1. marrowmonkey

    marrowmonkey New Member

    Don't really have a good mental picture of it, and I'm not good at creating animations unfortunately. It's just based on what he's said in this interview (0:50-1:50):

    He first says that when they arrive they see it hovering above the water, it's about 40 ft and shaped like a tic tac:
    Keep in mind he's recalling this from an event from 13 years ago though.

    EDIT:
    Actually, at around 2:40 he says that he could easily have seen an object that size up to 10 miles (us miles or nautical miles?) away and that it disappeared from view in two seconds. That would mean faster than about 8-9 km/s (about mach 25) which sounds extreme. On the other hand is it impossible they simply lost track of it? ... Maybe they were looking at the horizon when they should have been looking up, for example.

    EDIT2: corrected the speed calculation in first edit.
     
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2017
  2. elevenaugust

    elevenaugust New Member

    I'm also in the process of investigating this crucial point.

    I asked to Mr Schneider about this specific reply that he (or the other V-U admin Tobias Langbein) gave almost eleven years ago to a member ("Sitchins Lover") of the Godlikeproductions forum:

    [​IMG]

    "I got it from a contact in USA who uploaded it for me there"... hmmm.

    Then I replied one week ago to Mr Schneider asking for clarification and he was very surprised:

    "I didn't send the mail in 2007 (or i`m too old now to remember) :)
    Maybe it was one of my former co workers who answered the mail but if so he did not talked to me about that. That`s strange because we are talking about all things. We`re a small company.

    I can try to contact all former co workers but it will take some time because it`s Christmas holiday.
    "

    I'm still waiting his answer.
     
  3. marrowmonkey

    marrowmonkey New Member

    Raytheon (maker of the FLIR system) has posted a short article about this on their own webpage now:
    "Navy pilots used Raytheon tech to track a strange UFO".
    Unfortunately they are probably unaware of this debunking effort, would have been great with some expert insight into flares, rotations, zoom, filed of view and such. :D They do not seem convinced though:
     
    • Useful Useful x 1
  4. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Looking at the pilot account on TTSA, and extracting positional and size information:
    https://coi.tothestarsacademy.com/nimitz-report/

    The first thing I'd note is the area. Off the coast of San Diego, in whale watching territory with Blue Whales, Grey Whales, and Dolphins.
    20171230-133439-ff9b9.


    Then the sizes of things. 60 foot by 80 foot for the water disturbance, and half that (30 to 40 foot long) for the tic-tac. This is very small to see from "10,000 to 20,000 feet." And the tic-tac was at 1000 to 3000 feet above the tiny patch of water, and yet it "traveled from left to right over the disturbed water at an altitude of approximately 1000 to 3000 feet ... at a speed of approximately 300 to 500 knots in a straight line."

    300 knots is about 500 feet per second. This means it would have travelled over the 80 foot disturbance in 0.16 seconds.

    However the jets themselves were also travelling at around 250 knots (422 feet per second) at 10,000 feet, looking down at a moving object at 1,000 feet. It's literally impossible to describe this at moving over the disturbed water. It could only possible have lined up for a fraction of a second. Here's a side view of the movements and relative positions for 1 second.

    20171230-140448-0f2bf.

    It makes no sense. You can't say it was going across the region if it only happened to be lined up for a fraction of a second - a fraction which is entirely depending on the position of the jet as well as the UFO.

    Any sensible analysis would have involved a 3D recreation of the movement based on all available information. That would have shown that the description given is just nonsensical, and almost certainly the result of a loss of situational awareness.

    One also has to consider the mental state of the pilot, who described his escalating concern in the following way:
    So breaking that down, firstly he's nervous because it's "not a drill", then he's excited because he thinks it drug runners, then he's frightened because he thinks it's a 9/11 attack and he's going to have to ram an airline with his plane, then he thinks there a plane just crashed, and then literally two seconds later thinks that it's a missile test, and is worried that he will die because he won't be able to shoot it down, then he thinks he sees something moving so rapidly that he'd not have a chance, so he's scared of that. Then he loses sight of it, and when he gets back to the ship he's angry that nobody is taking him seriously, and thinks he may have been deliberately sent into the path of a US missile test and now everyone is making fun of him. After three different UFO theme films have been played, which he and his friends sees as mocking, they go into the ready room, slam the door shut, one of them makes a copy of of the video, and "Source" write a letter to his Aunt.

    Frankly it's laughable that anyone is taking it seriously.
     
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2017
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Funny Funny x 2
  5. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    In the Tucker video above he describes the Tic-Tac as "just hovering above the water". But in the original report it is described as:
    These accounts seem at odds.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  6. sitarzan

    sitarzan Member

    ^

    Brilliant analysis!

    According to this New York Magazine article, "UAS" in military parlance typically refers to a "drone"...

     
  7. marrowmonkey

    marrowmonkey New Member

    So "source" seems to think it could have been a missile test, during the event and shortly after. That they now claim it must have been aliens seem like something they have decided at a later date.
     
  8. JBenn

    JBenn New Member

    I was after that clarification on what exactly would be needed for full evidence. So then missing is CoC + "data" where data = ((radar + optical) && info from both matches the movements recorded by the various sensors). It's interesting that he doesn't say anything about human testimony to corroborate the data. TTSA have a tough job by the sounds of it since the DoD have already claimed they didn't provide anything to TTSA. Also:
    Not the same pilot, otherwise the implication is that Fravor could be found at a later time to be openly lying on air. That in itself would be a problem for TTSA since they don't currently seem to have a problem with him being implied as the pilot of the clip (by omission of any statement to that effect). I find it odd that this Nimitz clip doesn't even fall within the 2007-2012 AATIP time-frame (though that doesn't mean data is absent I just find it curious that Elizondo is in no way connected with Nimitz).

    Anyway. I added to @Mick West graphic:

    GIMBAL vs. Nimitz_.

    Or:

    GIMBAL vs. Nimitz__.
     
  9. sitarzan

    sitarzan Member

    Old "Sex" sounds like he was in a high state of pisstivity after all his shipmates busted his chops with those UFO movies! Somebody prone to "overestimation of his skills" typically doesn't handle ridicule very well.

    I can easily imagine a person like that being so pissed at the Navy, that they would do something like Fravor is doing as a way to get revenge on the Navy for making him look like he's not the hotshot he imagines himself to be.

    Something about that reminds me of reports I've read about Luis Elizondo's resignation...

    I wonder. Does "wasn't taken seriously" mean Elizondo was also ridiculed on the job? If so, he also has similar motive for seeking revenge on the U.S. Government.
     
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2017
  10. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    The account on Fightersweep seems just a general paraphrasing of the report, and maybe first hand accounts. The numbers vary. "Source" apprers to be Lieutenant Colonel “Cheeks” Kurth, but then he does not seem to be a trainee??
    https://fightersweep.com/1460/x-files-edition/
     
  11. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    can you quote the relevant text from the article?

    can you give us a quote and source link for that statement?

    I disagree. Or his shipmates wouldn't have been playing alien movies.

    Everything Elizondo used to make his decision. although it's iffy what will be released, as I imagine practice drills would be largely exempt.
     
  12. marrowmonkey

    marrowmonkey New Member

    I think "source" might be Lt. Cmdr. Jim Slaight or his WSO, and OK-2 and OK-3 in the other jet would be Fravor and his WSO.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/us/politics/unidentified-flying-object-navy.html
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. marrowmonkey

    marrowmonkey New Member

    No, I'm sorry, it doesn't appear to not have been mentioned in the NYT article, it's mentioned in the fightersweep and to the stars academy article/report though so I added quotes from them.
    MUST being the operative word here. They certainly had the alien theory when they got back but "Source" seems to think it could have been a missile test at that time.

    In fact, the Princeton let them know they had been seeing objects ascending and descending from high altitude for two weeks before they arrived at the objects location:
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/us/politics/unidentified-flying-object-navy.html
    So maybe some of them were already thinking of aliens even before they got there. And if you already are thinking about aliens when you encounter something out of the ordinary, I suspect you are more likely to settle on aliens as an explanation.
     
  14. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Last edited: Jan 3, 2018
    • Like Like x 3
    • Useful Useful x 1
  15. Josquin

    Josquin Member

    Agreed. Source = Jim Slaight, OK1 = Slaight's WSO, OK2 = Dave Fravor, OK3 = Fravor's WSO. This FLIR footage appears to have been taken by OK4 and OK5 later that day, and may or may not represent the same object as the "tic tac" described by Fravor et al. The Nimitz report from the To The Stars website mentions that Fravor made a copy of the "gun tape" of the incident. I can't help but wonder what happened to it.
     
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2018
    • Agree Agree x 2
  16. igoddard

    igoddard Active Member

    Right away I notice what seem to be peculiarities with the screen data and Fravor's account. He says here that the object moves at the end of the clip from a stationary position.



    He says: "When it leaves the screen on the video it's moving pretty fast. And that's from a stand-still."

    However, the clip lasts approx 82 seconds, and the jet travels @ Mach 0.55. I calculate that means it travels 9.6 miles during the clip (Am I wrong?). So how can the target be stationary, about the size of a fighter jet (also according to Fravor) and appear the same size on the screen (within a magnification of 1 or 2) the entire time? The footage does not seem to comport with what he says, even if my numbers are twice too large.

    Also, the target's azimuth remains roughly the same throughout the clip, at start it's 6˚ above and 4˚ R ahead, and right before it moves away it's 5˚ above and 8˚ L ahead, with no notable deviation outside those close numbers. The footage suggests, if it's not an object at great distance, it's an object that's keeping pace with the jet approximately straight forward and slightly above. That seems to falsify Fravor's claim that this target was a stationary object about the size of his jet, parked the entire time stationary in the sky and then moving to the left near clip's end.

    However, an important point is in this video we have some footage in TV mode, and the object does appear rather tic-tac shaped, as per Fravor's claim. That at first seems a bit baffling, for if there isn't significant loss of detail obscuring wings, how is a round object keeping pace with a jet? My suspicion is there is loss of detail. But also, could the object be at great distance and move even at the fairly leisurely zoom-corrected pace? Is there room for some anomaly here?
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2018
  17. igoddard

    igoddard Active Member

    About the TV mode, quoting from the ATFLIR support wiki:

    TV/LA Option - This option toggles between the default TV, and Light Amplification (LA) options for FLIR video.
    • TV - In daylight, or in low-light conditions with NVG in use, the TV option (default) provides normal, non-amplified imagery.
    I'm reading that to mean TV mode delivers 'normal imagery' and thus visible-light imagery. No?
     
  18. igoddard

    igoddard Active Member

    At first I was disturbed by that report, rather than giving us some answers they're treating it like a bullet-point on ATFLIR's resume. But I'm glad they offer a clear evidence-assessment criterion: we "want at least two sensors." Bang! That's a highly credible and spot-on reference, since these are the very people who produced the system whose data is in question, and they're telling us don't trust just one sensor for what might seem like an extraordinary signal.

    Backup: http://archive.is/https://www.raytheon.com/news/feature/uap_atflir.html
     
  19. Agent K

    Agent K Member

    Yes, TV is visible daylight imagery. In TV mode, the "tic tac" looked extended, and darker than the background, although the Fighter Sweep account says, "It showed up on his screen and on tape as a white object in a black background hovering with no known means."
    Well, it looked white in white-hot IR mode, but that just means it's hot. The TV mode tells you the object's brightness, and it looks dark there, though Fravor said the tic tac was white. Maybe it was brighter than the ocean but darker than the sky.

    The Fighter Sweep [second hand] account says, "As he watched it, the AAV moved out of his screen to the left so suddenly it almost seemed to disappear. On the tape, when it is slowed down, the object accelerates out of the field of view with shocking speed. The WSO was not able to reacquire the AAV either in RWS or with the FLIR."

    The video doesn't show acceleration with shocking speed. Perhaps that part was cut off. If there was no such acceleration, and it was an ordinary airplane, why couldn't they reacquire it?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 5, 2018
    • Useful Useful x 1
  20. Josquin

    Josquin Member

    There's something very weird happening in this video between 1:11 and 1:12. It can be seen in the uncorrected version as well. It happens extremely fast, but can be clearly seen when you play it back at 0.25x speed.

    At 1:11, the zoom setting is at 2.0x in IR mode, and the object appears as a fairly large oblong object:

    upload_2018-1-5_10-22-49.

    Still at 1:11, the zoom setting is changed to 1.0x, and the object reappears as a smaller, oblong object:

    upload_2018-1-5_10-23-40.

    THEN THE WEIRD THING HAPPENS: At 1:12, the zoom setting is once again changed to 2.0x, and the object can be seen shooting off towards the bottom edge of the frame and momentarily disappears from view. It happens extremely fast, but can be clearly seen at 0.25x playback speed. Even at 0.25x speed, I had a hard time clicking pause fast enough to catch it:

    upload_2018-1-5_10-26-17.

    There is a moment of what looks like static interference:

    upload_2018-1-5_10-19-49.

    and then the object is back in view, still at 2.0x zoom, but this time much smaller than before:

    upload_2018-1-5_10-21-21.

    How can one explain this? Does the F18 overtake the object from above when it shoots off from view towards the bottom of the frame? Is there some footage missing between 1:11 and 1:12?
     
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2018
  21. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Nimitz zoom corrected 2018-01-05 08-46-45.

    The camera is physically changing zoom level at that point - from NAR (1.5°) to MFOV (3°). As it has only three physical zoom levels that probably mean it has to physically switch lenses, probably on a rotating array. It cannot track the object while doing this, and likely also takes advantage of the downtime to do a quick major axes realignment into a more optimal position.

    Note the display (both the 1.0/2.0 and the NAR/MFOV) lags behind the zoom changes by a fraction of a second (about 3 frames, so around 1/10th of a second)
     
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2018
    • Agree Agree x 1
  22. Josquin

    Josquin Member

    Ah, that makes sense and explains the movement. What about the variation in the apparent size of the object in IR mode? Why is it large and oblong, and then later small and round?
     
  23. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Remember an IR image of a plane is kind of like looking at a car at dusk with bright headlights. The engines are very hot heat sources, and so appear as very bright lights. So why might they seem smaller? I think there's four main possibilities

    1. The (UFO) plane has turned, so the engines are not as directly viewable.
    2. The thrust on the plane has been decreases, so the exhaust is less bright
    3. The plane is further away
    4. The camera has adjusted the exposure, so it seems less bright, and blooms less.
     
  24. igoddard

    igoddard Active Member

    In the Gimbal video, the target is notably smaller in the hot=white versus in the hot=black mode. So on that example, the hot=white mode seems to reduce size, which I expect is an artifact of optical processing, a touch of bloom suppression. Perhaps that screen-size-suppression effect carries over to hot=white vs TV mode as well.
     
  25. igoddard

    igoddard Active Member

    Here's an example of visible-light imagery of one jet forward of another that in one fell swoop demonstrates that even at close range in 'TV' mode another jet can appear like a dot on which you can't make out its wings...



    That video is also filled with scores of examples of "resonance energy fields" on FLIR.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  26. Agent K

    Agent K Member

    It only looks small and round briefly at the MFOV (Medium Field of View) setting because it's a medium field of view. When it switches back to NAR, the object looks large and oblong again.
     
  27. Agent K

    Agent K Member

    Let's talk about the submarine. There's a big inconsistency between two accounts. As Mick noted above, the TTSA pilot report says, "As Source looked down at the ocean from the cockpit, they noticed a small patch of water, approximately 60 feet wide by 80 feet in length that appeared choppy and turbulent amongst a calm sea."

    But the Fighter Sweep secondhand account says Cheeks saw "A round section of turbulent water about 50-100 meters in diameter." And, "He [Fravor] remembers thinking it was about the size of a 737 and maybe the contact they had been vectored on had been an airliner that had just crashed."

    The Event Summary from 2007 said, "PILOT DESCRIBES OBJECT INITIALLY AS RESEMBLING A DOWNED AIRLINER, ALSO STATED THAT IT WAS MUCH LARGER THAN A SUBMARINE."

    A Los Angeles class submarine is 362 feet, or 110 meters, long.
    Incidentally, according to the Fighter Sweep account, there was a submarine in the area: "They even queried the crew of the USS Louisville, a Los Angeles-class Fast-Attack submarine that was in the area as part of the Nimitz Carrier Strike Group who reported there were no unidentified sonar contacts or strange underwater noises on that day."

    But if the submarine was what the pilots saw in the water, you'd think they'd query the submarine crew about it and sort it out.
     
  28. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I don't think anything is actually proposing that it was a submarine, just that that was one of the things the pilots suspected initially.
     
  29. Josquin

    Josquin Member

    Indeed. At the end of the video, when the object drifts off to the left, the setting is NAR and it takes about 1 second for the object to drift completely out of the frame. Assuming that the field of view at NAR is 1.5 degrees, it takes 1 second for the object to move through half of the FOV (0.75 degrees). A back-of-the-envelope calculation would then give the minimum speed of the object as:

    470 km/h (292 mph) if it is 10 km away
    4700 km/h (2920 mph) if it is 100 km away

    Clearly, the former is more likely if it is a conventional aircraft. Does that look reasonable?
     
  30. Agent K

    Agent K Member

    The 2007 Event Summary described something very different. First, it says the disturbance was due to an object "much larger than a submarine," which is much bigger than 80 ft. And second, it says that Fravor (Fast Eagle 110) spotted the tic tac 5 nautical miles from the disturbance:

    I'm assuming that the tic tac, not the Fast Eagle, was 5 miles from the disturbance.
     
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2018
  31. Agent K

    Agent K Member

    It takes 1 second to move through a quarter of the FOV, because it's at 2x electronic zoom. So, let's say 2 seconds to move through 0.75 degrees.

    The Fighter Sweep secondhand account said that the F-18's radar got a return 30 nautical miles, or 55.6 km away, and aimed the FLIR toward it:
    But I doubt it's that far away in the video. The TV camera mode showed the size of the object, about 1/8th of the display width at 2X zoom, or 1/16th of the display width at 1X zoom, similar to IR mode, so if it's really 55.6 km away, then it spans 91 meters, which would be huge, especially if it suddenly accelerated to the left at 1310 km/h, although it's not clear if the object really accelerated or if the camera panned right.
     
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2018
  32. Agent K

    Agent K Member

    I'm proposing that it was a submarine, because there was a submarine in the area, but I also doubt that they wouldn't have figured that out if it was the case.
     
  33. Josquin

    Josquin Member

    OK, so let's say the object is about 10 m long as the pilots reported. Then 1/16th of 1.5 degrees would give a distance of about 6.1 km and a minimum speed of 144 km/h. Of course, that is just the lower limit of the speed if the direction of motion of the object is exactly perpendicular to the motion of the F-18. If the object is also keeping pace with the F-18, then its actual speed might be closer to 700 km/h, but those numbers still look reasonable for a conventional aircraft.

    Now... is anything else in the video consistent with a distance of 6.1 km from the object? For example, is it reasonable to not see a more definite shape with wings from that distance?
     
  34. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Assuming what they saw in the reports is what they see on the screens.


    I make it more like 1/25 of 1.5 degrees (12 and a bit across the 2x image)

    One problem with that is you can tell with the naked eye that something is 10m (30 feet) long when it's an apparent 6km away. How do you know it's not 20m long and 12km away? If it looks like a featureless white capsule, then how are you judging the size, altitude. and distance?

    And why is it black in the TV footage?
     
  35. Josquin

    Josquin Member

    Absolutely. But the point of my calculations was to establish some boundaries, i.e. what is the maximum distance to the object that is both consistent with what we see in the video and reasonable for a conventional aircraft. For example, it would not be reasonable to claim that it is a commercial airliner 100 miles away from the F-18.
     
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2018
  36. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    The blur is interesting. The video is VERY low resolution about 480 square, and even then seems to have been scaled from something even smaller (or recorded on a blurry medium), and I suspect that there would be more detail in the original.

    The FOV at 2x is about 0.75, this is about the same as doing a square crop on the center zoom of a P900 image. So you might compare such images. So here's a 737, about 0.75°FOV, scaled to 480 pixels square
    8) * 2018-01-05 16-52-46.

    Keep in mind this is viewed from the ground. If something like this was the "UFO", then it would have been viewed from a much shallower angle (i.e. from the jet). But if we try to duplicate the conditions a bit more by removing the contrail and adjusting contrast etc.
    8) * 2018-01-05 16-59-50.
     
  37. Agent K

    Agent K Member

    I was eyeballing the size. Makes sense that it's smaller. Also, the blur can make it seem bigger than it is.
    Also, according to the old data sheet, the FOV is 0.7 degrees.
    https://web.archive.org/web/2009121...s/sas/documents/content/rtn_sas_ds_atflir.pdf
    Also, the display may not show the entire FOV.

    As far as judging size, altitude, and distance, it helps to be moving fast and having two pilots see the same object from different angles. It does seem convenient that Fravor thought the object was fighter-sized, since that's what he's used to, but if he was flying circles around it, I doubt he'd misjudge size and distance too much. That's what fighter pilots train for. To me, this is more compelling than the video. Any idea what it could've been?

    It's black in the TV footage presumably because it's darker than the sky. Perhaps you're seeing the side of it that's not illuminated by the sun, but I'm not sure, considering it was early afternoon in November.
    The TTSA pilot report says Slaight ("Source"), who watched Fravor chasing the tic-tac, confirmed that the FLIR video showed the same object he saw.
    It sounds like they might have "compared the video" with Fravor's gun tape, which would be good corroboration.
     
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2018
  38. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Of course a simple explanation might just be that it was black.


    [​IMG]

    Or just, as you say, darker than the sky
    8) * 2018-01-05 17-58-02.
     
  39. Agent K

    Agent K Member

    I suppose it's possible that the colors can be inverted in TV mode like in IR mode, but I doubt it. How does it look if you invert the colors?
     
  40. Josquin

    Josquin Member

    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 5, 2018