Flying Saucers AND Tic Tacs were at the Nimitz engagement

Its actually E2C (not EZC), more preciously named the Northrop Grumman Hawkeye E-2 and the C variant, so E-2C and its a carrier capable Airborne Early Warning (AEW) aircraft ... you'll most likely have seen it as its overwing turboprop with a large radar on top.
Hope this helps

originally posted by: igcairns
Its actually E2C (not EZC), more preciously named the Northrop Grumman Hawkeye E-2 and the C variant, so E-2C and its a carrier capable Airborne Early Warning (AEW) aircraft ... you'll most likely have seen it as its overwing turboprop with a large radar on top.
Hope this helps

Thanks for the clarification, that's the one, and your E-2C is more correct than the way I wrote it without the dash.

For further clarification, here is an article about an E-2 crew member who refused to talk about it, allegedly saying he was required to sign an NDA and "it never happened", but then why can Fravor talk about it freely and didn't have to sign any NDA?

USS Nimitz Technician Allegedly Forced To Sign NDA After Witnessing Tic-Tac UFO From Navy Spy Plane

Dave Beaty, who directed the documentary The Nimitz Encounters, said he interviewed a U.S. Navy member who was an in-flight Navy technician aboard the E-2 Hawkeye providing support to the two F/A-18 Super Hornets investigating the strange aircraft in the Pacific Ocean.

Appearing on The Hidden Truth Show, Beaty said he spoke to an anonymous military member of the Nimitz Carrier Strike Group. “The gentlemen I spoke to, I checked his background, and he did fly in the Hawkeye,” Beaty said.

“The reason he didn’t want to come forward was because according to him, he had to sign a document right after the incident and said he wouldn’t talk about it,” Beaty said of the man’s anonymity. “Even going out on a limb and even mentioning it to me was sketchy for him. He didn’t want his name used.”

“He literally said, ‘That’s all I have to say about it, please don’t contact me again about it.'”

So this story was circulating about the NDA signed by E-2C crew, and Chris Mellon did an interview on some media platform, and was asked specifically about this, and Mellon specifically denied that the E-2C crew was made to sign NDAs, essentially implying this story is not true, and of course it does say "Allegedly" in the title.

I really don't know how true this allegation is but if what Chris Mellon said was true then I would think the E-2C crew could talk about it like Fravor is doing. But I can speculate on reasons why the E-2C crew may know more than Fravor (their aircraft has more sensitive sensors collecting a broader array of information), so maybe the allegation is true...I really don't know and this is as I said one of the most interesting mysteries to me that we get conflicting information about.

My gut feel is that I don't really trust anything Chris Mellon says...he also said the Tic-Tac in Underwood's video couldn't be an airplane because we would be able to see the wings, but we've seen "tic-tac" shapes exactly like that on other infrared videos which were ordinary jets where the wings were not visible if it was far enough away. So I can prove Chris Mellon is either lying or grossly incompetent regarding that specific claim about seeing the wings on a "tic-tac" IR shape.

The E-2C data might even shed some light on the topic of this thread regarding the disc and/or tic-tac aspect. Fravor couldn't pick it up on his radar, but maybe the E-2C radar could have picked it up, or other sensors on the E-2.

Here’s a first person accounts of operations by crew members and their Q&A….

For what it’s worth……I’m leaning to plain clothes USAF folks confiscating hard drives and forcing NDA’s…..but as time goes on….that could change.

Perhaps another perspective
Witness: Air Force Confiscated Hard Drives Related To Tic Tac UFO

A lengthy read without advertising congestion.

👽🛸🍺

a reply to: Ophiuchus1
Thanks for the link. That was an interesting read, but it's still a bit puzzling because it sounds like the man signed an NDA despite some claims that nobody signed NDAs. But then if he did sign an NDA how is he talking about it? It doesn't say he was released from the NDA. This is from your link:

We made our way to a secure area on the ship where the events were discussed individually, then we were told “it did not happen” and asked to sign NDAs. Then escorted back to our ready room to drop our gear where, for the first time, we were not allowed to discuss mission ops, safeties, or any post flight call-outs.”

As you recall in the start of this article, all previous reports from the air crews and sailors have indicated no one was ever asked to sign anything or told not to talk. So, I’ll leave the above statement for you to interpret.

So I still don't know what happened. Is Chris Mellon right in saying that nobody signed NDAs? Or is the person interviewed right that he did sign an NDA and told "it did not happen" and if he did sign an NDA why is he talking about it and saying it did happen?

The other conflict in accounts is also mentioned in that story. David Fravor suggested that the stories about people confiscating things are made up, but it doesn't sound made up. So who are we to believe? David Fravor who says nothing was confiscated and he wasn't even debriefed? Or the people who say things were confiscated?

It’s been widely reported that the fighter pilots who have come forward, such as Cdr. David Fravor and Cdr. Jim Slaight, were not aware of any post-event debrief or interest in the Tic Tac intercept event from higher command, other than joking, and giving them a lot of ribbing and UFO-themed grief. U.S. Gov “suits” or guys in Air Force uniforms arriving to confiscate evidence and flight crews told not to talk, and made to sign NDAs? Didn’t happen. Or did it?

So was evidence confiscated, or wasn't it? I don't know which story to believe but those parties telling the conflicting stories have practically called each other liars.

Which brings us to this story about "Flying Saucers AND Tic Tacs" this thread is about, seems like it's just one more conflicting version of events, as if we didn't have enough conflicting versions of events already. I still don't know who to believe, but believing everybody is impossible when they contradict each other.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I found the contradictioning confusing,…myself. Your right….whom is to be believed?

I wonder what are the limits to an NDA….are they all …..until you die….or is there an expiration time frame and then, one could sing like a canary?

Who is this pseudo “Roger”? What’s his real name?

Hmmmm

I came across this possibility, from another article…(not of who “Roger” might be)

…..”In The Nimitz Encounters documentary, Hughes said a friend and aircrew member on one of the E-2 Hawkeye aircraft told him he had to sign an NDA about the incident. Since the E-2 planes would have been in Carrier Wing Nine’s Airborne-Early Warning Squadron VAW-117 (“The Wallbangers”), and not strike fighter squadron under Fravor’s command, the possibility exists that the E-2’s squadron commander could have issued an NDA to their crew without Fravor’s knowledge. However, Popular Mechanics has not verified what Hughes was told. None of the witnesses we spoke with claimed they had signed an NDA.

I guess, if one could track down the E-2’s Squadron Commander……then he would know if NDA’s were issued to members of his own Squadron. If anything, his members would have told him, him being their commander, if they were told by some other authority to sign them.

So who’s the E-2 Squadron Commander of the VAW-117 Wallbangers during the timeframe??

👽🛸🍺

PJ Hughes implied he was already under an NDA before his encounter due to some tests a contractor was doing on a "new toy" deployed on the Hawkeye.

These type of live test aircraft likely have a dozen or so proprietary NDA worthy technologies with separate IP owners at any one time- NDA's for these crews (or indeed anyone involved in Alpha/closed Beta testing of high investment cost tech.) are likely to be commonplace.

In PJ Hughes case....he cant talk about what he saw on his new toy because he is NDA'd on capability/purpose of the sensor employed- not because he saw something classified.

People sign NDA's without reading them properly so confusion about purpose/intent is likely to be rife.
Unless researchers can see the NDA the alleged witness signed (NOPE!)- it will be hard to determine whether they are supposed to be protecting UAP's, a software update or a specialised spanner.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

In the case of "Flying Saucers AND Tic Tacs were at the Nimitz engagement", the topic of this thread you mean?

Does it matter? Instead of analyzing the NPC's in a simulation, nowadays i prefer to analyze the mechanism/code of the simulation itself.
Sometimes taking a few steps back helps!