1. TheoryQED

    TheoryQED New Member

    Thanks for pointing this out. Do we know why it broke lock, did the WSO do it intentionally or was it related to the inability of the radar to pick up the object? If we can't maintain targeting lock on a passenger plane or even pick it up on radar/range finder then our Navy is going to have serious problems in a real fight.

    The Navy tracked the objects on radar the entire time, and the FLIR1 video was recorded at the same CAP point that the Tic Tac object was seen on radar after it zoomed off from where it was seen visually at the merge-plot point. 4 aviators lost visual contact over the horizon from two different vantage points on a clear visibility day at the same time that radar showed the object moving to the CAP point where it was later recorded on video. I understand that witnesses and incident report on their own are not proof of anything, but don't they at least corroborate the video when we have numerous people who saw it visually and others who confirm what they saw on the radar scope? If we had no witnesses I know someone here would point out that "all we have is a video"
     
  2. Agent K

    Agent K Active Member

    It broke lock when the WSO switched the FOV between medium and narrow. The radar jamming might be from an EA-6B prowler.
     
  3. Agent K

    Agent K Active Member

    The tic tac, the radar blip at the CAP point, and the aircraft in the video may be different objects. The video doesn't show anything extraordinary.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  4. TheoryQED

    TheoryQED New Member

    Hmm, ok. I thought if you had radar and video confirmation in the same place then it's pretty clear that they are the same because video and radar wouldn't glitch simultaneously. But yeah I guess they could be different.

    Was there a prowler in the air at the time, and wouldn't they easily be able to know that the jamming was from their own jet? Is it clear that radar jamming did in fact occur? I know what Fravor has said, but Chad Underwood apparently said that there were no jamming cues.

    Bottom of page 9- https://thenimitzencounters.com/wp/...TIVE-REPORT_1526682843046_42960218_ver1.0.pdf
     
  5. Hi there,

    Like Agent K said, there's a correlation with a change of FoV when it broke lock, therefore it is likely that it's a technical problem so to speak but the question is why didn't the pod reacquire an autotrack like it did earlier on in the video?

    Might but that's just pure speculation.

    When we talk about EO/IR targeting systems, we talk about DRI (& Johnson criteria) as Detection, Recognition and Identification. In the Flir-1 video/incident, of course the target is detected and tracked by the ATFLIR pod but nobody can tell for sure which kind of target it is (Recognition = class of target), even less identify it.

    If you knew the class of target visible in the Flir-1 video, I for one would not be having this discussion with you and you could demonstrate for example that it's not a lighter than air (class), a decoy/UAV, a glide bomb, etc... and prove that it is for example, an aircraft.

    Mick knows that I also investigated the Chilean Navy footage and came up independently (on UFO Updates in FB) to the same conclusion (flight #). In this case, the target was Detected, we could almost tell for sure which class of target it was mostly because of the contrails but the class of target (Recognition) was 100% confirmed when we identified the flight #.

    All three letters (DRI) were checked.

    Cheers,
    Chris
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2019
  6. Agent K

    Agent K Active Member

    Because switching from medium to narrow FOV made the target jump too far out of the track gate and move too fast through the FOV to reacquire it.

    I was responding to TheoryQED's comment that "If we can't maintain targeting lock on a passenger plane or even pick it up on radar/range finder then our Navy is going to have serious problems in a real fight." But the target might have been a military jet, not a passenger plane.

    I wouldn't call any of those manmade target classes extraordinary in this context. The video doesn't show anything extraordinary that can't be explained by any known manmade object, like instant acceleration to hypersonic speed, which is what some people think they see in the video when it's just the camera zooming in and out and breaking lock.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  7. Agent K

    Agent K Active Member

    The F-18 was vectored to the radar blip, and then the pilot and WSO started looking for anything weird, not knowing what to expect. If you look hard enough for something weird, you'll find it. Fravor saw the tic tac, and Underwood detected the Flir1 object, but we don't know if those are the same things that the USS Princeton's radar detected.

    I dunno, good questions for the Navy and Fravor, respectively.

    The Executive Summary had some errors, like getting the elevation angle wrong, so take it with a grain of salt.
     
  8. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    It also says:
    Which is rather counter to some people who thought it was jumping all over the place in the video. Assuming actually this is the pilot who took the video, it seems like the recognized that the apparent movement was just from switching zoom level.
     
  9. Neither did I. My point is that claiming that the FLIR-1 footage does not show anything extraordinary without even knowing the slant range/size, B-alt, ground speed of the target is a "little bit" of a stretch. To put it simply, you don't even know if it could be a lighter than air or a B777, if it's subsonic or supersonic for a start... This means that "we" don't know much about what we see in this video, do we? Yes or No?

    So my question is, how can we talk about what could or could not be out of the ordinary with insufficient data?

    [...]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 16, 2019
  10. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    If we don't have the data showing it's extraordinary then it's not showing anything extraordinary.
     
  11. We cannot claim anything without enough data. It's a fallacy to claim something without being able to prove it, regardless what your claim is.

    Since we don't know the size, slant range, B-alt and ground speed of the target, we cannot and should not claim anything since we don't know if there's anything extraordinary or not in the flight domain of the target. It's called suspended judgement, the opposite of a hasty or unsubstantiated conclusion.

    Cheers,
    Chris
     
  12. JohnP

    JohnP New Member

    It's also called "Occam's razor", or "Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence."
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. I am not claiming anything other than we cannot claim anything about the target in the Flir-1 video, so Occam's razor does not apply to this situation but a few things apply to those who claim the opposite, claims need evidence(s)...even when they are NOT extraordinary.

    Your guys should read what Truzzi said about claims and counter-claims in the journal Zetetic Scholar.

    Cheers,
    Chris
     
  14. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    Moderator deirdre
    enough. we get it. it could still be an ET UFO. it could be an angel. it could a flying bigfoot.

    You've stated your position enough in enough threads. This is Metabunk, not a philosophy forum. We examine specific claims of evidence here.

    Do not repeat this argument or you will be banned from replying to those threads.

     
    • Disagree Disagree x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  15. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Admin Note Please avoid paraphrasing. If you are making a claim about what someone said, then please include an exact quote, in context, with a source.
     
  16. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    And use the actual person's words where possible, not some story someone else wrote - that's also paraphrasing.
     
  17. I'll try for a third time to make this point, where is your evidence that the Fravor-led sortie was looking for "something weird"?
     
  18. Agent K

    Agent K Active Member

    I thought Fravor knew about the weird radar returns, but I'd have to go back and check. He was at least looking for something hostile after he was asked what was his load-out and was told about the disturbance in the water. Underwood was the one who looked for the tic tac after hearing Fravor's account.
    My point to TheoryQED was that these observers were not independent, but had heightened sensitivity at the risk of more false alarms.
     
  19. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    Your comment is also paraphrasing. the [I think] official event report is on page one, post #2 of this thread
    https://www.metabunk.org/posts/214089/
     
  20. Agent K

    Agent K Active Member

    I was thinking of Mick's take on the Pilot's report.
    https://www.metabunk.org/posts/216966/

     
    • Like Like x 1
  21. That is not a very good assessment of the situation given it ignores the fact that there were four aircrew involved and 3 are on the public record as having seen the "tic-tac". "Source" is the inexperienced female pilot, not the higkly experienced squadron commander Fravor who closed on the tic-tac. Source's WSO, Slaight, is also on record as having seen it.

    Here's the OED definition of weird:

    adjective

    1.
    suggesting something supernatural; unearthly.
    "weird, inhuman sounds"

    At best you've argued they were looking for something stressful like a downed plane, that's very different from looking for something supernatural.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  22. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    But Fravor's story is given weight because "Source" gave a similar story. But it's years later now. Source's recollection is faulty (the dispatcher was male, not female - and there are other discrepancies). Sometimes stories merge in the retelling.

    No doubt the area of white water was real. No doubt she saw Fravor do some odd maneuvers around it. No doubt there were any number of white dots down there from her much higher position. No doubt they talked about it afterward. Stories solidify over time.
     
  23. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    I thought "source" was that other male pilot who was doing interviews. Can't remember his name now. Slait.
    Is 'source' as a female discussed in this thread somewhere and I missed it? (i'm literally asking because I don't want to read 13 pages)
     
  24. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    "Source" is the female pilot, interviewed on Unidentified.
    Metabunk 2019-09-20 09-25-33.

    Earlier in the thread she was referred to as "he" because the gender pronouns had been redacted by Elizondo in his writeup.

    Her identity was leaked. But most people respect her request for privacy, so it's not discussed.
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
  25. Agent K

    Agent K Active Member

    Huh, that's weird, I always used it the way I just did, to mean odd or anomalous, not necessarily supernatural.
    Anyway, I was mainly talking about Chad Underwood, who WAS looking for the weird tic tac when he captured the Flir1 video. Again, I was responding to TheoryQED
    But these were not independent detections. The USS Princeton's radar detection was used to cue Underwood to go out and look for something, and he detected something 30-40 nmi away from him, but it wasn't necessarily the same object. It's like during the Beltway sniper attacks, one witness reported seeing a white box truck, so everyone was looking for a white box truck or van, resulting in many false alarms.
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2019
  26. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    It's never a good idea to bring a dictionary to an argument. Just use better words. But if you ARE, then don't just use the definition the backs you up. OED is organized on historical principles. So the first one isn't going to be the most common one.

    Metabunk 2019-09-20 13-14-19.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  27. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Revisiting this since this movement was mentioned on by Fravor on Joe Rogan. I did a more detailed breakdown of the 1° changes through the video:

    Metabunk 2019-10-06 11-44-42.

    The graph is degrees per second for each frame. It's how far the camera has to move left every second to keep the object in the middle. As you note, when the object moves off to the left after moving lock, it's moving at about 0.175°/second. This happens in the time period after the graph (i.e. after the change to -8°), roughly indicated in red, above.

    So really, given the variability in the measured turn rate, it IS "right on the money" for the entire apparent movement to be camera movement.

    Frame numbers from:

    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCvlW-HoHog


    Same as the SCU uses in their "report".
     
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2019
  28. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Does anyone remember finding a description of the multi-lens system for the ATFLIR? I'm assuming there is some kind of rotating lens turret, or some way of switching light paths that leads to the flying away in the changes from NAR to WFOV around frame 2156. I'm wondering if I could find a more precise explanation for the motion.
    electra.
     
  29. Agent K

    Agent K Active Member

    Fravor's latest interview on Joe Rogan.

    Source: https://youtu.be/Eco2s3-0zsQ?t=412

     
    • Like Like x 1
  30. Agent K

    Agent K Active Member

    Hey Mick, I saw your Twitter thread about the zoom at the end of the video.

    Source: https://twitter.com/MickWest/status/1180651595677097984


    You were saying, "It lost lock during the change in zoom," and people thought you meant the 1x to 2x digital zoom, but that's not what made it lose lock. The switch from MFOV to NAR did.
     
  31. Yes I saw that. The original Fighter Sweep article said he wasn't aware of the prior radar contacts but he's now saying he was briefed on the way to the intercept, although they still also seemed to have thought it was drug runners and I'm not sure how that fits with the profile of dropping from 80k feet as not even fighter jets can get that high..
     
  32. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Yeah, I discussed that later on Twitter.
     
  33. My take away from David Fravor discussing the FLIR footgae on Joe Rogan was that the fighter jet was on auto pilot flying towards the object throughout the video as indicated by codes visible on the screen and that it's very hard tio break the lock on a FLIR once it has hold of a target which makes sense given it's a combat technology. He said the only thing that makes it break lock is when the object moves beyond the most extreme angle that the FLIR camera can mechanically adjust to.
     
  34. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Like if the camera changes lenses from NAR to WFOV
     
  35. Agent K

    Agent K Active Member

    It broke lock multiple times in the video, when switching between TV and IR cameras and between MFOV and NAR field of view, as well as during gimbal lock, but the target was reacquired each time until the end when the FOV was switched from MFOV to NAR.