4 ms·

Remarkably similar to a 1975 case [0], which was regarded as one of the most credibly unexplainable UFO cases prior to information coming out about the Nimitz i

Remarkably similar to a 1975 case [0], which was regarded as one of the most credibly unexplainable UFO cases prior to information coming out about the Nimitz incident in 2017. [0] https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ufo-nearcollision-with-army-helicopter-40-years-ago_n_4119987 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ufo-nearcollision-with-army-h...

seaorg 5y ago
It’s literally not similar in any way besides taking place in the air. I mean what are you thinking? This drone is described as traveling at a speed of 100 mph and the ufo in your link is described as accelerating faster than the laws of physics might allow.
- lend000 5y ago
  Perhaps you didn't read either link? Both involve an unidentified object closing in on a helicopter at some point, stopping and hovering, a green light being the primary visual, and then the object leaving the helicopter and eventually disappearing.
exporectomy 5y ago
The Nimitz "Gimbal" UFO has been explained. I don't think you can count it as unexplainable.
- solarengineer 5y ago
  Could you point to this explanation? The various explanations that I have encountered use a combination of ridicule and a disregarding of multiple-sensors multiple-observers and instead only talk about camera failures, sensor failures, human eye-sight failures and vision phenomenon.
  - TeMPOraL 5y ago
    IIRC reflection in the optics. Two of the three videos can be explained away just by reading the data overlaid on the video and applying some middle school-level geometry to it.
    - solarengineer 5y ago
      This explanation disregards that the gimbal was observed across aircraft and across sensors. The Aircraft were chasing something that the ships too "saw" (using dissimilar technologies).
      - exporectomy 5y ago
        OK. I didn't know there were multiple observations of it. I only heard about the explanation of lens-flare type effect that rotated with the gimballing camera to make it look like the object was rotating.
    - stevenhuang 5y ago
      Think for a moment. You're saying the military is unable to distinguish lense glare from an actual object. Multiple systems, radar, eyeballs. Come on.
      - TeMPOraL 5y ago
        > You're saying the military is unable to distinguish lense glare from an actual object. I'm not saying that. I know they can, and I claim they're withholding the relevant data and their real conclusions on purpose, because they want this to be a story. My current belief is that those three videos are primarily technology demonstrators, released purposefully by the US military, in order to show off in front of foreign powers. For example, the GOFAST video is the one where data overlaid on the image + basic geometry tells you they're tracking a bird, but the subtext of that video is that US fighter planes can track a bird-sized object, from 6 kilometers away, while flying half the speed of sound. This is what Russian and Chinese militaries see when watching that video. I haven't followed all the official comments on this thoroughly, but IIRC, what we have is, confirmation these videos are real, information that the military wants pilots to be more eager to come forward when they see something unusual, and that some information has been given to some people in the Congress. You mention "Multiple systems, radar", but I've only heard it being said they "saw something" - no actual details have been released, as far as I know. So there's that, plus a bunch of people recounting their experiences and thoughts in front of cameras; the snippets I've seen look like the usual bullshit that is aired on US cable - I don't trust that at all, because since when anything trustworthy was first revealed in one of those places? Other than that, there's a few people making lots of money playing this up as bona fide alien encounter - they are the ones that drive publicity for this topic. (And to answer the possible questions about why the US would want to show off superior capabilities - ever since nuclear-tipped ICBMs became a thing, it's in the interest of all nuclear powers to stay in lockstep wrt. their military capabilities, lest one of the party decides they're so far behind their only chance for survival is a preemptive nuclear strike.)
- stevenhuang 5y ago
  No. All of the "explanations" latch onto trying to prove the rotating object is lense glare, while ignoring the entire context of why the video was released, that it was indeed a capture of an unidentified craft. The object(s) in question remain unexplained.
- lend000 5y ago
  No, the Gimbal video isn't even related to the Nimitz incident. There is significantly less contextual data available for the USS Roosevelt incident or the other east coast incident released in 2017 (labeled GoFast). The GoFast video is the only one that can be reasonably explained as parallax around a slower moving, conventional object, given the lack of additional context. Making definitive claims about the Nimitz incident means you have a lot more reading to do.

seaorg 5y ago

It’s literally not similar in any way besides taking place in the air. I mean what are you thinking? This drone is described as traveling at a speed of 100 mph and the ufo in your link is described as accelerating faster than the laws of physics might allow.

lend000 5y ago
Perhaps you didn't read either link? Both involve an unidentified object closing in on a helicopter at some point, stopping and hovering, a green light being the primary visual, and then the object leaving the helicopter and eventually disappearing.

exporectomy 5y ago

The Nimitz "Gimbal" UFO has been explained. I don't think you can count it as unexplainable.

solarengineer 5y ago
Could you point to this explanation? The various explanations that I have encountered use a combination of ridicule and a disregarding of multiple-sensors multiple-observers and instead only talk about camera failures, sensor failures, human eye-sight failures and vision phenomenon.
- TeMPOraL 5y ago
  IIRC reflection in the optics. Two of the three videos can be explained away just by reading the data overlaid on the video and applying some middle school-level geometry to it.
  - solarengineer 5y ago
    This explanation disregards that the gimbal was observed across aircraft and across sensors. The Aircraft were chasing something that the ships too "saw" (using dissimilar technologies).
    - exporectomy 5y ago
      OK. I didn't know there were multiple observations of it. I only heard about the explanation of lens-flare type effect that rotated with the gimballing camera to make it look like the object was rotating.
  - stevenhuang 5y ago
    Think for a moment. You're saying the military is unable to distinguish lense glare from an actual object. Multiple systems, radar, eyeballs. Come on.
    - TeMPOraL 5y ago
      > You're saying the military is unable to distinguish lense glare from an actual object. I'm not saying that. I know they can, and I claim they're withholding the relevant data and their real conclusions on purpose, because they want this to be a story. My current belief is that those three videos are primarily technology demonstrators, released purposefully by the US military, in order to show off in front of foreign powers. For example, the GOFAST video is the one where data overlaid on the image + basic geometry tells you they're tracking a bird, but the subtext of that video is that US fighter planes can track a bird-sized object, from 6 kilometers away, while flying half the speed of sound. This is what Russian and Chinese militaries see when watching that video. I haven't followed all the official comments on this thoroughly, but IIRC, what we have is, confirmation these videos are real, information that the military wants pilots to be more eager to come forward when they see something unusual, and that some information has been given to some people in the Congress. You mention "Multiple systems, radar", but I've only heard it being said they "saw something" - no actual details have been released, as far as I know. So there's that, plus a bunch of people recounting their experiences and thoughts in front of cameras; the snippets I've seen look like the usual bullshit that is aired on US cable - I don't trust that at all, because since when anything trustworthy was first revealed in one of those places? Other than that, there's a few people making lots of money playing this up as bona fide alien encounter - they are the ones that drive publicity for this topic. (And to answer the possible questions about why the US would want to show off superior capabilities - ever since nuclear-tipped ICBMs became a thing, it's in the interest of all nuclear powers to stay in lockstep wrt. their military capabilities, lest one of the party decides they're so far behind their only chance for survival is a preemptive nuclear strike.)
stevenhuang 5y ago
No. All of the "explanations" latch onto trying to prove the rotating object is lense glare, while ignoring the entire context of why the video was released, that it was indeed a capture of an unidentified craft. The object(s) in question remain unexplained.
lend000 5y ago
No, the Gimbal video isn't even related to the Nimitz incident. There is significantly less contextual data available for the USS Roosevelt incident or the other east coast incident released in 2017 (labeled GoFast). The GoFast video is the only one that can be reasonably explained as parallax around a slower moving, conventional object, given the lack of additional context. Making definitive claims about the Nimitz incident means you have a lot more reading to do.