jackfrostvc
Senior Member
He did, he came back as the TheFinalTheoryReturnsDo you have a link to one of the 2019 threads? He must have switched to a new username.
He did, he came back as the TheFinalTheoryReturnsDo you have a link to one of the 2019 threads? He must have switched to a new username.
Seems a pretty shaky source and vague statements. It's basically saying that they lost sight of the object.
All sources concur there was unrestricted visibility and no clouds.
What is the hypothesis here? Do we have a potential explanation in mind tied to this statement?
When you're up in a plane there's always some haze toward the horizon.Mick West 34:29
And I think this idea of eyewitnesses matching up doesn't really hold out in this case, because there a large number of differences. Not only do the eyewitnesses not agree with each other, they don't agree with the written reports that were produced a long time at. The official Event Summary or the report describes the object as simply being lost in the haze, that kind of really means that they can visually track it all the way until they disappeared, you know, far off in the distance in the haze, which is radically different from the instantaneous disappearing, that Fravor has later come to describe. So I think these accounts have varied over time, they've actually changed over time. And they vary a lot between individual and they, they don't really match what we see. And we don't really have eyewitness accounts that actually match the video, because all we have the video is the guy who took the video was watching the video screen as he took it. So we don't have any corroborating eyewitness accounts for the movements of the object.
Robert Powell 46:53
Yes, yes, absolutely. So let's go through several of these points that Mick brought up. The first one, he said and this is regarding the pilots make said the objects were lost in the mist. Is that right? Mick is that what you just said the objects were lost in the mist?
Mick West 47:09
Haze
Robert Powell 47:10
Haze?
Mick West 47:10
Yeah I can just yeah, I'll just verify that really quick. Because it's a very short thing, the event summary. Yes, it says lost contact in the haze, so it says "the first pilot" which would have been Fravor "lost visual ID of the capsule in haze, and the last visual contact of the capsule at 14k feet heading due east, and the pilot estimated the capsule achieved 600 to 700 knots". And the other pilots were just reported as "lost contact in Haze" as well. No real details, but
Robert Powell 47:41
I'd like to see that document.
Mick West 47:43
Oh you haven't seen it?
Thanks for clearing this up.The official Event Summary or the report describes the object as simply being lost in the haze, that kind of really means that they can visually track it all the way until they disappeared, you know, far off in the distance in the haze, which is radically different from the instantaneous disappearing, that Fravor has later come to describe.
Unless of course there was Haze in the true sense.Thanks for clearing this up.
Yeah I think by haze they mean "disappear in the distance/horizon".
In a clear day that's pretty far off. So even if the managed to track it for 10 seconds instead of "instantly"(=0 sec) disappearing that would be an insane acceleration.
A missile like acceleration that would kill anyone on board and require a lot of energy and tech beyond what is possible today (missiles only fly for seconds and then fall and can't hover).
So I understand that the story might have changed from a certain point of view but the underlying information is valid. Even 10 seconds to disappear over the horizon is "instantaneous" acceleration for a pilot. Nothing normally does that.
but the radar returned a range equal to 99.9, which to the best of my understanding means "infinity". Is this correct? What is the most accepted explanation of this apparent mismeasurement?
What does the 99.9 RNG Display mean?
M: Do you know what the 99.9 thing means? The 99.9 RNG.
K: That means he's not tracking..., that means he's not locked on to it with radar.
M: Okay
K: Is it that way the whole video?
M: No, it starts out blank, there's nothing there and at about 33 seconds that pops up and stays there for the rest of the video.
K: Let's see... [watching video]
M: Some people say that's an indication of the radar being jammed.
K: It's definitely not. You get all kind, you know you're... no, it's not the radar being jammed.
M: Good to know.
K: Okay, so he's just doing an optical track on this as well. So he initiated that range in TV, just doing the optical track, it looks like here, so you are not going to get a range in TV, and he's not going to designate it a target obviously. Because I'm sure he knows, it's just a plane, airliner.
M: He says he doesn't know that. You should listen to his interview, it's kind of interesting, he just did it.
K: Yeah I'm not interested, after hearing Fravor, and that other guy.
M: Jeremy Corbell
K: Yeah, Jeremy Corbell
M: Yeah this was Jeremy Corbell interviewing Chad Underwood, the guy who says he took this video.
K: Yeah, he knew exactly what that was. That's why he didn't designate it as a target. It's not a big deal to designate something as a target, you haven't engaged it, it's just giving you a radar range, but, technology 2004 they probably wouldn't know. Nowadays you know you are designated as a target because you are getting tracked with radar. You're getting ranged, you're getting blasted. So those 99.9s just mean null, null reading.
M: Now is it showing up because he's requested it, like he's pressed the button to get the range?
K: So, yeah, in TV mode he did that, just on an optical track.
M: So there was nothing there before, so he presses the range button, and this crops up just ot show him that he can't get a range?
K: Right, well, I mean, it's "invalid".
M: or it's saying there is no range
K: yeah, there is no range, it's not like a bad range. It's not "you could not get a range", it's "there is no range". He just pulled up the display for range.
I tried ogimet for aviation weather reports (METARs), but they only go back to 2005. San Diego airport itself might have an archive; the report would include information about visibility.So I have searched the forum and could not find anyone who posted the weather conditions for Nov 14th 2004 in the rough location where the Tic Tac event occurred. And to be clear, I don't mean the temperature for the day, I mean the atmospheric conditions on whether there was any reports of Haze, Smog etc.
Be nice if this could be obtained somehow, I have looked a bit myself online , but no luck so far.
It would be pivotal in terms of whether the Haze mentioned in the Tic Tac Exec Summary is accurate or not
Cool, thanks! From other sources, I gather that this may mean that the object was further than 40 nautical miles (~75 km) from the jet. Is this compatible with the size of the blurry object in the frame? I mean, a F-18 hornet has a wingspan of about 15 meters. In normal condition, is the radar powerful enough to resolve such a small thing at that distance? If the answer is positive, then the fact that it didn't in the Nimitz encounter points either to a malfunction or to something else (people say jamming?). I wonder if one could get a ballpark estimate of the size of the object knowing the aperture of the train of radar waves (assuming they travel in a cone).I asked an avionics technician about it.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/av...flir-targeting-pods-tracking-and-glare.11392/
Cool, thanks! From other sources, I gather that this may mean that the object was further than 40 nautical miles (~75 km) from the jet. Is this compatible with the size of the blurry object in the frame? I mean, a F-18 hornet has a wingspan of about 15 meters. In normal condition, is the radar powerful enough to resolve such a small thing at that distance? If the answer is positive, then the fact that it didn't in the Nimitz encounter points either to a malfunction or to something else (people say jamming?). I wonder if one could get a ballpark estimate of the size of the object knowing the aperture of the train of radar waves (assuming they travel in a cone).
I think it's a good match for for the approximate size, given that the image appears blurry. It also matches with the IR glare at the start, which then seems to shift to the right, consistent with the engine placementsAs per the above few posts, can I ask why you think Underwood saw an F-18 in that Tic Tac footage?
A couple of questions:I think it's a good match for for the approximate size, given that the image appears blurry. It also matches with the IR glare at the start, which then seems to shift to the right, consistent with the engine placements
It's still like a digital zoom of a distant (unknown distance) object, right? I don't see why it couldn't be blurryWhy would the TV image look blurry?
Do we know for sure they tried a radar lock-on? It's kind of hard to get a grasp on what certain parts of the FLIR display mean, but the recent video was from a simulation hobbyist and could be mistaken. From the discussion with the supposed technician:When the WSO tried locking the radar on the target why didn't the F-18 get a radar warning and signal a buddy spike?
Which would mean the sensor pod is also capable of just moving to keep the dot that appears on the screen in frame.K: So what it's tracking is not like tracking with radar, or infrared, it's not tracking from the pod, it's the pod talking to the CDU, talking to the actual display. It's tracking the pixels on the screen, if that makes sense.
...
M: There are various points where the bars widen. Does that indicate that it has lost lock, or is it just, what is it?
K: Well, I think the terminology is just a little weird there, because it never had "lock." It's just a visual track.
Two reasons. Firstly it's a poor quality copy. You see the text on screen is blurry. Secondly, it might be out of focus. There's what looks like FOCS 8 on the left.Why would the TV image look blurry?
Because the WSO did not try to lock on on F-18.When the WSO tried locking the radar on the target why didn't the F-18 get a radar warning and signal a buddy spike?
Because the radar wasn't looking at an F-18, the ATFLIR was.Why didn't the radar lock on properly on an F-18?
Part of the exercise, maybe even his wingman.Where would the other F-18 come from? Another ship? Why wasn't Underwood aware/in contact with it?
Certainly low quality. And I don't know how the FOCS setting works. It isn't simulated usually and I can't find any info looking around. From most videos I've seen it seems to always indicate 8. It's probably a static setting (for example it could mean "infinity").Two reasons. Firstly it's a poor quality copy. You see the text on screen is blurry. Secondly, it might be out of focus. There's what looks like FOCS 8 on the left.
He did. As you can tell from the RNG indicator popping on the screen. He tried and it failed returning 99.9.Because the WSO did not try to lock on on F-18.
The RNG indicator appearing shows that the radar was also trying to get a lock at what ATFLIR was pointing but failed. Also this is right in front of the aircraft basically. The radar is pointing straight at it.Because the radar wasn't looking at an F-18, the ATFLIR was.
This is straight in front of Underwood. He can see exactly where ATFLIR is pointing. He is the WSO. His only responsibility is to use those systems. He isn't even piloting the plane to ensure he has full focus on those instruments. He would need to be totally incompetent to be recording his wingman. And why did the radar fail to lock an F-18 right in front of him?Part of the exercise, maybe even his wingman.
That does not mean it tried and failed, it means there's no range data available.He did. As you can tell from the RNG indicator popping on the screen. He tried and it failed returning 99.9.
My understanding is he has ATFLIR lock. He asks for the radar to lock and give him range. The radar returns an error basically. That shouldn't happen. He should immediately see the exact distance and get a radar lock.That does not mean it tried and failed, it means there's no range data available.
It's possible that "asking for the range" and "asking for a radar lock" are separate actions, however it works. Which would mean that just because it displays range 99.9 or whatever doesn't necessarily indicate that he attempted to get a radar lock at that moment. I'm not really sure why they would have a function to ask for the range without actually asking for the radar information that could get you the range, but who knows.He asks for the radar to lock and give him range
from https://www.metabunk.org/threads/av...flir-targeting-pods-tracking-and-glare.11392/K: Okay, so he's just doing an optical track on this as well. So he initiated that range in TV, just doing the optical track, it looks like here, so you are not going to get a range in TV, and he's not going to designate it a target obviously. Because I'm sure he knows, it's just a plane, airliner.
M: He says he doesn't know that. You should listen to his interview, it's kind of interesting, he just did it.
K: Yeah I'm not interested, after hearing Fravor, and that other guy.
M: Jeremy Corbell
K: Yeah, Jeremy Corbell
M: Yeah this was Jeremy Corbell interviewing Chad Underwood, the guy who says he took this video.
K: Yeah, he knew exactly what that was. That's why he didn't designate it as a target. It's not a big deal to designate something as a target, you haven't engaged it, it's just giving you a radar range, but, technology 2004 they probably wouldn't know. Nowadays you know you are designated as a target because you are getting tracked with radar. You're getting ranged, you're getting blasted. So those 99.9s just mean null, null reading.
M: Now is it showing up because he's requested it, like he's pressed the button to get the range?
K: So, yeah, in TV mode he did that, just on an optical track.
It is possible the two functionalities could be distinct. But I agree it doesn't make sense to separate them. Remember pilots use HOTAS most of the time so you can't have unnecessary functions.It's possible that "asking for the range" and "asking for a radar lock" are separate actions, however it works. Which would mean that just because it displays range 99.9 or whatever doesn't necessarily indicate that he attempted to get a radar lock at that moment. I'm not really sure why they would have a function to ask for the range without actually asking for the radar information that could get you the range, but who knows.
from https://www.metabunk.org/threads/av...flir-targeting-pods-tracking-and-glare.11392/
Think what you want, but it is possible that the pilots are either mistaken or dishonest. Afaik the Pentagon has only really confirmed that the videos aren't fake."Because I'm sure he knows, it's just a plane, airliner." "Yeah, he knew exactly what that was." for this to be true Underwood and several others (including the Pentagon somewhat) would be lying. I don't think they are.
I think he's saying that if you're "just doing the optical track" i.e. *only* TV mode and no radar, you won't get the range. It may just be poorly worded."So he initiated that range in TV, just doing the optical track, it looks like here, so you are not going to get a range in TV" this is false. You can get range in TV mode from the radar.
The Launch & Steering Target (L&S) is the primary pilot-designated A/A track. With a HAFU displayed on the Attack or Az/El formats, a track can be designated as the L&S via the Undesignate SHFT+DEL switch, or via manual TDC cursor designation ENT with the cursor positioned over a trackfile. The L&S is also created any time a trackfile has been acquired into STT. This can be done from either the Attack format or the Az/El format. A trackfile can only be made the L&S if it is within the attack region (70° cone about the boresight of the aircraft).
Once designated as the L&S, any of the A/A missiles can be launched against that MSI trackfile. Targeting information for L&S and DT2 is also displayed on the HUD. The TD box, range, range rate, zones, steering and sensor contributor cuing all apply to the L&S trackfile. A small "X" cue is also displayed in the HUD to indicate the line-of-sight to the DT2 trackfile. The designated L&S can be also utilized for sensor control. For example, an L&S SLAVE option is available on the A/A FLIR format and Az/El FLIR format to control the FLIR line-of-sight such that it can be slaved to the L&S LOS.
The L&S target may be cycled/stepped to another trackfile (if one exists) by pressing the Undesignate switch SHFT+DEL from the Attack or Az/El formats. This will rapidly cycle through all visible trackfiles stepping the L&S to each trackfile in turn. The L&S can be removed completely (if not in STT, or with an AIM-120 in flight) via the RESET option at [PB14]. There is no HOTAS control for removing the L&S once it is created.
If the L&S is dropped for any reason other than RESET, (gimbal limit exceeded, aged out, etc.) and a DT2 exists, the DT2 is declared the L&S.
Pretty cool huh :-D watch out they cause addiction!I wasn't sure what L+S (L&S) stood for so I did some digging
Again sim manuals are seemingly the main source of information (where do the sim makers get their info from...?)
Yes I think it is tracking optically. However ATFIR was presumably pointed at the object using a radar track. ATFLIR has a maximum FOV of 6° in WFOV ( https://www.explorescu.org/post/nimitz_strike_group_2004 page 155) so you need to point it around a lot to see something "manually". It's not really meant for that.As non are boxed during the entire video then presumably ATFLIR is tracking optically. This doesn't mean there are not tracks on the SA it means the ATFLIR is not being asked to slave to one of them. This is counter to point 6 of the "The Nimitz Encounter - A Response to Mick West video."
However If there were a track from the ship/AWACS etc being sent to the F/18 the it seems the ATFLIR could have been slaved to this track even if it were not a track on the F/18's own radar.
It would be really interesting to have one of the pilots from the time look at this video and ask him those direct questions.I wonder however if it the ATFLIR is in non slave mode this is why bringing up the range brings up 99 etc, ie even though you have tracks, because the ATFLIR is not considering RADAR tracks as it is not SLAVED it shows 99.
I've been trying to think of what could explain their physical/visual sighting as well. The balloon theory doesn't really line up with what they've said IMO. A tethered balloon wouldn't be moving in the erratic manner they've mentioned and any sort of detonation of the balloon would be noticed not only visually but also on FLIR if either jet had it on. It's unclear of Dietrich still had eyes on the tic-tac when it supposedly disappeared.
The two aspects of their testimony that are hardest to rectify for me are:
- The erratic movement of the tic-tac. They've mentioned it moved like it was "bouncing around" in a random fashion. What could explain that?
- The sudden disappearance of the tic-tac. Fravor has always maintained it simply "disappeared" and he didn't see it flying away at a high rate of speed or anything like that. Just that it was there and then it wasn't. It would be interesting to work out how large the object would appear to Fravor at the distance he claims it disappeared. His air speed at the time would also be of interest. It's a shame they didn't ask Dietrich about this part.
I agree with the data we have this is basically the only viable theory to explain those sightings.I wonder if what they saw was a Tic Tac shaped radar spoofing blimp/balloon that was tethered to a sub just beneath the surface. Then as Fravor spiralled down for a look, they released the blimp. As it started to climb it reached a certain height where the wind direction changed. The orientation of the blimp and it's direction changed accordingly bringing it on course towards Fravor. As it got to Fravor's jet , the personnal monitoring the blimp in the sub saw a collision was on the cards and detonated the blimp/balloon.
Just a theory
I agree with the data we have this is basically the only viable theory to explain those sightings.
It has some glaring holes in it though:
- why didn't the carrier group identify the presence of a sub in the area. Subs are a grave threat to carriers and one the main goals of the carrier group is to ensure protection from them. That is why they have destroyers and submarines as escorts with the latest and most advanced sensors.
- I don't think a large balloon would "move around so much" like "a ping pong ball" in the wind to justify the observations of Fravor and co. They were looking at it from 20k feet. It can't be too small and had to be moving around a lot.
But I think this is basically one of the few explanations worth pursuing.
An enemy sub releasing balloons/UAV to spoof/observe Navy radars and activity. When they got caught they submerged and released the balloon. Then terminated its flight (it blew up/deflated instantly and the pilot though it had "zoomed away"). Then other balloons released previously and already at altitude were observed on ATFLIR. When they get closer to them they are destroyed to ensure they are not "caught".
As I type this I realise a lot of data we have does not match this potential theory though.....
It could be argued that much of that statement that hinges on the definition of a "weapon".Not an enemy sub, the USS Louisvlle was in the vicinity of the Tic Tac sighting.
It's noted in the 2009 report