2004 USS Nimitz Tic Tac UFO FLIR footage (FLIR1)

[TheoryQED]

A couple of clarifications:

The actual object steadily moves left, but it stays centered in the video because the camera is tracking it, until it breaks lock.

​

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.

Also, judging from YouTube comments, people conflate the videos with eyewitness accounts like Fravor's story.

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"

 

[Agent K]

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.

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

 

[Agent K]

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"

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.

 

[TheoryQED]

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.

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.

The radar jamming might be from an EA-6B prowler.

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.

"The radar was in a standard search mode (RWS/ 80NM/ 4bar/ intr) and the FLIR was in L+S slave (the FLIR would point in direction of a radar L+S track). There was no radio or communication interference and they had entry into the Link-16 network, Initial awareness of an object came via the radar. According to the radar display, the initial tracks were at approximately 30-40 nm to the south of the aircraft. Lt._________was controlling the radar and FLIR and attempted multiple times to transition the radar to Single Target Track (STT) mode on the object. The radar could not take a lock, the b-sweep would raster around the hit, build an initial aspect vector (which never stabilized) and then would drop and continue normal RWS b-sweep. When asked, LT.__________ stated that there were no jamming cues (strobe, champagne bubbles, “any normal EA indications”). It “just appeared as if the radar couldn’t hack it.” The radar couldn’t receive enough information to create a single target track file. The FLIR, in L+S slave, pointed in direction of the initial track flies as the radar attempted lock. The FLIR showed an object at 0 ATA and approximately -5deg elevation (Figure 2). According to LT.__________ “the target was best guess co- altitude or a few thousand feet below,” estimating the object to be between 15-20 thousand feet. The object, according to the FLIR, appeared stationary (Figure 3). There was no discernable movement from the object with the only closure being a result of the aircraft’s movement. As LT.__________ watched the object it began to move out of FLIR field of view to the left. LT.__________ made no attempt to slew the FUR and subsequently lost situational awareness to the object. The Flight continued with training mission with no further contact with object."

Content from external source

Bottom of page 9- https://thenimitzencounters.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/TIC-TAC-UFO-EXECUTIVE-REPORT_1526682843046_42960218_ver1.0.pdf

 

[Christophe Isbert]

Hi there,

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.

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?

The radar jamming might be from an EA-6B prowler.

Might but that's just pure speculation.

The video doesn't show anything extraordinary.

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

 

[Agent K]

why didn't the pod reacquire an autotrack like it did earlier on in the video?

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.

Might but that's just pure speculation.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Agent K]

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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

The FLIR showed an object at 0 ATA and approximately -5deg elevation

Content from external source

 

[Mick West]

The Executive Summary had some errors, l

It also says:

There was no discernable movement from the object with the only closure being a result of the aircraft’s movement.

Content from external source

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.

 

[Christophe Isbert]

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.

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?

[...]

 

[Mick West]

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?

If we don't have the data showing it's extraordinary then it's not showing anything extraordinary.

 

[Christophe Isbert]

If we don't have the data showing it's extraordinary then it's not showing anything extraordinary.

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

 

[JohnP]

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.

It's also called "Occam's razor", or "Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence."

 

[Christophe Isbert]

It's also called "Occam's razor", or "Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence."

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

 

[deirdre]

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

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.

 

[Mick West]

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.

 

[Mick West]

And use the actual person's words where possible, not some story someone else wrote - that's also paraphrasing.

 

[Robert Mcintyre]

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'll try for a third time to make this point, where is your evidence that the Fravor-led sortie was looking for "something weird"?

 

[Agent K]

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"?

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.

 

[deirdre]

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.

Your comment is also paraphrasing. the [I think] official event report is on page one, post #2 of this thread

CVW-11 EVENT SUMMARY
14 NOVEMBER 04
EVENT SUMMARY
EVENT 3
Event
Side
Narrative
ADEX
3A1,3C1,
3D2
110/100, 303/305, 401
FAST EAGLES 110/100 UPON TAKE OFF WERE VECTORED BY PRINCETON AND BANGER (1410L) TO
INTERCEPT UNID CONTACT AT 160@40NM (N3050.8 W11746.9) (NIMITZ N3129.3 W11752.8).
PRINCETON INFORMED FAST EAGLES THAT THE CONTACT WAS MOVING AT 100 KTS @ 25KFT ASL.
FAST EAGLES (110/100) COULD NOT FIND UNID AIRBORNE CONTACT AT LOCATION GIVEN BY
PRINCETON. WHILE SEARCHING FOR UNID AIR CONTACT, FAST EAGLES SPOTTED LARGE UNID
OBJECT IN WATER AT 1430L. PILOTS SAW STEAM/ SMOKE/CHURNING AROUND OBJECT. PILOT
DESCRIBES OBJECT INITIALLY AS RESEMBLING A DOWNED AIRLINER, ALSO STATED THAT IT WAS
MUCH LARGER THAN A SUBMARINE.
WHILE DESCENDING FROM 24K FT TO GAIN A BETTER VIEW OF THE UNID CONTACT IN THE WATER,
FAST EAGLE 110 SIGHTED AN AIRBORNE CONTACT WHICH APPEARED TO BE CAPSULE SHAPED
(WINGLESS, MOBILE, WHITE, OBLONG PILL SHAPED, 25-30 FEET IN LENGTH, NO VISIBLE
MARKINGS AND NO GLASS)

Content from external source

https://www.metabunk.org/posts/214089/

 

[Agent K]

Your comment is also paraphrasing. the [I think] official event report is on page one, post #2 of this thread

CVW-11 EVENT SUMMARY
14 NOVEMBER 04
EVENT SUMMARY
EVENT 3
Event
Side
Narrative
ADEX
3A1,3C1,
3D2
110/100, 303/305, 401
FAST EAGLES 110/100 UPON TAKE OFF WERE VECTORED BY PRINCETON AND BANGER (1410L) TO
INTERCEPT UNID CONTACT AT 160@40NM (N3050.8 W11746.9) (NIMITZ N3129.3 W11752.8).
PRINCETON INFORMED FAST EAGLES THAT THE CONTACT WAS MOVING AT 100 KTS @ 25KFT ASL.
FAST EAGLES (110/100) COULD NOT FIND UNID AIRBORNE CONTACT AT LOCATION GIVEN BY
PRINCETON. WHILE SEARCHING FOR UNID AIR CONTACT, FAST EAGLES SPOTTED LARGE UNID
OBJECT IN WATER AT 1430L. PILOTS SAW STEAM/ SMOKE/CHURNING AROUND OBJECT. PILOT
DESCRIBES OBJECT INITIALLY AS RESEMBLING A DOWNED AIRLINER, ALSO STATED THAT IT WAS
MUCH LARGER THAN A SUBMARINE.
WHILE DESCENDING FROM 24K FT TO GAIN A BETTER VIEW OF THE UNID CONTACT IN THE WATER,
FAST EAGLE 110 SIGHTED AN AIRBORNE CONTACT WHICH APPEARED TO BE CAPSULE SHAPED
(WINGLESS, MOBILE, WHITE, OBLONG PILL SHAPED, 25-30 FEET IN LENGTH, NO VISIBLE
MARKINGS AND NO GLASS)

Content from external source

https://www.metabunk.org/posts/214089/

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

One also has to consider the mental state of the pilot, who described his escalating concern in the following way:

I became nervous when I heard the female controller for the second time, I could sense concern and urgency in her voice and I realized this was not a drill and that this was for real.
...
Source then remarked to OK-1, "Bad ass!" (Source Comment - As a new pilot, the idea that we were being asked to intercept drug runners was exciting to me.
...
At this point I was frightened due to the fact that we were being asked if we had any weapons available.
I became concerned because we were in a situation that we may have to use our aircraft itself as weapon.
I was thinking to myself that this could be another September 11th-style attack that we were being asked to intercept
...
Source opined they thought they were witnessing a crash perhaps that of an unidentified aircraft, as they made the mental transition from intercept mission to search and rescue.
...
Source immediately became alarmed and initially thought that perhaps this was an unannounced, classified missile test by a U.S. Navy submarine. As such, they were concerned that the object could pose a threat, especially given the fact both F-18s were unarmed.
...
Source Comment - I was scared because I never encountered a situation like this before
I was worried for them because whatever this was, I didn't stand a chance against it!
...
Source was furious that colleagues on the ship were not taking the incident seriously and were playing the movies "Signs", "Men in Black", and "X-Files". Source believed it was a flight safety issue at a minimum, especially if they were deliberately vectored to a testing location of a blue-force [friendly, i.e. US] weapon system
...
OK-1, OK-2, and OK-3 entered the Ready Room, where OK-2 slammed closed and secured both hatchways and began making an electronic copy of the gun tape from his F-18. During this time, Source made detailed written notes of the incident on available printer paper and mailed them to their Aunt with the notice "keep this because this is important stuff about some real X-files shit."
...
Source indicated they experienced some time dilation during the incident but believes it was due to their heightened state of excitement and adrenaline

Content from external source

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...

 

[Robert Mcintyre]

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

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.

 

[Mick West]

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.

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.

 

[deirdre]

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.

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)

 

[Mick West]

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)

"Source" is the female pilot, interviewed on Unidentified.


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.

 

[Agent K]

Here's the OED definition of weird:

adjective

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

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

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.

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.

 

[Mick West]

Here's the OED definition of weird:

adjective

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

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.

 

[Mick West]

As I said on the previous page, "Perhaps the target drifted to the left because it was 8 degrees to the left of the F-18, but then again, it was also 5 degrees above the F-18 yet it didn't drift up at all."
I was thinking of a stationary object that drifts due to the F-18's forward motion, but you're right that the object was always moving left.
It took 35 seconds (112 to 147) to go from 0 to 8 degrees left, or 0.23 degrees per second.
The NAR field of view is probably 0.7 degrees, as I mentioned in post #117.
When the lock broke, the object took about a second to move a quarter of the FOV, or 0.175 degrees, which is in the ballpark of 0.23 degrees. If it took 0.76 seconds, it would be right on the money.

You can see the object trying to drift left multiple times in the video, like after switching from TV to IR mode, but the tracker manages to reacquire and re-center it, but in the end it loses it. So the object is moving left the whole time at about 0.23 degrees per second.
The object looks asymmetric to me, like the left end is pointy.

There's info about the autotracker in SPIE and patents.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1117/12.472591

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:



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".

 

[Mick West]

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.

 

[Agent K]

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"?

Fravor's latest interview on Joe Rogan.
Source: https://youtu.be/Eco2s3-0zsQ?t=412

6:52 - We have no idea what we're intercepting, and this is when the controller starts talking to us. He says, "Hey sir, we've seen these objects, for two weeks they've been coming down," and he's giving us the whole story, says, "We need you to go investigate, we want to know what these are."

Content from external source

 

[Agent K]

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.

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.

 

[Robert Mcintyre]

Fravor's latest interview on Joe Rogan.
Source: https://youtu.be/Eco2s3-0zsQ?t=412

6:52 - We have no idea what we're intercepting, and this is when the controller starts talking to us. He says, "Hey sir, we've seen these objects, for two weeks they've been coming down," and he's giving us the whole story, says, "We need you to go investigate, we want to know what these are."

Content from external source

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..

 

[Mick West]

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.

Yeah, I discussed that later on Twitter.

 

[Robert Mcintyre]

Yeah, I discussed that later on Twitter.

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.

 

[Mick West]

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.

Like if the camera changes lenses from NAR to WFOV

 

[Agent K]

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.

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.

 

[Agent K]

The Pentagon confirmed that the Navy has a video classified Secret that's the same length as the leaked video, and they don't plan to release it.

The Navy Has Secret Classified Video of an Infamous UFO Incident
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/wxe54z/the-navy-has-secret-classified-video-of-an-infamous-ufo-incident

In response to a Freedom of Information Act request sent by researcher Christian Lambright seeking more information on the incident, the Navy said it had "discovered certain briefing slides that are classified TOP SECRET. A review of these materials indicates that are currently and appropriate Marked and Classified TOP SECRET... We have also determined that ONI (Office of Naval Intelligence) possesses a video classified SECRET that ONI is not the Original Classification Authority for."
“The Department of Defense, specifically the U.S. Navy, has the video. As Navy and my office have stated previously, as the investigation of UAP sightings is ongoing, we will not publicly discuss individual sighting reports/observations,” Susan Gough, a Pentagon spokesperson, told Motherboard. “However, I can tell you that the date of the 2004 USS Nimitz video is Nov. 14, 2004. I can also tell you that the length of the video that’s been circulating since 2007 is the same as the length of the source video. We do not expect to release this video.”
Gough was not able to comment on the briefing slides, and when asked if the source video held by the Navy was a higher resolution, contained audio, or other data, she stated she was unable to provide any additional information.
Many in the UFO research community have speculated that it could be the enigmatic ‘Grailian’ full length raw copy of the original 2004 UAP footage. Popular Mechanics reported in November that several original witnesses of the Nimitz incident allegedly saw a longer higher resolution video of the UFO encounter. Gary Voorhis, a Petty Officer who served on the Princeton, a ship in Nimitz fleet, told Popular Mechanics that he “definitely saw video that was roughly 8 to 10 minutes long and a lot more clear.” Others, such as Commander David Fravor, have stated that longer videos of the incident probably do not exist.
Elizondo, who resigned from the Pentagon in 2017, said that he is “not able to comment further on the existence of a longer video due to my obligations involving my NDA with the Government and the fact that I am no longer employed with the U.S. Government. However, as I stated before, people should not be surprised by the revelation that other videos exist and at greater length."

Content from external source

 

[Mick West]

Gary Voorhis, a Petty Officer who served on the Princeton, a ship in Nimitz fleet, told Popular Mechanics that he “definitely saw video that was roughly 8 to 10 minutes long and a lot more clear.”

Content from external source

I just interviewed Gary Voorhis, he said what he saw was about 10 minutes long, and he saw the object do all kinds of "janky" maneuvers in the video.

 

[Agent K]

I don't think you'd see a big plume from an ordinary airplane like a business jet from the side, especially if it's angled slightly towards you.

Here's what I was picturing.
https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie/3063/1/AIRMS-infrared-performance-model/10.1117/12.276087.short