Experimental rockets are an unlikely explanation perhaps, but a lot more plausible than aliens I think.
The aliens thing should be isolated after all possible explanations have been removed otherwise it detracts from people wanting to follow it critically if the presupposition is already made that it "must be aliens". The avenue of implications is narrowed as a result if it is already presupposed to be ET's rather than just allowing people to follow the data and seeing where it leads. News channels being what they are can't help themselves making or ending their reporting with some hugely funny quip about aliens. On that point,
where is the data from the AATIP? If this is to be anything more than TTSA trying to generate a new genre of fiction by stirring the believe camp (which is what their very first broadcast back in October tried to convey and have you buy into) then that's as equally important as the missing chain-of-custody docs to verify the footage (Gimbal aside- Nimitz case is strongest of the two). Right now it's almost as if there's a ton of believers dispensing with rational enquiry, because: faith. I can't get with that. More on the missile idea below.
If the location and time can't be released, how was anyone able to request it in the first place? Etc., etc.
Chain-of-custody documentation, anybody. I'd like to know where Gimbal came from because if Nimitz pre-dates TTSA (which the article from FighterSweep c.2015 suggests) then that's half of an argument that TTSA don't have some sort of special leverage or atypical relationship with the DoD. It's not consistent with TTSA's business model which seems to be about bringing classified information through the declassification process for public consumption to build new tech, patents, and so on. Actually, I need somebody to explain the TTSA business model again, but it seems like a huge red flag selling the idea of investing in a public interest company to people when it potentially can't event get its hands on new, really never before seen material, to stir that first interest and get people buying-in for that reason, again rather than faith of disclosure.
'[GIMBAL] comes with essential chain-of-custody documentation validating that it is received in its original and unaltered form and is authentic. The US Department of Defense uses this process in order to meticulously ensure that information and material retain their integrity without revealing sources and methods. This documentation [embelishment truncated] [establishes] its authenticity [embelishment truncated]... With the chain-of-custody documentation, GIMBAL can officially be designated as credible, authentic "evidence" of a UAP.'
https://coi.tothestarsacademy.com/gimbal/
"...[NIMITZ] comes with crucial chain-of-custody (CoC) documentation because it is a product of US military sensors, which confirms it is original, unaltered, and not computer generated or artificially fabricated. While there have been leaked versions on the internet, the CoC establishes the authenticity and credibility that this version is the original footage [embelishment truncated]... With the chain-of-custody documentation, FLIR1 shows credible evidence..."
https://coi.tothestarsacademy.com/2004-nimitz-flir1-video/
It's so incredibly sloppy that it is not provided along with the footage at the time of release. How long has it been now? Weeks. And by the way,
what standard does the DoD follow re chain-of-custody documentation? For legal purposes it would be a set process following specific rules. If the community know what that process is it could drive better questions specifically regarding the issue.
I've tried to Google terms such as 'dod "chain-of-custody" or coc +procedure' but to no avail. I was hoping for a PDF of a manual describing the process...
He also says that thing was stopping, moving fast, zigzaging.... a visual lock on it? i don't think so. He just interpreted all the data thrown together (radar, ATFLIR, visual) to fit a pattern that cannot be made.
I currently think the most likely explanation is an experimental cruise missile with the ability to hover... We know that the technology for rockets to hover has existed in some form since at least the mid 90's with the DC-X initiative. The big assumption that would have to be made for this theory is that the military had at the time the ability to relaunch from a hover, but perhaps this would be easier to do with something intended to be a cruise missile rather than a reusable rocket.
It's interesting that he says in the Fox interview; that he first believed it might have be a submarine missile launch. That sounds like it could explain a large part of their story.
...their superiors didn't find the story interesting enough to investigate further. Why wouldn't they? I mean even if they didn't think it was aliens, what if it was a foreign sub? Maybe they found out from their superiors that what the pilots had seen was a US sub testing some new classified rocket system? Could explain the high acceleration and speeds and radar observations of objects moving up and down from space.
@marrowmonkey I didn't read anything that the Nimitz object ascended and descended to and from orbit. That said, I don't disagree that this could be the case for the Gimbal clip, but
@LucM and
@marrowmonkey I don't buy the idea of missile test or a missile of sorts for Nimitz simply based on Fravor's recounting of the event. It doesn't seem plausible
@LucM that Fravor misinterpreted all the data he had coming in from his cock-pit systems, since he described himself as having been within half-mile of the object and able to see it with his
eyes. You'd expect military pilots train regularly to exceed the standards they anticipate to see in actual combat and their INT keeps them up-to-date with enemy inventory. Well, you'd not order your military (if you were leadership) to train for combat against 1960's technology would you, in any capacity, and neither would you respect your leadership for ordering you to do so or putting you in something from the '60's. If you can agree with that, contrast it with Fravor's words that he'd: "never seen anything in [his] life that had the performance, the acceleration [of the UFO]... [and it didn't have] wings". He'd ruled out a helicopter since there was no rotor wash. Doesn't that seem odd given his background (he says 16 years of service and >3500 hours of flying)? It's unusual to me.
Also, what missiles are you aware of that fall within 12-13 meters (40ft) in height? He states it was: "...a white 40ft long tic-tac shaped object just hovering above the water going forward, back, left, right [with] no rotor wash, no wings, nothing." If it's a missile then it doesn't seem to know where its heading. That's odd. A cursory look at some
SAMs shows they're short in height and
AAMs are no bigger than SAMs since they're to fit on a wing. Cruise missiles... the tallest (again, cursory review) I can find is an out-of-service design of 10m:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cruise_missiles (though I don't discount that there could be something in current inventory of some country much larger but it certainly wouldn't be AAM or SAM). Any bigger than a cruise missile and it seems that we would be entering the domain of sub-orbital rockets like ICBMs which need multiple stages to get the distance, right? About that too: Fravor describes the object hugging the water until his approach and lacking any exhaust signature despite also mirroring his flight pattern in response to his approach which indicates intelligent control of the object at least. Aren't those two attributes incompatible with a missile of any kind? I.e. Rocket engine = exhaust + fire and forget = limited control once fired, yet this thing was moving in multiple directions, hovering, and mirroring Fravor. It doesn't add up does it.
"So as we drive around in a clockwise flow we get to about the nine 'o'clock position and I said 'well I'm going to go down and check it out and the other jet is going to stay high.' So when we get down as we get to the twelve 'o'clock position it starts to mirror us so it starts on a clockwise flow and it's on the opposite side of the circle from us and we continue this. It's in a climb, we're in a descent [and] we're getting a great look at it. This whole things takes about five minutes from about the time we show up. I get to about the eight 'o'clock position [and] it's in about the two 'o'clock position and I decide that I'm going to go and see what it is and it's about 2,000ft below me and I cut across the circle and as I get within about a half-mile of it [the object] rapidly accelerates to the south in about two seconds and disappears."
Fravor
Fravor describes the object's acceleration from a dead stop reaching supersonic in under 2 seconds. 768mph = mach 1. Does that sound like any missile of any type that had previously mirrored his flight pattern to avoid his approach?