1. Agent K

    Agent K Active Member

    Maybe he interviewed Fravor before Trevor. But he could've at least asked Fravor about the "gun tape." Fravor was talking about the original uncompressed ATFLIR video. The one online is shrunk by half and compressed.
  2. Agent K

    Agent K Active Member

    Right, the original uncompressed footage would've been sharper. The bulges could be the wing and tail. Fravor again incorrectly said that the object accelerated at the end of the video, when it was really just continuing to fly left and the tracker broke lock when the FOV switched.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  3. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    is there a reason the government would have done that to the video? TTSA said the FLIR footage we have was released by the DOD. But either way, we can assume that our FLIR footage is the same footage Elizondo and Bigelow would have had available to study? Elizondo never said anything like "but this wasn't the version that was available during my Advanced Threat Program" investigations.
  4. Agent K

    Agent K Active Member

    The video that was leaked in 2007 was a 352x264 .mp4 file, which had been shrunk from something like 640x480 and compressed to .mp4. TTSA uploaded a video to YouTube with annotations but even more compression. The original raw video would've been a large file in a format incompatible with common media players or YouTube. I'd assume that AATIP would've analyzed raw video if they had it.
    Last edited: Jun 24, 2018
  5. Robert Mcintyre

    Robert Mcintyre New Member

    When Fravor talks about the small L shaped appendages that does remind me of missiles, e.g.:


    But everything else he says about the way it flew doesn’t seem missile like.
  6. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    I don't see L shaped appendages on those missiles. Besides he said both the L's were facing the same way.

    I'm picturing his words more like
  7. Agent K

    Agent K Active Member

    Old Tomahawks had the air inlet, but I don't think it's what the video shows.
  8. Kaen

    Kaen Member

    The online version is probably shorter than the one Fravor saw.
    The trace on how the ATFLIR video entered the public domain in 2007 reveals the existence of a longer version of the FLIR1 video that ‘has more UFO movement’:

    The existence of the Nimitz event is first revealed in 2007 on the ATS forum by ‘thefinaltheory’
    Source: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread265697/pg1#pid2924439

    ‘cometa’ enters the discussion and urges ‘thefinaltheory’ to bring the video to the public domain.
    ‘cometa’ signs his post with ‘greetings from Germany’
    Source: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread265697/pg4#pid2926073

    ‘thefinaltheory’ promises to deliver the videos, and starts a U2U with ‘cometa’ on the next page of the thread.
    This is probably how the video ended up on a German server.

    ‘thefinaltheory’ pops up in another thread one day later, where he gives a link to the video:
    (This link does not work anymore today, but still works on the wayback internet archive:
    Source: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread265835/pg1#pid2926921

    Later, ‘thefinaltheory’ reveals the existence of a longer version that ‘has more UFO movement etc.’:
    Source: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread265835/pg3#pid2928447

    Of course people ask him how he knows the content if he couldn’t get it to play, and he answers:
    Source: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread265835/pg4#pid2929033

    It may have been encrypted somehow.
  9. Kaen

    Kaen Member

    The second part of Jeremy Corbell’s interview with David Fravor, with more info on the ATFLIR tape(s) and the alleged gun tape of David’s F18:

    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoTlMpXkQO8

    At 6:33:

    • Useful Useful x 1
  10. Agent K

    Agent K Active Member

    Fravor really spells it out at 7:57: "The only footage on video was the footage from the plane that you see on YouTube."
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. itsthematrix

    itsthematrix New Member

    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 5, 2018
  12. Kaen

    Kaen Member

    His actual words are:

  13. Agent K

    Agent K Active Member

    Right, so much for "Trevor" the supposed Nimitz radar operator who claimed to have watched a different video of a flying saucer.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. Kaen

    Kaen Member

    Not so fast …

    Both ‘Trevor’ and the person named ‘thefinaltheory’ on the ATS forum claim to have seen the video and both are certain they saw a ‘classic disk’ when they watched it:

    Source: Trevor, at 13:33 in the Jeremy Corbell interview

    Source: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread265697/pg1#pid2924439

    Trevor and ‘thefinaltheory’ are different persons: Trevor was a radar operator and ‘thefinaltheory’ claims to have worked ‘in the computer field’ (source: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread265697/pg1#pid2924439)

    It is certainly possible that these two people are right, and more footage was recorded than released in the FLIR1 fragment.

    After all, the WSO was still attempting to get more info on his/her screen at the end of this fragment by switching frantically between different modes, which caused the ATFLIR to lose its lock and the object drifting out of the FOV.

    As you pointed out before, it would be easy for the WSO to subsequently slew the ATFLIR and obtain some more footage to get a positive identification.

    However, if the Youtube fragment is the only part that Fravor is allowed to speak of, he must have a plausible explanation why the pursuit ended at the end of this fragment.
    The object ‘suddenly departing to the left’ is such an explanation. It is the only way to give some credibility to the story that there is nothing more than the Youtube video and that the object had terrific performance, without giving away the existence of other stuff that was recorded but remains classified.
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  15. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    it's also possible 'final theory' made it up and later "trevor" read it and decided to get his own 15 minutes of fame. Believing stories from anonymous sources on the internet is really reaching. What if I told you that I was on the Princeton that day, I worked in the computer field and I could access top secret files. Would you believe me?

    Fravor says there was no other footage. Very hard to believe if there was other footage, Fravor would never (and still) not be aware of it.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  16. Kaen

    Kaen Member

    Of course not, and nobody believed ‘thefinaltheory’ either back in 2007 (source: ATS thread starting at http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread265697/pg1#pid2924439)

    But now we know he was the one who first supplied the FLIR1 footage, so that should give him some credibility.

    If ‘Trevor’ wanted fifteen minutes of fame he should have jumped on the tic-tac bandwagon and he shouldn't remain anonymous. Hardly anyone knows of the 2007 ATS forum discussions but almost everyone has heard of the tic-tac so why turn the tic-tac into a flying saucer? It only undermines his credibility.

    I'm not saying Fravor was not aware of it.

    In part 2 of his interview with Jeremy Corbell, at 7:22, he says:

    So if there’s more on the tapes than on the FLIR1 video he would not be allowed to speak about it.

    Anonymous witnesses can reveal stuff that is classified, that is typically why they want to remain anonymous. Fravor cannot.
  17. Agent K

    Agent K Active Member

    'thefinaltheory' was obviously describing the FLIR1 video since he's the one who uploaded it. His breathless description of camera artifacts is amusing:
    Cute interpretation of the FOV switches. And the object does look like a flat disk without the "dome" described by 'Trevor', who was describing something different.

    So 'Trevor' basically repeated Fravor's encounter, even though Fravor said there's no footage of it. Then, the interview really goes off the rails:
  18. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    i know. Fravor said it. You just supplied Fravors quote in post #452
  19. Robert Mcintyre

    Robert Mcintyre New Member

    From the latest interview I think I now understand what David Fravor says happened to the tape. He had it in a safe because it was classified (classified because it showed military tracking technology, i..e all the screen information). There was no investigation and no one asked for it. When his tour ended he couldn't take it with him as you can't take classified material into private hands. He assumes it was just overwritten by someone else on a later tour who found it in the safe.
  20. Kaen

    Kaen Member

    Sounds plausible, doesn’t it? You find a tape in a safe and just assume it’s a spare one that you can overwrite. After all, the safe must be the place where people keep their spare tapes.

    Sounds just as plausible as the reaction of the US Navy to an unidentified object showing up on their radar in their own backyard that could not be intercepted and that jammed the F18 radars as they got close: Just take one minute of ATFLIR footage and don’t even bother to slew the ATFLIR when it drifts out of your FOV. Then put the tape in a safe for someone to overwrite it later.

    If this really was the Navy’s response then either this was a known object or this was a severe case of cognitive dissonance.
    The third option is that their response was a bit more elaborate than that, but remains classified.
  21. Landru

    Landru Moderator Staff Member

    As someone who served in the Navy as an Intelligence Specialist on a carrier it is not unusual to place classified tapes in a safe and use them later causing them to be overwritten.
    • Like Like x 1
  22. Whitebeard

    Whitebeard Senior Member

    Not that implausable. When Elton John recorded his Helping Hands album the tapes were ready to go off to the mastering studio, then a YTS* trainee, under instructions to 'take those tapes to the de-mag' (meaning some spare tape reals) took Eltons new album and undid 5 month work with a flick of a switch. NEVER underestimate the human element in any situation.

    (*Youth Training Scheme - a 1980's UK government program to provide paid on the job training for unemployed school leavers aged 16-19)
  23. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    "Classified" does not mean "keep forever", and the DoD says:
    So they can reuse it.

    Anyway, a bit of a moot point really.

    Attached Files:

  24. Kaen

    Kaen Member

    What is your opinion about the apparent lack of any adequate response to an event that could have developed into a second Pearl Harbor? After all, an enemy stealth sub could have been launching advanced torpedo drones into the Navy's most sophisticated ships in their own back yard.

    At 14:25 in part 2 of Jeremy Corbell’s interview with David Fravor, David says:

    [ text removed.. off topic, unclear, Link policy violation. ]

    According to Fravor, nothing was done with it (I won’t repeat his words here, but he is quite clear about it at 22:02).

    To me that leaves only two possibilities: Cognitive dissonance or the top brass knew what the object was.
    In the latter case this was not a UFO at all, which would explain the complete absence of any official report. The question is: Would they keep Fravor out of the loop, even to this date?
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 4, 2018
  25. Landru

    Landru Moderator Staff Member

    What enemy? Whose stealth sub? These were work up cruises for USS Nimitz and the only blue water navy in the Pacific (Russia) doesn't send subs off the west coast to launch never before seen torpedo drones.
  26. Robert Mcintyre

    Robert Mcintyre New Member

    So here's another unresolved mystery to this whole thing. On the To the Stars Academy website they make this claim about the FLIR footage:

    Source: https://coi.tothestarsacademy.com/2004-nimitz-flir1-video

    So if this is chain of custody footage how come it is not the high definition version that Cmr. Fravor talks about? In fact even a cursory comparison with the other two videos the GIMBAL and GO FAST ones shows how blurred the text is on this one.
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2018
    • Agree Agree x 1
  27. Agent K

    Agent K Active Member

    So even TTSA says that FLIR1 "is the only official footage captured by a US Navy F/A-18 Super Hornet present at the 2004 Nimitz incident off the coast of San Diego."
    I haven't seen any explicit statement that Fravor's young wingman Jim Slaight didn't record the UFO chase on his helmet-mounted camera, but it's implied by all the statements that FLIR1 was the only video of the incident.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  28. Kaen

    Kaen Member

    You’re right, all sources seem to indicate that the ATFLIR footage was the only footage taken. But that doesn’t mean that FLIR1 is the complete version of that footage.

    FLIR1 was already leaked in 2007 via the ATS forum (see message #448), and the person who leaked this footage also stated that the ATFLIR footage was ‘all the footage that was taken’, but he added that the FLIR1 footage is about half the length of the full version, and that the full version ‘has more UFO movement etc’:

    Source: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread265835/pg3#pid2928447

    So it seems we’re only getting half the video at half the resolution from TTSA, with zero evidence for their CoC claim.

    I pointed out in my previous post that the US government does not mind to make reports of UFO encounters available on its websites. I included an example similar to the Nimitz incident to back up this claim, but it was deleted by a moderator. The Blue Book archives have been put online as well. No complicated CoC procedures involved. This case can be considered an exception to this rule, which to me indicates that it was some kind of military experiment, not a UFO.

    Some of the frames in the FLIR1 video look a lot like a Northrop Grumman EA-6B Prowler seen from the front. The Prowler is an electronic warfare aircraft so it is certainly capable of jamming an F18 radar.

    According to Wikipedia:
    Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_EA-6B_Prowler

  29. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    That seems like an extreme interpretation - how does it look more like that plane than any other plane? And how does the view from the front differ from the view from the rear?
  30. Kaen

    Kaen Member

    Yes, it’s a bit of a stretch.

    I searched for pictures of military aircraft with an inverse-T-shaped tail that rises above the fuselage and two air intakes close to each other below their nose. That is what I tend to see in the ‘blurry blob’ IR frames (just like AgentK tends to see an airplane in the ‘blurry blob’ TV frames).

    The Prowler came up as a good candidate.

    The reason I suggest it here is the fact that, according to Fravor - in his interviews with Jeremy Corbell - the UFO actively jammed the F18 radar system. The Prowler is equipped to do just that and it was still in service back in 2004.

  31. Kaen

    Kaen Member

    Hmmm… the dark area that I assumed to be air intakes seems to turn with the object (see frames below). It looks as if the object turns counter clockwise when seen from the top.

    Not sure what it is exactly. The ‘tail’ that I think I’m seeing in the first frames could be a reflection/scatter.

    Maybe not an airplane after all…


    • Like Like x 1
  32. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Consider that as it gets larger there's LESS detail. That strongly suggests that the earlier detail is just scatter/glare/artifacts from a small light source.
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2018
  33. Agent K

    Agent K Active Member

    A lot of the gunk around the target gets cleaned up when the camera rotates after the TV mode, 48 seconds into the original .mp4 file. Looks like an airplane heading left to me.
  34. Kaen

    Kaen Member

    Good idea to focus on the part of the video right after the optics is rotated and hence relatively free of thermal noise. Too bad the zoom is not yet applied there, though the zoom may add additional optical distortions as well.

    Below are some frames from right after the rotation of the optics.

    It doesn’t look like an airplane to me.

    There seems to be a horizontal darker line running through the middle of the object. This line is not visible in the 2.0 zoom engaged later in the video. It makes me think of the object’s description given in the Fightersweep article:

    Source: https://fightersweep.com/1460/x-files-edition/

  35. Robert Mcintyre

    Robert Mcintyre New Member

    Well one possible explanation is they witnessed a submarine launch a missile. It would explain the water disturbance, the appearance of hovering (as some sea launched missiles do get ejected into the air, pause then ignite a rocket), and the sudden acceleration and take-off out of his sight. His belief that he was somehow engaging with it in a manoeuvre could have just been anthropomorphic type misinterpretation perhaps in the same way as you can be convinced someone is looking at you when in fact they are looking at something behind you. The missile was just doing its launch sequence and he was flying around it. This explanation doesn’t fit very well with his own account though. It would have to assert that he either did not register, recall or interpret what he saw very well (hence minor details like the appendages could be interesting clues as to what it actually was). But also this explanation doesn’t fit well with all the supporting data that is being claimed about there being up to 100 radar hits over several days and so on.

    I’m not sure what the purpose of your image was. I guess possibly you were being facetious.
  36. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    to show L shapes facing the same way.

    Fravor says he engaged with this thing for quite a while, doesn't jive with a missile as far as I know.
  37. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I don't don't see how that's within the realm of possibility. Missiles don't look like tic-tacs, they don't instantly vanish, they don't randomly get shot when there's fighter jets around, they don't hover for that long, they leave smoke trails, They have a bright spot from the rocket flames, they don't make the water "boil".
  38. Flir1 is visually the most uninteresting of the 3 TTSA videos released thus far, so I've never really paid it much attention.

    Noticed this today, though:

    Internal lens reflections? Greasy fingerprints on the FLIR housing?

    I highlighted just this section, but the artifacts aren't limited to these frames, similar artifacts are throughout most of the video.
  39. Hi Getoffthisplanet,

    I think that I found a similar artifact in this image (don't remember where I got it though)...

    Looks like Tv mode to me but I have no idea what generated such artifacts and I've asked a Flir technician about it but he has no clue either:

    Capture d’écran 2018-01-24 à 16.31.11.

  40. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    That's what I assume it is. I see something similar in my IR converted Nikon P900.
    Metabunk 2019-09-09 04-03-42.
    (Inverted image)
    It's centered here, but the light path in the ATFLIR is a lot more complicated.