The Nimitz story in the former OMF forum

a reply to: Jukiodone

Chill dude....I never said anything was wrong with metabunk's analysis.

I have already referred you to the ultimate source in regards to translating anything of relevance to neuroscience to the mainstream.... Elon Musk.... Neuralink.

a reply to: Guest101

Thanks for the reference Guest101. I will watch the video.

Just wanted to add this eyewitness account its similiar to TFT's and Dave Fravor for posterity sake.
Its also new testimony:

Well the folks in the bridge had the radars, I was part of a force protection team that manned up M2 .50 CAL gun mounts during emergencies. In the most vivid instance I can recall, they cleared the entire flight deck of non essentials and of course sent out attempts to observe and or intercept the damn thing. Honestly at the time I didn't even think the object as a UFO (even though it literally was). The ah-ha moment occurred after seeing the stuff about the Nimitz incident. I then also recognized the pilots involved. They are pretty well known in the USN community. The anecdotal stuff about how it moved was very similar to the Nimitz encounter. Anyways they description we were given was that it was of unknown origin and also unknown as to how it put itself in a position to teabag our boat. Our strike groups are set up generally to protect the carrier. It was hovering directly above when noticed, then apparently shot down to just above the flight deck then back up, and then would vanish. Totally nonsensical right? Unless you are trying to send a signal. As a side note, I apologize for vague details. I spent hundreds and hundreds of hours on watch on the .50 and I've and reported the status of thousands of surface and air contacts. They give you a range of optical scopes for day and night. I loved every bit of it. You learn how to be a keen, expert observer. Anyways, that whole thing took place out in the Persian Gulf between 2013-14 maybe? I was constantly deployed out there during that time. I am also semi reluctant to be too specific as I actually don't know the full story myself about the incident.

Link

originally posted by: beetee
I'll just add this link to a reddit post about the Nimitz incident by an alleged witness. Post made in 2014.

Nimitz encounter eyewitness on reddit

While the details are different from the post in the OP it fits well with the Fravor story.

Cheers,
BT

Fravor has publicly stated there are only 4 people in total who actually witnessed the tic tac. 2 are still active duty and will not go on record. So only he and his #2 have spoken about it.

Fravor said anyone else claiming to have actually witnessed the tic tac is not telling the truth.

a reply to: 1point92AU

How do we know Fravor is telling the truth?

a reply to: 1point92AU

its called controlling the narrative, all you have to do is look at who is sat either side of him...

a reply to: 1point92AU

If you read the actual eyewitness account he states, right at the top, that he personally did not see the craft with his own eyes.

I have no problem with Fravors account, but I do not think he is in a position to pass judgement on what other people have experienced.

The dude on reddit may, of course, be lying and making stuff up, but this post was back in 2014, well before the Nimitz encounter was mainstream.

Not before the FLIR video was shared with ATS, though, so there is that.

originally posted by: beetee
a reply to: 1point92AU

If you read the actual eyewitness account he states, right at the top, that he personally did not see the craft with his own eyes.

Are you saying Fravor said he personally did not see the craft with his own eyes?

That's not true. He gives a very detailed account of what he witnessed first hand.

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: 1point92AU

How do we know Fravor is telling the truth?

So in your one single sentence you discounted your OP. How do we know you are telling the truth?

One can never know what "truth" is. Truth is what the orator wants the listener / reader to believe.

I can identify various cues in a person's spoken and written words that tell me if they are attempting to deceive. Does that mean I will always and accurately detect an attempt to deceive? Absolutely not.

I don't know if Fravor is telling the truth. However, Fravor's words do not indicate an attempt to deceive. From that I can conclude Fravor is giving an accurate account of what he witnessed. Doesn't mean it was ET but that's not the question you asked me.

a reply to: beetee

According to this interview, he did see it...

originally posted by: pigsy2400
a reply to: 1point92AU

its called controlling the narrative, all you have to do is look at who is sat either side of him...

Fravor has been telling the same event since 2007. That's 10 years before he ever met Jeremy or George.

a reply to: 1point92AU

No, i was referring to the reddit witness I presented in the post you replied to. That witness does not claim to have seen any craft.

a reply to: Diaspar

Yes. Fravors claim is not in doubt.

See post above.

a reply to: 1point92AU

So in your one single sentence you discounted your OP. How do we know you are telling the truth?

It was more a rhetorical question.

I didn't author the OP. Elevenaugust did. What are you on about?

originally posted by: beetee
a reply to: Diaspar

Yes. Fravors claim is not in doubt.

See post above.

Yes, sorry about that

I was butting into a conversion that wasn't mine to butt into

And now, if you'll excuse me, i'll butt out...!!

originally posted by: beetee
a reply to: 1point92AU

No, i was referring to the reddit witness I presented in the post you replied to. That witness does not claim to have seen any craft.

Ok. Thanks for clarifying.

Interesting if proven true... :

Rich Hoffman (SCU):


Source

twenty pages of useless banter.

"My personal belief is that it was a military project. I believe they were attempted to test its stealth/evasive capabilities by testing the strike group. We had 3 aircraft carriers in an unusually large exercise which would have provided a pretty good testing ground for such technology. That is just my opinion!"

Your opinion was/is correct. The contractors were on the carrier to gather the data prior to the test. Captain and possibly two others were briefed. The disclosed patents are on the internet but complex nuts and bolts are not. The physics that makes the planetary gravitational effects nullified (people don't like the term anti-gravity but that's exactly what it is - aerodynamics have nothing to do with how the tic-tac operates) is not taught in our schools but should be and will start becoming civilian purview.

Anybody want to guess what the power sources are, TT Brown, Tesla, 115? This is a key.

The bottom line is the craft is OURS. The ridiculous banter about pranks, unreliable observations, quantum time and space displacement - well, that's actually correct as the generator produces a field of local space-time - is just that.

The nuts and bolts of how its made, the involvement of Nazis, ETs, which particular contractor was involved, etc that for the super sleuths which waste 20 pages of my time to figure out. Why is there no discussion of Navy Scientist Sal on this forum?

a reply to: play4keeps

Not really the revelation you think but I can understand why if you've skimmed the surface. Was covered without the unnecessary mystery theatre by Kelly Pretty Bear.

a reply to: elevenaugust


Hi,

I'm looking into drone incursions and came across your old post below where you mentioned the 2007 California Drone Saga.

I'm having trouble finding any info on that 2007 California Drone Saga. Can you point me to where I can find more about what occurred back then?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thanks