JUST RELEASED: SCU's, Detailed, 270 Page, Forensic Analysis Of The Tic Tac Sighting

I'm not sure how many on ATS have seen this forensic analysis report of the Navy Carrier Strike Group Eleven’s encounter with a AAV (anomalous aerial vehicle). SCU stands for Scientific Coalition of Ufology and this study is a peer reviewed scientific report, complete with highly detailed appendices, formulas and calculations, letters from NORAD and the DOD, lists of witnesses, as well as an extensive collection of detailed references, data and documentation. This includes the Nimitz's and Chafee's detailed, deck log sheets, as well as an "Event Summary" that was posted on ATS:

An Event Summary of the 2004 event was posted on the site AboveTopSecret by an anonymous source under the pseudonym “Cometa2”. The individual that posted the documented indicated that they were not the owner but it had been made available on their German site known as Vision Unlimited and that they were posting it based on permission from another anonymous source under the pseudonym “Final Theory”.

This CVW-11 Event Summary appears to be an actual Navy event summary. A copy of it was provided various Navy organizations as part of the FOIA requests. There was never a reply that this was not a Navy document. It has a lot of information that matches what has been stated by witnesses and that is contained in other documents.

I admit, that it's a long report and sometimes challenging to read, but this should be regarded as the most extensive and foremost reference material ever written, concerning the Nimitz encounter. People interested in this case should read and study this report, which hopefully will spark more discussion and debate, as well as convince those on the fence, that this was indeed an encounter with vehicles that possessed technology not from Earth.

While not precise, it shows that the “Tic-Tac” due to it's size, estimated distance and lack of aerodynamic details in the ATFLIR image and by calculating it's average velocity and acceleration, along with the power requirements to perform these maneuvers, it cannot be any known type of aircraft using current technology.

The final conclusion is that the “Tic-Tac” cannot be another F/A- 18 due to the lack of identifiable wing's and air-frame characteristics, further since during the 2004 Nimitz aerial exercise the only planes in the area were F/A-18s and an E2 radar plane and neither of these could produce the results seen. This is an unidentified object with characteristics that are beyond our current understanding

*****all content can be found at the LINK below*****

For those who are interested in this case and have some free time, I highly recommend you read this analysis report, found at this LINK.

a reply to: shawmanfromny
I am not sure how they can calculate power required of the tic tac to perform the manuevers when they have no idea what it weighed.

a reply to: butcherguy

Well, if you bothered skimming through the detailed report, you would've found your answer. SMH.

a reply to: shawmanfromny
Oh, thank you.
In other words, they were making a guess.
Since they have zero clue what the tic tac weighed.

Thats what ATS is about!Thanks Shawn

will read thoroughly through this,looks mighty interesting

Excellent post.
And yes, to those saying they are guessing due to the unknown weight of the tic tac,
Sure they are guessing, but they are using assumptions based on today’s scientific understanding. And as they said, they were being conservative while taking into consideration fuel weight, aerodynamics, calculations of velocity based on the the f-18s speed...
it’s not some kids 8th grade science report.
These dudes know wtf they are talking about. It’s their job.

2000 lb is not much. Doesn't seem like a reasonable estimate to use. Maybe they are thinking inside the box.

Unless they know something based on past sightings.

originally posted by: Macenroe82
Excellent post.
And yes, to those saying they are guessing due to the unknown weight of the tic tac,
Sure they are guessing, but they are using assumptions based on today’s scientific understanding. And as they said, they were being conservative while taking into consideration fuel weight, aerodynamics, calculations of velocity based on the the f-18s speed...
it’s not some kids 8th grade science report.
These dudes know wtf they are talking about. It’s their job.

That would be me.
They have no idea what it was. They admit it.
As far as we know, humans have no a/c that can perform maneuvers like this thing did.

I am not saying that they are clueless about doing calculations.
I simply put it out there that they have no idea what the thing weighed and because of that can not put an accurate number on power needed for the maneuvers.

a reply to: shawmanfromny

i'm pretty sure its either a drone (maybe chinese) or another secret aircraft. there is something strange on this kind of sightings. if the us military knows there is some superduper-unknown aircrafts with better performance then their own technology, they would sent a hundred f18s or whatever to take a closer look. in the tic-tac case nothing happened, only blablabla.

a reply to: oloufo

the drone idea might explain the weight estimate used but the movement performed tends to go against it.

If it was an ET craft then all the standard rules and physical attributes might not apply.

a reply to: shawmanfromny

Silly nonsense.

Where is the data(video/radar) showing that the object moved thousands of feet in seconds?

All I see are claims. And calculations based on claims.

a reply to: moebius

Moebius = Moron by half.

the numbers are accurate but the full video with the high G and velocity acceleration and deceleration is being held by DOD>

The issue is figuring out if it is ours or theirs.

Ralph Ring Q&A

a reply to: Macenroe82

Aw, c'mon, let us give a little credit to all the ATS skeptics, who apparently have as much knowledge and put in as much effort, as this group of "scientists, former military officers, and law enforcement personnel," who contributed and produced this highly detailed report:

The Scientific Coalition for Ufology (SCU) endorses the scientific study of the UFO phenomenon and believes that all information regarding unidentified aerial objects should be released so that it can be properly analyzed by the scientific community. The recent revelation by The New York Times that the Department of Defense has been investigating unidentified aerial phenomena, commonly referred to as UFOs, since 2007 demonstrates that despite official U.S. government statements to the contrary, the UFO phenomenon is considered a serious topic. The SCU supports public disclosure of research into the UFO phenomenon, and supports an academic study of the phenomenon. A case examined by the DoD produced video from a F-18 Super Hornet that was part of the USS Nimitz carrier group. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to the Navy by an SCU member on this very incident have been met with statements of denial. The release of this video is proof that the government has withheld information on the incident. It is time to turn the information over to the scientific community.

The SCU is a research organization comprised largely of scientists, former military officers, and law enforcement personnel with technical experience and backgrounds in investigation. The SCU is currently examining the material released by the Advanced Aviation Threat Identification Program (within the Dept of Defense as identified in media reports) with the objective to either identify the unknown objects, or add information as to the characteristics of these objects. Material regarding unidentified objects from military outlets is very rare in recent years. The SCU has experience with similar infrared video in an exhaustive investigation conducted on a case in Puerto Rico. The resources and knowledge gained in that investigation will be brought to bear in this examination and the results will be shared with the public.

The following SCU affiliates have endorsed the above statement:

Ms. Lakita Adams, BA English

Mr. Morgan Beall, BS Earth Science

Dr. Timothy Brigham, Ph.D Psychology

Mr. Simon Brookes, Bsc Soil Science

Dr. Thomas E. Bullard, Ph.D Folklore

Mr. Larry Cates, BS Mathematics

Mr. James E Clarkson, Police Detective Sergeant (RET)

Mr. Keith Conroy, BS Electrical Engineering

Mr. Marc D’Antonio, BS Astronomy

Mr. Daniel Erickson, US Army Major (RET)

Dr. Erol Faruk, Ph.D Chemistry

Mr. Clint P. Garrison MBA/MSc Information Technology

Mr. Richard Hoffman, Senior Systems Analyst, US Army

Mr. Ralph Howard, MS Geology

Mr. Doug Kimzey, BSEE Software Engineer

Dr. Paul Kingsbury, Ph.D Geography

Mr. Charles Lamoureux, RN, Manager

Mr. Thomas McNear, Army Intelligence Officer

Mr. Carl Paulson, BS Physics, Tokamak Reactor Design

Mr. Robert Powell, BS Chemistry

Mr. Kevin D Randle, Lt Col USAR (RET)

Mr. Peter Reali, MS Electrical Engineering

Dr. S. Peter Resta, Ph.D Human Development

Dr. Mark Rodeghier, Ph.D Sociology

Mr. Alejandro Rojas, BA Organizational Psychology

Mr. Chris Rutkowski, science educator

Dr. Michael Swords, Ph.D History of Science & Technology

Mr. Tim Thompson, US Navy Captain (RET)

Dr. Gregory Vasquez, Ph.D Chemistry

Mr. William W Walker, Health Physicist-radiation

www.explorescu.org...

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Macenroe82
Excellent post.
And yes, to those saying they are guessing due to the unknown weight of the tic tac,
Sure they are guessing, but they are using assumptions based on today’s scientific understanding. And as they said, they were being conservative while taking into consideration fuel weight, aerodynamics, calculations of velocity based on the the f-18s speed...
it’s not some kids 8th grade science report.
These dudes know wtf they are talking about. It’s their job.

That would be me.
They have no idea what it was. They admit it.
As far as we know, humans have no a/c that can perform maneuvers like this thing did.

I am not saying that they are clueless about doing calculations.
I simply put it out there that they have no idea what the thing weighed and because of that can not put an accurate number on power needed for the maneuvers.

The power to weight requirement is redundant anyway, you simply can't move anything we know of, with the velocities reported, in atmospheric flight.

So basically they took 270 pages to say they don't know what it was.

A telling summary I thought. It leaves open the possibility the visitor may not have been from our world.

originally posted by: shawmanfromny

While not precise, it shows that the “Tic-Tac” due to it's size, estimated distance and lack of aerodynamic details in the ATFLIR image and by calculating it's average velocity and acceleration, along with the power requirements to perform these maneuvers, it cannot be any known type of aircraft using current technology.

The authors seem confused. Fravor clearly said he did not take images of the Tic Tac UFO he saw.

There is some imagery taken by other pilots but Fravor admits it may not be the same thing as what he saw.

I'm completely disgusted by the way nearly everybody seems to commingle these two things when in fact Fravor admits they may be completely unrelated and different things, but at least some people recognize the difference like this source:

parabunk.blogspot.com...

LT [blanked] 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.

So even though the pilots could identify the target being similar in shape (from their higher quality original tape), there's no guarantee it really was the same target. And the crew that filmed it was predisposed to interpret such target as the Tic Tac they were looking for.

The object on FLIR did not demonstrate any of the amazing capabilities Fravor described either and I see no reason to assume it was the same object.

Fravor said he had a camera ready to go and capture imagery of the Tic Tac UFO he saw, but he simply didn't turn it on. Apparently it didn't occur to him to do so.

a reply to: Jonjonj

Agreed.

a reply to: shawmanfromny

No need to go so far overboard, is there?
My only claim is that they have no idea what the thing weighs, so any calculations of power required for maneuvers that were made is a guess.
What kind of skeptic am I?
I am of two thoughts on this matter:
- What was observed was a human controlled drone made by some country that has an unbelievable lead over any known country in aerodynamics...
or
-Aliens.

a reply to: shawmanfromny

Ya, your right.

Heck, I bet a couple of the people on that list even got a few pointers from some of the skeptics here. Or at the very least consulted one of them to verify their findings.