Nimitz Timeline Revisited

[fat_earther_]

Hello,


Source: https://youtu.be/BG4yxQm51JM?si=n-qxFpRPeejka4LG


I recently made a simple animation (top down, over head map) trying to get a better visualization of the Nimitz incident. I was wondering if Sitrec or some other model could be used to more accurately scale the geometry and timing of the events? There would need to be some adjustable sliders controlling some variables to account for the variances in testimony, general memory error, and overall assumptions required, but I think this should be able to help more accurately position the radar contacts at the time of Underwood's intercept for example.

Has anything like this been done already?

This was my first attempt at an animation. It is a little generic and I learned a lot, but I also realize someone here at metabunk could probably do a better/ more realistic job. We have quite a bit of information to work with from the BAASS report and all the interviews over the years to input into a model. One thing I have been doing is creating interview libraries, dumping every related youtube interview transcript into chatgpt and creating sort of a super data base to post questions to and pull timestamps out of interviews.

I really think this could shine some light on a lot of debated aspects of the event.

 

[Mick West]

I was wondering if Sitrec or some other model could be used to more accurately scale the geometry and timing of the events?

I could create a Nimitz scenario generator from the verbal accounts. This might be a good test for the AI integration I've been working on.

 

[fat_earther_]

I could create a Nimitz scenario generator from the verbal accounts. This might be a good test for the AI integration I've been working on.

Here is a list of assumptions I have gathered to start with. They are from a number of interviews that I don't have links for, but that's why I thought having some of the more debate-able "facts" of the case as adjustable variables.

*Nimitz: halfway between San Diego and Ensenada Mexico, about 65 miles off the coast

*Princeton positioned 5-10 miles from Nimitz (direction unknown)

*Radar contacts travel from east of Catalina Island south to 60 miles north of Guadalupe at 100 knots/ 28K ft

*Radar contacts pass east of Princeton, between Princeton and mainland

*Radar contacts in group of 5 -10, spacing 5 -10 miles

*Blue air CAP point: 40 miles south of Nimitz

*Red air CAP point: 100 miles south of Nimitz

*Kurth launched 1030, vectored to contact 30 minutes into flight (before Fravor) and saw whitewater

*Fravor and Dietrich vectored West 260°~270° towards closest contact shortly after take off.

*Intercept was 60 miles west of Blue CAP point.

*During intercept, One of the group of radar contacts flashed over to blue cap, then back to group

*Underwood sent to same contacts drifting south shortly after Fravor landed back at carrier (20 minutes to 45 minutes after Fravor landed)

*Underwood first had radar contacts 30 to 40 miles south of his aircraft.

*Fravor stated the average speed of jets flying around was ~300 knots

 

[Eburacum]

This is the strangest part to me

*During intercept, One of the group of radar contacts flashed over to blue cap, then back to group

*Underwood sent to same contacts drifting south shortly after Fravor landed back at carrier (20 minutes to 45 minutes after Fravor landed)

*Underwood first had radar contacts 30 to 40 miles south of his aircraft.

Underwood was sent to these contacts a fairly short time after the earlier events. When he got to the location there was nothing there, but he then found a radar contact 30 to 40 miles away. A contact which he never saw visually, but which appeared as a small oblong blob in the FLIR.

Why did he think this distant contact had anything to do with the earlier sightings?

 

[JMartJr]

If, as I suspect, some/all of the radar targets are spurious "angels," I am not sure what can be learned by recreating them on Sitrec or by other means I'm not opposed to the effort being made by any means -- but I'd caution all interested parties that a spurious radar contact at Point A, and another contact at Point B can look like some target object moved between those two points, when in fact no such thing happened.

 

[Ann K]

If, as I suspect, some/all of thee radar targets are spurious "angles," I am not sure what can be learned by recreating them on Sitrec or by other means I'm not opposed to the effort being made by any means -- but I'd caution all interested parties that a spurious radar contact at Point A, and another contact at Point B can look like some target object moved between those two points, when in fact no such thing happened.

Angular angels?

 

[JMartJr]

Angular angels?

Thanks, fixed!

 

[FDSaussure]

If, as I suspect, some/all of the radar targets are spurious "angels," I am not sure what can be learned by recreating them on Sitrec or by other means I'm not opposed to the effort being made by any means -- but I'd caution all interested parties that a spurious radar contact at Point A, and another contact at Point B can look like some target object moved between those two points, when in fact no such thing happened.

How do you reconcile the claim that these grouped radar contacts had been observed several days in a row with it being spurious "angels"? Has there been research on what spurious radar contacts look like for the systems involved?

 

[John J.]

How do you reconcile the claim that these grouped radar contacts had been observed several days in a row with it being spurious "angels"? Has there been research on what spurious radar contacts look like for the systems involved?

Supposition really, but maybe a software issue with digital filters, or some issue with integration of data across platforms, who knows.
A radar system with a problem might be prone to repeatedly giving dodgy returns because of the same underlying cause.

Radars do sometimes give false or ambiguous returns, and complex systems can sometimes fail or have sub-optimal performance.
Maybe that's why some radar logs were transferred to the mainland.

 

[Todd Feinman]

Angular angels?

FWIW, angels of the angles exist —in the Enochian system of magic:

"Further intricacies emerge within the Elemental Tablets, which are divided into four sub-quadrants or sub-angles. These contain the names of archangels and angels responsible for overseeing specific quarters of the world, effectively populating the universe, both seen and unseen, with intelligent spiritual beings."

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enochian_magic

 

[JMartJr]

How do you reconcile the claim that these grouped radar contacts had been observed several days in a row with it being spurious "angels"?

If conditions conducive to creating false targets were in the system or in the atmosphere or both, and were persistent over several days, why would false targets NOT persist over several days?

Has there been research on what spurious radar contacts look like for the systems involved?

Given that they are military systems, I would be surprised if such research was not done, and I'd be VERY surprised if it were released to the public.

 

[Eburacum]

They were also relatively new radar systems (brand new AN/SPY-1B passive radar according to Popular Mechanics), so it is likely that the bugs had not all been ironed out yet. Seeing spurious returns over a series of days on a brand new system is more likely than a recurring flight of UFOs.

Another factor is that the recurring (probably spurious) returns showed apparent objects descending from 80,000 feet to sea level in a second or so; this behaviour was not seen by any witness visually or recorded by the FLIR cameras.

 

[JMartJr]

Another factor is that the recurring (probably spurious) returns showed apparent objects descending from 80,000 feet to sea level in a second or so; this behaviour was not seen by any witness visually or recorded by the FLIR cameras.

Nor were the fairly noticeable effects this would have on the surrounding atmosphere noticed, apparently.

80,000 feet in 2 seconds would be about 54,500 mph -- for comparison:

The Chelyabinsk meteor ... was a superbolide that entered Earth's atmosphere over the southern Ural region in Russia on 15 February 2013 ... with a speed relative to Earth of about 19.2 km/s (68,980 km/h; 42,860 mph).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelyabinsk_meteor

Here is what THAT did...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelyabinsk_meteor

Here's what it looked like:

(I'd expect a spaceship might not leave the smoke trail, unless it was using some sort of ablative heat shield or something, it would not be shedding material like the meteor did. But the air compressed to plasma, the bright glowing bit, would be there because whatever high tech your UFO has, the air is just good old Air 1.0 and will do what air does when compressed by something moving through it at these speeds...)

Seems like this sort of thing would have made its way into the story...