 60 miles away, called the cap point, in aviation parlance.

They were en route and closing in when the Princeton radioed again. Radar had again picked up the strange aircraft.

“Sir, you won’t believe it,” the radio operator said, “but that thing is at your cap point.”

“We were at least 40 miles away, and in less than a minute this thing was already at our cap point,” Commander Fravor, who has since retired from the Navy, said in the interview.

By the time the two fighter jets arrived at the rendezvous point, the object had disappeared.

The fighter jets returned to the Nimitz, where everyone on the ship had learned of Commander Fravor’s encounter and was making fun of him.

2 Navy Airmen and an Object That ‘Accelerated Like Nothing I’ve Ever Seen’

So, first of all, that describes the objects having a tendency to stop at 20,000 feet, whereas the FS article states: "The targets, dubbed Anomalous Aerial Vehicles (AAVs), would drop from above 80K to hover roughly 50 feet off the water in a matter of seconds". That article has probably conflated that to the altitude they initially saw that object above the water, since the radar probably couldn't even see them so low. In the TTSA report (Slaight) on the other hand seemed to have thought:

The object traveled from left to right over the disturbed water at an altitude of approximately 1000 to 3000 feet. The object appeared to travel at a speed of approximately 300 to 500 knots in a straight line.

On the interview above he states "just above the surface of the water".

The log however states that the object wasn't spotted above that point of water but 5nm west with an altitude of 4000 feet (which again is close to that other statement by Slaight):

WHILE DESCENDING FROM 24K FT TO GAIN A BETTER VIEW OF THE UNID CONTACT IN THE WATER,
FAST EAGLE 110 SIGHTED AN AIRBORNE CONTACT WHICH APPEARED TO BE CAPSULE SHAPED
(WINGLESS, MOBILE, WHITE, OBLONG PILL SHAPED, 25-30 FEET IN LENGTH, NO VISIBLE
MARKINGS AND NO GLASS) 5NM WEST FROM POSITION OF UNID OBJECT IN WATER.
CAPSULE (ALT 4K FT AT COURSE 300) PASSED UNDER FAST EAGLE 110 (ALT 16KFT).

Then that article above indicates that the cap point was 40-60 (nautical or "regular"?) miles from that object, so not close at all. According to the log, the distance between Nimitz and the ufo was 40nm.

This happened 13 years ago, memories fade, and information is lost and modified as it passes through people, so issues like these are to be expected. But I hope we can still get at least some clarifications to these, which would help for example in evaluating the accuracy of that log in general.

 

[--Fin--]

Fravor was in the same interview and didn't correct that, but then again neither corrected the reporter even when he was speaking about the wrong video, so I don't think that's their style, and those interviews are so short anyway, that there's not much time to make corrections.

I think it's pretty likely, being that both pilots are not in the studio with the reporter, that they are unaware he is looking at the wrong video.

 

[Constance]

@Realm, I'm wondering what you are hoping to prove with these extended searches for discrepancies in the reporting available to date re the 2004 Nimitz events. Do you think that the information presented so far suggests a plot of some kind, involving various branches of the US government, military, and intelligence agencies, to fake us all out? And if so, to what end?

Hope you don't mind my asking.

 

[Realm]

@Realm, I'm wondering what you are hoping to prove with these extended searches for discrepancies in the reporting available to date re the 2004 Nimitz events. Do you think that the information presented so far suggests a plot of some kind, involving various branches of the US government, military, and intelligence agencies, to fake us all out? And if so, to what end?

Hope you don't mind my asking.

No, I don't mind at all. I'm glad you asked.

I'm simply trying to extract as much information I can from the limited amount we have, in hopes of getting a better picture of what actually happened and which information is accurate. That includes doing what the so called debunkers do, that is, trying to find discrepancies, just without the preconceived assumptions about the end results, and actually trying to find explanations for them as well. I'm really trying to take as objective and scientific look at it that I can, because I don't want to believe, I want to know, as much as possible.

I see this case as a rather special one: multiple witnesses who are trained observers, bright daylight, video, radar returns, military event log that looks authentic, reported UFO capabilities seem beyond any tech I would expect from any nation, Pentagon insider who probably investigated it, both that insider and witnesses basically being convinced and stating publicly it was aliens, a lot of media visibility and people taking it seriously, no indication of it being a hoax or something similar, and most of all, a story that hasn't fallen apart yet despite all this poking.

It's the kind of thing I have been hoping to see someday at least since O'Hare, which also received considerable media attention and happened already 11 years ago (and coincidentally, they happened pretty much exactly 2 years apart, especially if they were seeing those radar returns for a week or more). That one left me with a sentiment similar to that described here:

[Mark] Rodeghier: The whole 2006 thing was a travesty from the word go. The (Federal Aviation Administration) should have looked into it, but they just blew it off. I can't explain why there aren't any photos or videos of it. This is one of the mysteries around UFOs, but there's more than enough witness testimony. I'm convinced something was there, but you wind up with a mystery, though you certainly can't say it's alien because you don't have all the information. That's what's so important about the acknowledgment of this government program. We want to see the data and reports from this program released to the public if it's not a national security issue. If the program has been defunded, let's see what you did and what we got for $22 million.

'Something was there:' Chicago expert on O'Hare UFO, government program

Clearly this is a case that needs to be taken seriously and should be investigated properly, but I don't know if that has been done, and I don't think the media is doing it properly. So I'm trying to do it myself to the extent I can. It's not about trying to convince others in one way or another, but just to extract as much information as possible. And I think it is a bit of race against time in the sense that all this attention won't last long, so if there are issues that could be clarified or questions to be asked, now is the time to try to find someone who could answer or ask from those who could.

Since I don't expect we can get that much additional concrete evidence from this case (we can hope for better quality FLIR with a few extra seconds, possibly some gun camera footage, radar data probably stays off limits), it becomes a matter of who and which information you can trust. Based on all that I have seen so far, I think this event happened, the log and video are authentic, Fravor and Slaight are talking about it honestly, but they don't remember all the details correctly anymore. I haven't seen any indication of some wider conspiracy or anything like that, although obviously information is being withheld. I also don't think this is part of some organized campaign to release information (or disinformation, or some major disclosure some are hoping for), as after all, most of it has already leaked years ago in a rather uncontrolled manner. I also think cases like this might even be all the government/military has, and that we can't count on something better will come in the future, so I don't want this to become just another missed opportunity.

And no, I'm not saying it had to be aliens, but since I honestly don't have any better explanation for it that would be based on actual facts or arguments I could justify, I have to say that is a real possibility.

 

[Realm]

I think it's pretty likely, being that both pilots are not in the studio with the reporter, that they are unaware he is looking at the wrong video.

True, that can very well be the case. On the other hand, if that interview happened live, they could have seen that live on TV at the same time. But I don't know if that was the case there.

What I know though is that neither of those pilots took either video the media is now showing, and they know that the videos that have been shown everywhere don't show the actual encounter they had, and they (at least one of them) have expressed they don't like it being attributed to them. So even if they didn't see what was being shown, they knew it wasn't about the actual encounter like that reporter thought, so they could have corrected it anyway.

 

[Constance]

Thank you, @Realm, for this clear expression of your goals in the research you're doing on the available information concerning this case. I see now that it's important to do this in order to defend the case against shallow debunking, and that it's important to do this now while interest in the case is high and others involved might be persuaded to contribute what they know. I applaud your efforts and the diligence with which you are working out the details.

 

[Realm]

Thank you, @Realm, for this clear expression of your goals in the research you're doing on the available information concerning this case. I see now that it's important to do this in order to defend the case against shallow debunking, and that it's important to do this now while interest in the case is high and others involved might be persuaded to contribute what they know. I applaud your efforts and the diligence with which you are working out the details.

Thank you for your support.

I also want to point out, that I know there are plenty of details that are not that significant by themselves, but some might, and it is hard to spot those other than trying to go through them more or less systematically.

In my opinion the most important parts include:
- What was actually seen on the radar?
- What Fravor and others actually saw?
- Which of those reported features of that UFO are probably accurate and beyond the sort of technology we can expect some nation could have (in 2004)?

As an example of minor details that could be decisive in evaluating those important parts, the log states that "LAST VISUAL CONTACT HAD CAPSULE AT 14KFT HEADING DUE EAST", which would be roughly towards Camalú in Mexico, if the coordinates given in the log are correct (my guess is that they are), which makes them important as well. That in turn makes it relevant to ask where that CAP point was, because that would indicate if the object was heading towards that or away from it. If it wasn't heading towards it, is there basis for the assumption that the object they saw on radar at that CAP location soon after was actually the same one? Did they actually saw it on the radar while it was speeding there? I haven't seen anyone claiming they did. A Washington Post article actually states that "officials told him [Fravor] they had been tracking a couple dozen of these objects for a few weeks". So does that mean they actually saw multiple radar returns at the same time, or could all of those have been caused by a single object?

So hidden within those details is both the possibility of multiple objects as well as the possibility of one key feature, that insanely fast travel time, being based on unsupported assumptions.

What I would really like to see is at least one of those radar operators to come forward and give their view of the events.

 

[William Strathmann]

What I know though is that neither of those pilots took either video the media is now showing, and they know that the videos that have been shown everywhere don't show the actual encounter they had, and they (at least one of them) have expressed they don't like it being attributed to them. So even if they didn't see what was being shown, they knew it wasn't about the actual encounter like that reporter thought, so they could have corrected it anyway.

This ^^^, among other things, is why the vids are not applicable for the "tic-tac" encounter, which I think is credible. Then too, the evaluation of the vids over at Metabunk, while not authoritative, is answering some of the questions that struck me when I first viewed them. So, it seems to me that the vids may have been released by TTS simply as a kind of not-strictly-accurate "infotainment" that might hook the unknowing public to the print media stories. As far as the operations log that you are trying to decipher, you might use the contact info for this site and very politely ask if someone would help you decipher it.

 

[Realm]

So, it seems to me that the vids may have been released by TTS simply as a kind of not-strictly-accurate "infotainment" that might hook the unknowing public to the print media stories.

I don't really have too much confidence in the TTSA at the moment. It's great that they have managed to give visibility and credibility for this Nimitz event, but the fact of the matter is that almost everything we now have was already available before. As for the Gimbal video, we still have only the video and nothing else. So the amount of new information they have actually released to the public is very limited.

Their most significant contribution so far is that Nimitz report, which itself raises a number of questions. Like did they try to mislead the public to think it was some official document instead of what it apparently actually is, that is notes from a discussion they had with Slaight?

They have clearly tried to make it look professional and similar to what other organisations would do, but I still get the feeling that they aren't quite up to the task. It for example doesn't really protect their primary sources too well, if they actually tried to do that. They also seem to have messed up something with the given times for those events. Why do they for example state that they launched from Nimitz 1200 hours EST, if the event didn't happen on that timezone? And then they give the next time without timezone identifiers to confuse things even further.

And it doesn't really look like they pay enough attention to detail and do their homework if they put to their report things like: "U.S.S. Princeton Missile Cruiser, CVL-23 interrupted". CVL-23 was actually a carrier that sunk at WW II. This Princeton should be CG-59:

USS Princeton (CVL-23) - Wikipedia
USS Princeton (CG-59) - Wikipedia

Did they just hastily Google that code in hopes of making it look more professional or something?

They also mention "Source also drew a picture of the incident, See attachment". So why don't they show that? Wasn't their mission to give information to the public? That picture isn't classified or anything, right?

As far as the operations log that you are trying to decipher, you might use the contact info for this site and very politely ask if someone would help you decipher it.

Thanks for the pointer, I will take a look at that.

 

[Han]

you might use the contact info for this site and very politely ask if someone would help you decipher it.

Or even just tell you if it is legit or not.
Any discrepancies in format etc may be immediately obvious to them.

I have to say I find it odd that so much detail is given about event #3 as opposed to the other ones on the log?

Also it's provenance is everything, as a stand alone document it doesn't hold much weight imo.
It would be relatively easy for someone with understanding of how such things are written to create, and it has happened before in Ufology. (i.e MJ12 docs) ((which even Mr Friedman says are not all legit))

Another line of inquiry might be comparing declassified historical logs to this one.

 

[Han]

And it doesn't really look like they pay enough attention to detail and do their homework if they put to their report things like: "U.S.S. Princeton Missile Cruiser, CVL-23 interrupted". CVL-23 was actually a carrier that sunk at WW II. This Princeton should be CG-59:

*



Film Poster for this movie:

The Final Countdown (film) - Wikipedia

 

[Realm]

Or even just tell you if it is legit or not.
Any discrepancies in format etc may be immediately obvious to them.

There's a user with nick Willard856 at ATS, who seems to know something about those, and concludes: "I'd say at the least that it is based on a real air wing summary, such things by themselves not being classified in any way".
Fighter Jet UFO Footage: The Real Deal, page 10

I have to say I find it odd that so much detail is given about event #3 as opposed to the other ones on the log?

But then again that was the event that wasn't just business as usual... If only we had events 1 and 2 also, as that would probably show where those planes were before this event and clarify the given accounts.

Also it's provenance is everything, as a stand alone document it doesn't hold much weight imo.
It would be relatively easy for someone with understanding of how such things are written to create, and it has happened before in Ufology. (i.e MJ12 docs) ((which even Mr Friedman says are not all legit))

I think that log is authentic as pretty much every detail I have checked is consistent internally, matches to what is documented elsewhere about the movements of those ships and planes, and matches to the descriptions those pilots have now given. At the same time that log was leaked much earlier than any of the known accounts of those events, so if it was some sort of hoax, where would they get such information back then?

Another line of inquiry might be comparing declassified historical logs to this one.

Have you found any?

 

[Han]

Have you found any?

I haven't looked, but I have a feeling that a bit more info is needed about what you would be looking for.
As we don't know who the log was written by or intended for.

Google will give you billions of hits if you look for things like ships log or pilots log but if we had a 'rank' or 'position' e.g 'Captain of the Argo's log' it would narrow it down significantly.

 

[uforadio]

Dear colleagues.


New batch plus some leftovers:


2018-05-01-To The Stars Interview with Pilot David Fravor on the USS Nimitz UFO Incident

2017-12-19 - KQED News: Interview with Luis Elizondo / Audio + Article: "Secret Pentagon Program Spent Millions to Research UFOs"
Elizondo was asked again about “recovered UFO material”.
Audio Backup:
https://app.box.com/s/bt2p1k9akl3czr0kx82dm5xeb4wrl8wj
Audio Source:
Secret Pentagon Program Spent Millions to Research UFOs

2017-12-28 - 1011 Now: Dr. Kevin Lee, associate professor in the Department of Physics & Astronomy at the University of Nebraska comments Pentagon UFO Study

2017-12-18 - The San Diego Union Tribute: News Segment - Navy Pilot Describes 2004 Encounters with UFO off San Diego Coast

Article:
Navy pilot describes 2004 encounter with UFO off San Diego coast

Bonus video: Not related to current media wave but archived due to a request from a fellow archivist:
2017-03-31- C-Span: Class on UFO Theories by Professor Felix Harcourt from Emory University
Professor Felix Harcourt’s lecture about UFO theories and how they shaped America culture. He began in the late 1940s and described how public opinion about extraterrestrials changed over the course of the 20th century.

Best wishes.

 

[Realm]

2018-05-01-To The Stars Interview with Pilot David Fravor on the USS Nimitz UFO Incident

Well, that was interesting!

It confirmed and clarified some things, but also contradicted some of the existing information.

First of all, he specified the location of Nimitz at roughly at the same place (usually 60-70 miles southwest of San Diego, but said he didn't know exactly) as that log and FS article (about 100 miles southwest). He also said they had just left the carrier and were about to start the exercise, so that also supports the log that it happened soon after take off (though I wonder why Slaight was so worried about the fuel if they just took off to have an exercise, but of course there was now more distance to cover). It also clarified that the CAP was the meeting point where they waited for the other airplane to join and Princeton called just about when that happened.

He stated the cap was 40 miles to the south, which is pretty much exactly where I thought the log stated the UFO was supposed to be. But looking at the log again:

FAST EAGLES 110/100 UPON TAKE OFF WERE VECTORED BY PRINCETON AND BANGER (1410L) TO
INTERCEPT UNID CONTACT AT 160@40NM (N3050.8 W11746.9) (NIMITZ N3129.3 W11752.8).
PRINCETON INFORMED FAST EAGLES THAT THE CONTACT WAS MOVING AT 100 KTS @ 25KFT ASL.

Does that part in bold tell where the unidentified contact was, or where the planes were when they were vectored? Fravor's account indicates the latter, which would match the log nicely.

It also wouldn't make that much sense for the log to specify exact coordinates for the UFO as it states it's moving at 100kts.

Then he told the vector they got was 270 which means west, and he said both 270 and west multiple times, so he seemed pretty certain about that.

He also stated the object accelerated to south, whereas the log says east (which would mean right towards that CAP, where it was detected next).

It also clarified they told they had been tracking those after that encounter, so while he was still flying. He also indicated it he made the decision to head back to the CAP, which was 60 miles away, after which he was told the object was already there.

This account also matches nicely to that he has given to Washington Post:

An order came in for him to suspend the exercise and do some “real-world tasking,” about 60 miles west of their location, Fravor said. He said he was told by the command that there were some unidentified flying objects descending from 80,000 feet to 20,000 feet and disappearing; he said officials told him they had been tracking a couple dozen of these objects for a few weeks.

Former Navy pilot describes UFO encounter studied by secret Pentagon program

This interview is described in the TTSA site, which mostly contains the same information in a less precise way, but there's also this one sentence that I didn't see in the video:

An aircraft that launched just prior to Cdr Fravor’s aircraft landing aboard USS Nimitz managed to obtain video footage of the object.

Cdr Strike Fighter Squadron 41 Interview

That contradicts the FS article, which states:

Back on Nimitz after recovery, the four crew headed down to the paraloft to remove their gear. The next four crews from VFA-41 were getting dressed for their training mission to the same area, using the same assigned Lat/Longs as CAP points. Dave and his crewmembers passed on what they had seen to the new guys and reminded them to get tape if they could.

By the time the new crew launched, rendezvoused and checked in with the E-2 for control, it was early afternoon; 1500. The planes separated, with one heading to that same southern CAP location. They were cruising along at 20K and 300kts, max endurance. Again, the jet, radar and also, this time, the FLIR were spanking new and operating perfectly.

With this new understanding, the location given in the FS article is now even more off, but already seemed to be in error anyway:

The targets, dubbed Anomalous Aerial Vehicles (AAVs), would drop from above 80K to hover roughly 50 feet off the water in a matter of seconds.

Always over the same spot, a Lat/Long about 30NM off the coast of Baja, roughly 70nm southwest of Tijuana.
...
Princeton now wanted the E-2 to guide the Super Hornets to an intercept with the AAV contact, currently hovering over their favorite spot, but now about 20,000 feet over the ocean.

 

[TDSR]

I posted 12 days ago that the New York Times was working on an article about a US government study of UFOs.

That article is now online.

Glowing Auras and ‘Black Money’: The Pentagon’s Mysterious U.F.O. Program



Luis Elizondo and others associated with Tom DeLonge get mentioned, but not Tom DeLonge himself.

I wonder if this is due to some sort of split developing between Tom DeLonge himself and some of those around him.

Tom DeLonge's "Community of Interest" website is now online (with the first of the relevant "UAP" videos) at the link below:
GIMBAL VIDEO

For the video on that website, see:

The current state of the art in remote sensing (RS) capabilities is being overlooked for a possible connection with government-funded research of UAF, however, this would be a technology-driven to detect the phenomena rather than reverse engineer it. The video shows two examples of our RS capabilities to visualize spectral data not detected by the visual capabilities of humans. People take the technology we live with every day for granted, is the Russians threat really the only thing that advances technology? They are humans like us and are just as clunky as us....then why is technology so smooth? Sparks held in bark transported to the next temporary hunting camp to fiber optics.....dont think so, think more about the evidence in front of your nose...MJ12 docs...our grandfathers were good at keeping records, not perfect, but that was how business was conducted back then. Easy to deny=easy to subject to iterative human skepticism.......Gene happy to be a rep on the program to talk about remote sensing tech.

TDSR (The Deep Space Resident.....is YOU)

 

[Realm]

Here's a map that shows the locations of Nimitz, CAP and UFO according to the log and how I understood it above. It also shows roughly where the corner points of MISR-1E (Missile Range 1E) are, which was the training area they were originally heading:

Maps

The map unfortunately zooms in to one of those points, so you have to zoom it back first to see all those points.