Editor’s note: This series by Robert Powell chronicles his discovery and investigation of the USS Nimitz Carrier Strike Force-11 investigation. It is a three part series.
I am going to tell you about a Navy-UFO encounter that deserves a congressional investigation to determine if this happened or not. I am going to create three posts related to a recent UFO event that occurred in November of 2004 and involved the Navy’s Carrier Strike Group 11 off the southwest coast of California. This will be the first post and it will include the information that I initially obtained on the incident. If after reading these three posts you are reasonably convinced that this event happened then I will ask you to join me in a letter-writing campaign to a congressional subcommittee requesting that they ask for a debriefing of the incident from the Navy. Please share this story with anyone that you know who would be interested. You can use the hashtags: #F18UFO #UFO.
I was first told of this UFO incident in July of 2016 by an individual who was involved in the investigation of this event. He told me that the incident had been partially leaked to the internet, so that I could begin my investigation without involving my friend. Knowing a few of the key words I was able to locate the leaked story here: https://fightersweep.com/1460/x-files-edition/ (Ignore the UFO photos in the article as those are just add-ons by the author for effect and are not related to the actual event.)
What attracted me to this story was that it was not on a typical UFO site but was found on a site authored by a formal naval aviator and who predominately writes about naval aviator stories, not UFOs. So he had no UFO agenda to push. And the author went out of his way to establish the excellent background of the commanding officer of the F-18s known as the Black Aces. The story was full of “navy talk” and I spent considerable time deciphering that WSO = weapons system officer, SPY1 = phased array radar, E-2C Hawkeye = type of airborne early warning aircraft, BFM = basic fighter maneuvers, etc. Once I had read the full story, I felt that there was a strong likelihood that the event my friend had directed me to had actually occurred.
I next began online investigations to verify the identity of the individuals in the story and I found that those officers were all legitimate and had served in the Navy during that time. I searched additional websites for clues to this event. First, I found a Navy Event Summary document that had been leaked to the internet by an unknown source that mentioned this event. The document had much of the same information as was provided in the naval aviator’s story: dates and locations match up; USS Princeton detects objects on radar and dispatches the F18s; F18s don’t find a radar target but detect the object visually; F18s engage the unknown; and F18s are outmatched by the unknowns. I then ran the Navy Event Summary document by a retired naval officer and he indicated that the document looked legitimate in terms of its format. A copy of this summary document can be found here.
My friend who had originally told me about this case indicated that there had been video taken of the object and that it had been released to the internet several years ago and then was later removed. A copy of that video was obtained using the WayBack machine which is an internet site that maintains historical website data. The video is taken in the infra-red and depicts a hot object in the video cross-hairs for about 75 seconds before the object rapidly moves out of the video frame and towards the left. The altitude shown on the video matches the approximate altitude of the jets and the shape of the object in the video matches the pilots’ descriptions. A copy of this video can be found here.
Of these three documents, the one that I find the strongest is the story by the naval aviator. The Navy Event Summary and the F-18 video support the story but more was needed. The question in my mind then became—could I support this information from another source. In December of 2016 I submitted nine FOIAs to various departments of the Navy and Marines to try and verify this event. In Part II of this series, I will share the information on the FOIAs that I submitted.
- Mattapoisett Sees Uptick in Alien Abductions – The Wanderer
- Top 10 cities for UFO sightings – American City & County
- REVEALED: 8 UFO sightings in Mackay and beyond – Daily Mercury
- UFO SIGHTING? Mystery of unidentified flying objects caught on camera above Bradford – Telegraph & Argus
- Was it aliens? SFU professor weighs in on crop circles – SFU News
Open Minds UFO Radio: Debbie Ziegelmeyer is a successful entrepreneur, diver and paranormal investigator and lecturer in Missouri. Among her paranormal research efforts, she has spent decades looking into the UFO phenomenon. She is the state director for the Mutual UFO Network (MUFON) Missouri Chapter, head of the MUFON Dive Team and a member of the MUFON board of directors. She teaches underwater UFO search and recovery. She appeared as a volunteer archeologist on Sci-Fi’s(now Syfy) “Roswell Crash Startling New Evidence” and NBC’s Sci-Fi Investigates “Roswell Re-visited.”
Debbie recently spoke at the Devil’s Tower UFO Rendezvous commemorating the 40th anniversary of the release of Close Encounters of the Third Kind. She spoke about some of her best cases in Missouri. Two of those cases included the report of a landed UFO in a forest and a young girl who had a sighting with her mother that turned into memories of dreams of alien abduction. I found the stories intriguing and am happy to welcome back Debbie to discuss them in this episode of Open Minds UFO Radio.
Featured image by John Chapple/The Sun
To be human is to be curious. Our constant interrogation of the world around us has led to pretty much every bit of knowledge we hold as a species. This is what scientists do, through carefully controlled experiments and quantitative data collection. Some questions, though, have been deemed too dangerous, or too foolish to pursue. What’s a passionate scientist to do when society frowns upon their research? Put themselves under the microscope, of course.
For centuries, researchers have bee
The first few sentences of this review of the Song of Songs (aka, the Song of Solomon) in the Passion Translation (the one that is enthusiastically promoted by NAR apostles) says it all:
This translation of the Song of Songs is truly awful. As a professor of biblical studies who works with the original languages, I can assure you that this translation does not reflect either the words or the meaning of Song of Songs, contrary to what it claims. It’s not that the translation is careless—rather, it’s eisegesis. It is imposing pre-conceived ideas onto the text and then claiming that the change is due to the translation strategy. It’s terrible!
I’m honestly stunned at how off the mark this translation is. It claims to be bringing out the real meaning of Song of Songs, but it’s really just thrusting someone’s own wishful ideas about it onto the readership. If you want to understand Song of Songs, then please, avoid this translation.
The review was written by George Athas, a scholar well known to us in Hebrew Bible and Semitics. He is Director of Postgraduate Studies at Moore Theological College and Lectures in Old Testament, Hebrew and Church History.
Ordinarily, this sort of review would have me in stitches. But I’m not laughing. As I’ve blogged previously, the Passion Translation is the work of Brian Simmons, who claimed that Jesus himself told him to produce it:
As I noted earlier, the description of Simmons from the translation’s own website doesn’t provide any indication that Simmons has the skills to produce a translation from the original texts. His credential is being a linguist, church planter, and Bible translator for the Paya-Kuna people of Panama (Simmons worked with New Tribes Bible Institute). Being someone who translates the Bible into a modern language (especially a language that doesn’t have a Bible translation) does not guarantee the translator knows Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. I know that because I know people who have translated the Bible into such languages (tribal) who don’t know any of the biblical languages. They use an English translation (or whatever their own first language is) and, perhaps, tools keyed to Strong’s numbers. The results are quite serviceable, so I’m not being critical of the method. I’m being critical of the deceptive marketing. The marketing for the Passion Translation suggests it’s a translation from the originals that is chock-full of insights heretofore neglected or missed. It isn’t, as Athas notes in his review.
Another misleading aspect to all this is the way Simmons’ credentials are promoted — to create the impression he’s an original languages expert and knows what he’s doing in translation. Simmons has a doctorate, but not in biblical languages. It’s in “apostolic leadership,” whatever that means. It’s from Wagner University, named after it’s founder C. Peter Wagner, a highly-influential figure in the NAR. Here are the core courses for this doctorate, from the Wagner University website:
- Apostolic Leadership
- Dominion Theology and Kingdom Mandate
- Kingdom Finances and the Great Transfer of Wealth
- New Church Planting and Governance
- Marketplace Ministry and BAM Movement
- Revival, Reformation and Societal Transformation
- World Evangelism and Cross-Cultural Missions
Here are the electives:
- Activating Your Five-Fold Destiny
- Apostolic Centers
- Activating the Apostolic
- Growth Dynamics of New Apostolic Churches
- Apostolic Breakthrough
Sounds positively grueling.
But more to the point, I haven’t found any evidence at all that Simmons has ever taken a Greek or Hebrew course. Maybe he has, but it’s not easy to find out. But as noted above, if you’re doing translation work in new tribes and their languages, you don’t need one. You just need a good primary language translation and a procedural knowledge of the grammar of that language, semantics, and of course the target language. I think it likely, especially after Athas’ comments, is that Simmons’ began with an English translation and then went about the task of reading his charismatic theology into the text. That’s even more likely given the way Simmons described his own knowledge of the biblical languages in an interview:
[Interviewer] Jonathan Welton: “When you started this project were you, had you already had training in Greek and Hebrew? Or was this something you had to jump into again?”
Brian Simmons: “I had minimal background in biblical languages, so yeah it was something, honestly, it was something the Lord has really helped me with.” (14:52)
Awesome. Let’s stop requiring biblical languages and just let the Lord teach them to us. This is a shameful attempt to justify not being prepared for the sacred task of handling the Scriptures. It’s Idiocracy come to the Church … or attributing eisegesis to the Spirit.
The interview includes a number of mis-guided statements about Aramaic and its use in translating books that weren’t originally in Aramaic. Simmons apparently makes use of Lamsa’s ENGLISH translation of the NT in Aramaic. As I have noted a number of times, there is no evidence that the NT was composed in Aramaic, and Lamsa’s translation itself has been brutally reviewed by a real expert. The Greek NT was eventually translated into Aramaic/Syriac (Peshitta). Simmons is apparently referencing that material (no doubt mediated through Lamsa and other tools — like the ones my company creates) — and then convincing the ignorant that he’s working with primary texts. This is deceptive and misleading. It’s sort of like the things I deal with when I confront ancient aliens theorists who say ancient texts refer to alien visitation (think Zecharia Sitchin). They make claims about primary texts, inserting their own ideas into those texts. It’s either incompetence or dishonesty. Neither has a place in the Body of Christ.
On October 30, 2017 UFOLou recorded an intense flash in the sky above Melbourne, Australia.
The flash is quite strange, only lasts a millisecond and looks like a distant laser, but not originating from the ground.
Although some people suggest that it is an atmospheric phenomenon like a fireball/meteor, you can see a rectangular-shaped object at the bottom of the flash. See image above.
The flash/laser/light beam starts at 2.35 minutes in the video.
On November 14, 2004, numerous aviators and seaman from the USS Nimitz carrier battle group were witness to events that demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt the existence of advanced airborne technologies far superior to anything America presently deploys.
The government has long covered up these kinds of UFO incidents, asking service personnel to not discuss the details but the case of the USS Nimitz and a UFO encounter its crew had on November 14, 2004 have since been independently confirmed by two former senior Pentagon officials, Christopher Mellon and Luis Elizondo, who have spoken directly to some of the pilots involved, read more here.
Below: Extract taken from the Official Navy event document 2004.
1. Fast Eagles (F-18 110/100) upon take off were vectored by Princetown and Banger to intercept unid contact. Princeton informed fast eagles that the contact was moving at 100 KTS – 25KFT ASL.
2. Fast Eagles (110/100) could not find unid airborne contact at location given by Princetown. While searching for unid air contact, Fast Eagles spotted large unid object in water at 1430L. Pilots saw steam/smoke/churning around object. Pilot describes object initially as resembling a downed airliner, also stated that it was much larger than a submarine.
3. While descending from 24K FT to gain better view of the unid contact in the water, Fast Eagle 110 sighted an airborne contact which appeared to be capsule shaped (wingless, mobile, white, oblong pill shaped, 25-30 Feet in length, no visible markings and no glass) 5NM west from position of unid in water.
4. Capsule (UFO) passed under Fast Eagle 110 then Fast Eagle 110 began turn to acquire capsule. While 110 descending and turning, capsule began climbing and turned inside of Fast Eagle’s turn radius.
5. Pilot estimated that capsule achieved 600-700 KTS. The 110 could not keep up with the rate of turn and the gain of altitude by the capsule. 110 lost visual ID of capsule in haze. Last visual contact had capsule at 14 KFT heading due east.
6. Fast Eagle 100 was flying high cover and saw the engagement by Fast Eagle 110 and confirms 110 visual ID. 100 lost contact in haze as well.
This infrared video was allegedly captured from one of the F-18’s (Fast Eagles 100/110) from the U.S. Navy USS Nimitz Carrier Strike Group-1, involved in the UFO incident. This video was leaked online by an unknown source, but was confirmed to be real by someone with inside knowledge of the incident according to OpenMindsTV.
With many of us spending our time online, we tend to be laser-focused on preventing our personal information from falling into the hands of nefarious hackers. But let’s not forget about the security of print-based communications.
Remember how the ink appears and disappears on the Marauder’s Map that appears in Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban? Basically, scientists are trying to recreate this bit of magic to protect information. But instead of using a password to make the invisibl
I sometimes get email asking about transliteration (and pronunciation) of Hebrew words. Transliteration can help folks who want to try and pronounce Hebrew. This new online tool allows you to paste in Hebrew text and get an instant transliteration (an accurate one, not the sort of thing you see in Strong’s tools). Your Hebrew input needs to be Unicode font. You also don’t have to worry about accent marks messing with the results if you use Unicode. In the example below I pasted in something from LHB in Logos (Lexham Hebrew Bible). It worked fine because Logos is Unicode. If you are using online tools, then the Hebrew text you’d fine at blueletterbible and sefaria would also work fine.
I input the first three words of Deut 32:8 and submitted it. You can see the transliterated results.