It was growing over time in the video. To borrow Ian's graphic:
I edited the gamma curve to flesh out subtle changes in brightness; the differences in brightness are real, not imaginary:
The TV image is on the left, Ian's combined image is on the right.
Remarkably consistent for noise. I wouldn't say I'm seeing a plane in there, however I'm seening something that's clearly NOT a symmetrical caplet.Concerning the 'airplane', I've made a picture with all the frames of the last 'TC mode' section in the video. You can clearly see that the 'airplane' picture is just random noise that sometimes triggers the brain into seeing an airplane.
The 'wings' disappear and then appear again at a different spot - they are just 'bulges' of noise.
It does not have the gradual shading giving the impression of depth on top of the object.
It's really unclear why you are saying that when there's gradual shading all the way around the object in these images.
To my eyes, yes there is gradual shading all the way around but it is asymmetrical.
If Ian is right, the object is illuminated by the sun from above and - to a lesser extent - by the sea from below.
In that case you would expect a larger illuminated part at the top of the object, and that is what it looks like to me:
This asymmetry makes a 180 degrees flipped image look different and the image above look like a tic tac illuminated from above, at least to the pattern matching circuits in my brain (but maybe that last tic-tac was one too many )
Ian Goddard combined the IR and TV image in the video below. He speculated that the top part of the object is hit by the sun’s rays reflecting off the object. For the IR video segment this means that the top part is visible because it reflects the sun’s IR rays and is probably heated by the Sun, too. For the TV video segment this means that the top part is hardly visible against the bright background.
The gradient mapped images give a more accurate look at the size and symmetry the fringe. You can do a similar thing with curves:
The sensor elevation angle is 5 degrees, so it should see the jet from below, not above. That's why my picture depicts it from below.
So this analysis shows that the 20 second video fragment in TV mode at zoom level 2 is consistent with:
> A closure speed of 400 kts
> Towards a 40 feet long object*
> At a distance of 10 NM
*30 feet apparent length because the object is rotated w.r.t. the FOV plane
400 kts True Air Speed (TAS) is consistent with the jet’s Calibrated Air Speed (CAS) of 250 kts shown in the ATFLIR display, and the 40 feet object size is consistent with the size estimates made by the pilots in an earlier sighting of the object.
I think @Kaen is correct, this is probably an "out of range" display.
Fighter jets are pretty manoeuvrable, it wouldn’t surprise me if it’s standard practice to approach from below as it gives you a visual advantageThat's odd. I always assumed they were looking down at it since in at least the fightersweep article it says it was a few thousand ft below them:
If the ATFLIR pod is looking up then they must have locked on to some other object than what they were detecting on radar!
Your last few post are highly speculative. Perhaps you can research some of these 'thoughts' and present some actual data that would be useful.Fighter jets are pretty manoeuvrable, it wouldn’t surprise me if it’s standard practice to approach from below as it gives you a visual advantage
More speculative than doodling aircraft inside pixelated blobs? In fact the original statement that they are filming it from below because the FLIR is angled upwards is speculative as the FLIR’s angle has no bearing on the position of the aircraft relative to the object.Your last few post are highly speculative. Perhaps you can research some of these 'thoughts' and present some actual data that would be useful.
The point being that such things as IFF (International Friend or Foe) transponder properties are googleable and therefore not in keeping with the Posting Guidelines.More speculative than doodling aircraft inside pixelated blobs? In fact the original statement that they are filming it from below because the FLIR is angled upwards is speculative as the FLIR’s angle has no bearing on the position of the aircraft relative to the object.
the FLIR’s angle has no bearing on the position of the aircraft relative to the object.
I was more expressing surprise at posts suggesting they wouldn’t know it was an aircraft but I think the suggestion is they did know but it’s been presented to the public as unidentified.The point being that such things as IFF (International Friend or Foe) transponder properties are googleable and therefore not in keeping with the Posting Guidelines.
How do we know the aircraft is in level flight? If they were flying towards it in 3D they would be gradually descending.Of course it does. If the FLIR is looking up then it means the object is positioned above the horizontal plane of the aircraft, which is in level flight. The angle essentially is the position of the object relative to the aircraft (especially as we don't know distance).
Citation needed. There's two plausible options here — relative to level (gravity) and relative to the horizontal plane of the aircraft. It's good not to make assumptions.FLIR is aligned with the axis of the aircraft so +5 degrees means its crosshair is pointing 5 degrees above the angle of the axis.
How do we know the aircraft is in level flight? If they were flying towards it in 3D they would be gradually descending.
In the alleged executive report that was posted before they give similar figures (30-40nmi and 15-20k ft below). They also say that the ATFLIR display the elevation of the object as minus 5 deg. Although, I can't see a minus in the video (or the figure in the report). It could be that the ATFLIR have downwards angles defined as positive, or whoever made the report made a mistake thinking it must be negative since it was described as being below them.
Source: https://media.lasvegasnow.com/nxsglobal/lasvegasnow/document_dev/2018/05/18/TIC TAC UFO EXECUTIVE REPORT_1526682843046_42960218_ver1.0.pdf
Ahh, sorry missed that, I didn't begin reading the executive report until now so I must have glossed over it. I think you are right, the other video clearly has a negative angle:
The pilot who claims to have intercepted it David Fravor has done a new interview. He says the TTSA report has got a few mistakes in it for example the Princeton controller who directed them to the target was male not female. He says the report was compiled several years after the events. He also says he filmed his encounter with object in high resolution and it shows details such as small L shaped appendages on its underside. He says “good luck getting hold of that film” implying it’s been suppressed.
The video before this one on the same youtube channel, the channel owner Jeremy Corbell interviews an alleged radar operator on Nimitz who claims he got to see a much more detailed video where he sees a flying saucer and several tic-tacs come down to dock with it...The pilot who claims to have intercepted it David Fravor has done a new interview.
I don't think it's clear he believes it has been suppressed, it could just mean that the original high resolution video has been lost. It was a training exercise from many years ago. It doesn't seem strange to me if they don't keep good records of reports from training exercises from over ten years ago.He says “good luck getting hold of that film” implying it’s been suppressed.
|Thread starter||Related Articles||Forum||Replies||Date|
|P||Possible explanation for radar jamming in the Nimitz encounter||UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy||33|
|Nimitz ATFLIR Focus Issues||UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy||17|
|F||Nimitz Tic-Tac Fravor/Dietrich Encounter - Missile Hypothesis||UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy||65|
|D||Hypothesis: Fravor's Tic Tac was Kurth's FA18||UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy||98|
|Claim that the Nimitz FLIR1 object could not be a plane because it would have been Identified||UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy||54|
|Kevin Day's Recollections of the Nimitz Encounters||UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy||42|
|D||[Possible explanation] Kevin Day (Nimitz tictac ufos) radar encounter||UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy||9|
|Why Michio Kaku is wrong about the UFO Burden of Proof & Navy Videos||UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy||32|
|Simulating the Nimitz UFO video as a blurry plane||UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy||51|
|How Big is a Tic-Tac? Scale Models of the Nimitz Incident||UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy||23|
|Explained: Photo of "UFO" Used in Connection with Nimitz Incident [Balloon]||UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy||8|
|M||FLIR Technician Discusses Navy videos and claims to refute Mick's claims||UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy||300|
|8||Dave Flach's FLIR UFO - Jacksonville, FL Dec 8th 2016||UFOs and Aliens||3|
|Avionics System Technician Discusses FLIR Targeting Pod's Tracking and Glare||UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy||7|
|Gimbal Lock and Derotation in FLIR/ATFLIR systems||UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy||30|
|TTSA's Form DD-1910 for FLIR, Go Fast, and Gimbal videos||UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy||69|
|Explained: Contrails Appear "Hot" in Thermal Imaging because the Sky Appears Very Cold||Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky?||4|