Wednesday, June 6, 2018

Did the NASA Hypersonic X-43A Play a Role in the "Tic Tac UFO" Incident?

By now everyone who follows the UFO developments has heard all about the "Tic Tac" UFO video, taken off the coast of San Diego in November, 2004 and leaked, not released, from the Pentagon. There is a good discussion of it on Metabunk.
See the source image
The much-hyped "Tic Tac UFO" video
 Michael Huntington posted something concerning the Tic Tac video to the Black Vault that was almost completely overlooked but could turn out to be extremely important: Launched on November 16, 2004 off the coast of San Diego, "X-43A Becomes First Aircraft to Reach Mach 10, 3rd Test Flight 2004 NASA, Hypersonic Scram."  This YouTube video, amazingly, has had only 29 views! Wikipedia says,
NASA flew a third version of the X-43A on November 16, 2004. The modified Pegasus rocket which was launched from a B-52 mother ship at an altitude of 43,000 ft (13,000 m). The X-43A set a new speed record of Mach 9.6[note 1] at about 110,000 feet (33,500 m) altitude,[10] and further testing the ability of the vehicle to withstand the heat loads involved.[11].
Imagine if a thing like that turned up on your FLIR!!!

On May 18, reporter George Knapp, who has made a career reporting on UFO-related stories (and has a long association with Robert Bigelow as well as Bob Lazar) published what is called an "Executive Summary" of  the Tic Tac UFO incident and video (USS Nimitz 10-16 November 2004). It is 13 pages long. According to that "Executive Summary," the main encounter with the Tic Tac occurred on November 14, not November 16. But the 'encounters' were still reportedly going on until the 16th, and it's entirely possible that NASA aircraft were doing practice runs several days earlier.

Concerning that Executive Summary, John Greenewald of the Black Vault says,

there are some issues with the above story that need to be pointed out.   First and foremost, the document itself does not, in any way, resemble a report prepared by the Pentagon or any branch of the U.S. Military.  Although there are many types of report and briefing formats, and they vary from agency to agency, there are still common characteristics that you will find in documents such as this.

The most obvious, to me, is a lack of any classification stamp or  header/footer. It is noted in Mr. Knapp’s story the document was “unclassified” — however, most “unclassified” documents still contain the identifying marks to stipulate the classification level of the document.  (EXAMPLE #1 | EXAMPLE #2) Of course, there are exceptions and mistakes, but this is a sign it was probably not prepared by the Pentagon, or it would contain such a classification level stamp or mark.

Second, there are no headers, contracts numbers or any cover page. Most, if not all, reports of this nature contain a cover page identifying what the information in the report is, what it refers to, what contract it pertains to, etc. (EXAMPLE #1 | EXAMPLE #2). In these examples cited here, from different time frames and agencies, they both have cover pages and reference pages about what the reports are about. This is another indication this document in question, is not official.

Third, the names are blacked out with the exception of Commander David Fravor.  At first, I noted this as being suspicious, but later got clarification that Mr. Knapp was the one who did the redaction, based on a tweeted comment he posted on Twitter.  Although that explains the discrepancy, it does bring up another fact, and that is, nothing about the document’s release is close to being “official” or “by the book.”  Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), when documents such as these are released, ALL names are redacted/blacked out. This is due to FOIA exemption (b)(6) which stipulates that for privacy reasons, names (and other personally identifiable information) are redacted to ensure their identities remain private. Whomever gave this document to Mr. Knapp, obviously did not care to conceal identities of those mentioned, and I think Mr. Knapp deserves credit for taking the step to ensure these names remain outside the public domain (except Commander Fravor who has gone public). I will note, Mr. Knapp never claimed this was obtained under a FOIA release. However, I note this FOIA exemption because this is a standard rule/practice when agencies release documents, they will follow the same policies and procedures when they proactively release information to the public, but not under the FOIA.  These facts support the document was a “leak” rather than a “release.” 
An image of the X-43A on its second flight in March, 2004. NASA Launched the fastest aircraft ever on its third flight off the coast of San Diego, November 16, 2004.

Notice the location of the camera: 33 deg 14.9' North, 121 deg 6.38' West. This is  off the coast of Southern California, near Los Angeles and San Diego. The reported position of the aircraft detecting the Tic Tac UFO was 31 deg 20' N, 117 deg 10' W, about 70 nautical miles south of the US/Mexico border and 30 nautical miles off the Baja coast.

The location of the camera filming the X-43A. "X" marks the approximate position of the Nimitz's F-18 aircraft.


9 comments:

  1. Interesting. I sent an email out on November 4 (including you) suggesting this might have played a role. I noted the two day difference as making it unlikely. However, do we really know that the event was on the 14th or is that just "tribal knowledge"? Could the "tic-tac" video have been filmed on the 16th while the encounter happened on the 14th? Inquiring minds always want to know. Don't expect the TTSA to provide anything definitive about this.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for the post - I'll also note that TTSA has pretty much lied about everything so far. Their changing the date very well could have been plausible deniability so that when this information came out they could point to their date and say "But ours was 2 days earlier!"

    Flat out - all we have is the account of the pilot - and soon the supposed Princeton radar commander whom put out a book in 2005 "with the account" (although the book states December 2005 and the first page says it's fiction) as the evidence presented.

    No radar data, no fight logs, nothing besides the word of two men, one who was a minor PBS celebrity for a tv show and the other with a book of fiction.

    Remember - every one of their other videos or photos has been debunked or proved to be a fraud, or something else besides what they have claimed it was. Two words. MYLAR BALLOON. That's their level of credibility. And just like that balloon - it's full of hot air and not much else.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The nimitz was roughly 100nmi south east of there. How hard would it be to get the flight logs for the F/A 18's from the Nimitz for that period?

    ReplyDelete
  4. When I first heard the pilot's story about being "called in" on ongoing operations, I suspected testing of some sort and/or our own ability to detect that being tested. But something other than a supersonic prototype. The report describes something circling and diving, then climbing; and something churning in the water.

    But we know very well how witnesses' perceptions and memories are distorted in their reports.

    Similarly, even though I've never seen it, only read descriptions, that "Executive Summary" sounds more like something manufactured by Elizondo after the fact of any government work. That is, a hoax, like MJ-12.

    But I could be wrong on both. At least we're digging into what is obviously all a fraudulent attempt to breathe life into the "UFO" cadaver by Bigelow, DeLonge, Elizondo and Knapp.

    Excellent, Robert!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Throwing up possibilities isn't sufficient. A skeptic would look at the known events of the Nov. 14, 2004 event (the X-43A was launched two days later) and make a case that reasonably explains what radar and Navy pilots viewed. The X-43A doesn't match the time, the location, the proximity to the pilots, the altitude (it was below the F-A/18s), the movement seen on radar, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hello jamesrav!

    You write: >> 'tic tac' shaped craft, that really should not be able to fly,<<

    I don't know, james, I've seen some cruise missiles, the tomahawk for example, that sort of resemble a tic-tac, appear to have no obvious means of propulsion, and are highly maneuverable.

    Imagine a 4X40" flying cylinder, loaded with guidance, warhead, propellant and a turbojet engine. And launched from a submarine.

    That pilot witness was "called in" from elsewhere to give chase, and he reported churning in the water as the "missile" circled before shooting away.

    Like my brilliant friend, Just sayin'.... Hmmm

    Another idea is that it might have been the test of a hypersonic vehicle, the X-43A. But to my mind that doesn't really jibe with the reports. That was at great altitude and not maneuvering--a pure design and speed test. But I could be wrong.

    http://badufos.blogspot.com/2018/06/did-nasa-hypersonic-x-43a-play-role-in.html

    ReplyDelete
  7. 1) I recently found a great YouTube video completely debunking the "Ancient Alien" theory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9w-i5oZqaQ&t=7522s

    2) But I have not yet found a YouTube video completely debunking the "Contemporary Alien" theory. From the standpoint of the supporters of this theory, here are the 10 best claimed sightings to date: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjLkMJ_7VcU (supposedly).
    I would like to hear from others on this blog site if they've found well-done YouTube debunking videos. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  8. If it was a secret test by NASA why did the video of the tic tac show no exhaust plume. With eye witness accounts in actual aircraft detailing how the event took place with manoeuvrability that doesn't display what jet aircraft do.

    ReplyDelete
  9. First, I find it curious that NASA would not inform the military about this possible flight of the Hypersonic X-43A. Why would NASA send a craft into a naval battle group exercise? Second, does the X-43A have similar flight characteristics as observed by the F18 pilots or radar/sensor operators on ship? Third, the fairly detailed doucment described in this article/post most likely did not come from a direct military source. It most likely came from a contracting source that analysed the incident such as BAASS etc. I always appreciate a skeptical inquiry solution to these type of events. However you also need to be skeptical of the solution itself when there is no easy answer.

    ReplyDelete

Keep your comments relevant, and keep them civil! That means no personal attacks will be allowed, by anyone, on anyone. Commenters are welcome to disagree with me, or with other comments, but state your arguments using logic, and with a civil tone. Comments in violation of these rules will be deleted, and offenders banned.

Comments should be in English, although quotes from foreign-language sources are fine as long as they're relevant, and you explain them. Anonymous postings are not permitted. If you don't want to use your real name, then make up a name for yourself, and use it consistently.