2004 USS Nimitz Tic Tac UFO FLIR footage (FLIR1)

gtoffo

Member
I didn't see any discussion of the target being tracked to the left and continuing to move off the screen after breaking lock.
The report notes the zoom from 1X to 2X at the end of the video, but somehow concludes that there was "rifle shot acceleration" anyway.
Appendix J and K seem the ones that directly address the ATFLIR videos.

I haven't had the time to review it thoroughly but the seem to consider both zoom level changes and the possibility that the object is an aircraft seen from the back (exhaust only) as some have suggested here.

Does it make sense to open a new thread and focus on those two appendixes to try and find flaws in their conclusions?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Does it make sense to open a new thread and focus on those two appendixes to try and find flaws in their conclusions?
It would be a rather short thread, as it seems to be all based on the camera losing lock. It obviously does lose lock.
 

gtoffo

Member
So how do they conclude there's any motion?
Everybody concludes there is motion no? The plane is shown flying straight while under autopilot heading and barometric altitude hold (that's what HDG and BALT mean on the bottom of the video – I like flight sims and you can find an explanation of radar modes on an F-18 here if you do too Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUukVLGOBLc). The thing is being tracked from 4°L to 8°R so it's moving to the left compared to the aircraft as it crosses its nose.

So it IS moving left. No doubt about that right?

They then use this movement to calculate velocity and then acceleration in the final frames of the video if I understand it correctly but I am still working my way through it.

p.s. range is key here. IF (that's a big if) my trig is correct and google gave me correct conversions (damn miles and knots): with 12 degrees of movement observed from start to end (67 seconds) and assuming distance is constant from the F18:

- at 40 nautical miles (max range of ATFLIR) we have the object crossing 8.6nm of space in 67 seconds. That's 6.71 nm/min so 402 knots. Not too shabby
- at 20 nautical miles (statements by Chad Underwood) half distance = half speed so 200 knots.

The F-18 in the video is going at 250 for reference. That's mach 0.55 at that altitude according to the indicator in the video.

IF (a big if) my calculations are correct (I doubt it) then this would be too fast for a balloon or your average weather event/cloud.
 
Last edited:

Agent K

Active Member
Everybody concludes there is motion no? The plane is shown flying straight while under autopilot heading and barometric altitude hold (that's what HDG and BALT mean on the bottom of the video – I like flight sims and you can find an explanation of radar modes on an F-18 here if you do too Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUukVLGOBLc). The thing is being tracked from 4°L to 8°R so it's moving to the left compared to the aircraft as it crosses its nose.

So it IS moving left. No doubt about that right?

They then use this movement to calculate velocity and then acceleration in the final frames of the video if I understand it correctly but I am still working my way through it.

p.s. range is key here. IF (that's a big if) my trig is correct and google gave me correct conversions (damn miles and knots): with 12 degrees of movement observed from start to end (67 seconds) and assuming distance is constant from the F18:

- at 40 nautical miles (max range of ATFLIR) we have the object crossing 8.6nm of space in 67 seconds. That's 6.71 nm/min so 402 knots. Not too shabby
- at 20 nautical miles (statements by Chad Underwood) half distance = half speed so 200 knots.

The F-18 in the video is going at 250 for reference. That's mach 0.55 at that altitude according to the indicator in the video.

IF (a big if) my calculations are correct (I doubt it) then this would be too fast for a balloon or your average weather event/cloud.
It's tracked from 4°R to 8°L. The size and speed are consistent with an airplane. The closer it is, the smaller and slower it must be. The only odd thing about the video is that the range doesn't show up correctly.
 

gtoffo

Member
p.s. range is key here. IF (that's a big if) my trig is correct and google gave me correct conversions: with 12 degrees of movement observed from start to end (67 seconds) and assuming distance hasn't changed significantly from the F18:

- at 40 nautical miles (max range of ATFLIR) we have the object crossing 8.6nm of space in 67 seconds. That's 6.71 nm/min so 402 knots. Not too shabby
- at 20 nautical miles (statements by Chad Underwood) half distance = half speed so 200 knots.

The F-18 in the video is going at 250 for reference.
Everybody concludes there is motion no? The plane is shown flying straight while under autopilot heading and barometric altitude hold (that's what HDG and BALT mean on the bottom of the video – I like flight sims and you can find an explanation of radar modes on an F-18 here if you do too Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUukVLGOBLc). The thing is being tracked from 4°L to 8°R so it's moving to the left compared to the aircraft as it crosses its nose.

So it IS moving left. No doubt about that right?

They then use this movement to calculate velocity and then acceleration in the final frames of the video if I understand it correctly but I am still working my way through it.
It's tracked from 4°R to 8°L. The size and speed are consistent with an airplane. The closer it is, the smaller and slower it must be. The only odd thing about the video is that the range doesn't show up correctly.
The range doesn't show because the radar can't lock on it. That is not consistent with an Aircraft.

We have demonstrated it is moving with a perpendicular component to the observer. If this was an aircraft we are looking at it from the side. Yet on TV mode it looks like a black blob. Just like it's IR image. That is also not consistent with an Aircraft.

Aircraft doesn't solve it.
 

jarlrmai

Active Member
A camera doesn't have a max range really, as long as enough photons are reaching the sensor you can get an image, hence why I can photograph the Andromeda galaxy on my DSLR. It's unclear what the range statement refers to specifically for the ATFLIR. The Raytheon ad blurb make it sounds like it's the target lock range not some sort of limit on range of the vision of the camera which makes more sense.

from https://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/atflir

"ATFLIR can locate and designate targets day or night at ranges exceeding 40 nautical miles"

So it could be much further away.
 

Agent K

Active Member
The range doesn't show because the radar can't lock on it. That is not consistent with an Aircraft.

We have demonstrated it is moving with a perpendicular component to the observer. If this was an aircraft we are looking at it from the side. Yet on TV mode it looks like a black blob. Just like it's IR image. That is also not consistent with an Aircraft.

Aircraft doesn't solve it.
The radar might have been jammed or malfunctioned. We don't have the radar tape, only contradictory accounts from witnesses.
The blob is consistent with an aircraft. We're looking at it from 5 degrees below.
 

Agent K

Active Member
A camera doesn't have a max range really, as long as enough photons are reaching the sensor you can get an image, hence why I can photograph the Andromeda galaxy on my DSLR. It's unclear what the range statement refers to specifically for the ATFLIR. The Raytheon ad blurb make it sounds like it's the target lock range not some sort of limit on range of the vision of the camera which makes more sense.

from https://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/atflir

"ATFLIR can locate and designate targets day or night at ranges exceeding 40 nautical miles"

So it could be much further away.
If the target is far enough away, then its size and speed becomes too big to match any known aircraft.
The range in the ad may refer to the laser target designator, and in any case it says exceeding 40 nmi, not max range as gtoffo said.
Obviously, the camera can make out a large target from a longer range than a small target.
 

Agent K

Active Member
I'm thinking it's something like this, only it's moving toward the camera and above the camera, but the silhouette should be the same.
1589320418699.png
 

gtoffo

Member
Recap of the data we have confirmed:
- this things moves horizontally 12° across the nose of a static observer
- it is at a static altitude 5° of inclination above an observer at 20k feet.
- ATFLIR has a "max" range of around 40nm (and the intercept could have been as close as 20nm according to witness testimony by the pilot)
- the radar can't lock on and determine range although it's range is longer than ATFLIR
- the thing is emitting IR radiation
- the thing is visible on TV (black & white) mode so it is observable in the visible light spectrum with a similar shape to its IR image
- something else?

Additional data that depends on range (40 to 20nm?):
- object speed (only horizontal component relative to observer) is around 400 to 200 knots
- object elevation would be at 40k feet at 40nm or 30k feet at 20 nm. Elevation is key: maintaining those altitudes for something with wings is tricky. You need high speeds and good propulsion. Would the speeds observed be enough? It could be going at an angle with us and we might be seeing only a small part of it's true speed which may be hypersonic even.
- object size: we can get there with the camera field of view. "the ATFLIR maps a 0.70/0.35 deg field of view to the ATFLIR image sensor, this is equivalent to a super-telephoto lens of a focal length greater than 1200mm and a magnification factor of 35x or greater compared to a 35mm lens and sensor. This means that for objects at significant distance the details of their structure should be visible in the ATFLIR display up to several miles in distance." source https://www.explorescu.org/post/nimitz_strike_group_2004 page 198 I think the two values are for zoom 1 and zoom 2. At zoom 2 the object is 57/750 pixels on my screen so 0.076 of 0.35° which is 0.0266°. At 40nm it's 40 meters. At 20nm it's 20 meters an F-18 super hornet is 18,31 meters long. This is the size Fravor estimated for the thing he saw.
 
Last edited:

gtoffo

Member
I'm thinking it's something like this, only it's moving toward the camera and above the camera, but the silhouette should be the same.
Impossible. The NAVY forgot they had a Prowler in the air? Why no radar tracking? It should be clear as day.

Also: why is it so bright on IR if it is coming towards us? More probably it would be going away from us and we are seeing the engine plume if this is an aircraft.

But it isn't an aircraft. Or you would see it on the ATFLIR TV mode clearly and on all radars in the area. Remember TV mode is a normal B&W camera. This thing was visible normally as a blob (or tic tac?)

So how do they conclude there's any motion?
They know the ATFLIR field of view. "The 0.7 deg of ATFLIR display comes from information obtained by reading the specifications for the Ratheon AN/ASQ-228 ATFLIR specifications. The ATFLIR has three setting's WFOV = 6 deg, MFOV = 2.8 deg, NFOV or NAR = 0.7 deg."

They assume the entire field of view of the sensor is visible in the video (reasonable)
They assume the servo did not move significantly when it lost track (reasonable but very significant)
They use those few frames when the target goes out of sight to estimate the acceleration (given the image doesn't move).

I find it is solid if the assumptions are true.
Assuming the servo doesn't move is a big assumption though. I don't see why it should, but if it moved in the opposite direction to the observed movement it would be only an apparent acceleration. We know if any movement was present it was within 1° though or the image would have showed that.
The rapid acceleration also explains why it lost track. We are talking about a very magnified view which is not used to track sudden movements. On the contrary, it is highly stabilised to compensate for the movement of the F-18, turbulence, etc. It knows that at such ranges a target won't move very fast. So it is probably restricted in its movements to extremely minute adjustments. For an object to move out of the picture in 1 second at 40nm it would need to suddenly move by 450m. A 450m/s jump is a pretty insane acceleration so no need for ATFLIR to expect it.
 
Last edited:

Agent K

Active Member
Impossible. The NAVY forgot they had a Prowler in the air? Why no radar tracking? It should be clear as day.

Also: why is it so bright on IR if it is coming towards us? More probably it would be going away from us and we are seeing the engine plume if this is an aircraft.

But it isn't an aircraft. Or you would see it on the ATFLIR TV mode clearly and on all radars in the area. Remember TV mode is a normal B&W camera. This thing was visible normally as a blob (or tic tac?)
The Prowler would've been testing its jammer on the radar. Those who need to know would've known. The radars did see it, but Underwood's radar couldn't track it.
It's coming towards us because it gets bigger over time. It's a lot hotter than the cold sky in IR.
It looks like a plane to me in TV mode. I discussed it on page 11. It's dark because the bottom of it is shaded from the sun.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/2004-uss-nimitz-tic-tac-ufo-flir-footage-flir1.9190/post-223161
1589324870512.png
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Everybody concludes there is motion no?
Yes, obviously there's motion towards the left. I'm talking about the sudden movements. Sorry I was not clear.

The motion towards the left is what continues each time the camera stops tracking the plane.
 

Agent K

Active Member
They know the ATFLIR field of view. "The 0.7 deg of ATFLIR display comes from information obtained by reading the specifications for the Ratheon AN/ASQ-228 ATFLIR specifications. The ATFLIR has three setting's WFOV = 6 deg, MFOV = 2.8 deg, NFOV or NAR = 0.7 deg."

They assume the entire field of view of the sensor is visible in the video (reasonable)
They assume the servo did not move significantly when it lost track (reasonable but very significant)
They use those few frames when the target goes out of sight to estimate the acceleration (given the image doesn't move).

I find it is solid if the assumptions are true.
Assuming the servo doesn't move is a big assumption though. I don't see why it should, but if it moved in the opposite direction to the observed movement it would be only an apparent acceleration. We know if any movement was present it was within 1° though or the image would have showed that.
The rapid acceleration also explains why it lost track. We are talking about a very magnified view which is not used to track sudden movements. On the contrary, it is highly stabilised to compensate for the movement of the F-18, turbulence, etc. It knows that at such ranges a target won't move very fast. So it is probably restricted in its movements to extremely minute adjustments. For an object to move out of the picture in 1 second at 40nm it would need to suddenly move by 450m. A 450m/s jump is a pretty insane acceleration so no need for ATFLIR to expect it.
Did you watch Mick's "No Sudden Moves" video?
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/explained-new-navy-ufo-videos.11234/post-238805
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
- at 40 nautical miles (max range of ATFLIR) we have the object crossing 8.6nm of space in 67 seconds. That's 6.71 nm/min so 402 knots. Not too shabby
- at 20 nautical miles (statements by Chad Underwood) half distance = half speed so 200 knots.

At 40nm it's 40 meters. At 20nm it's 20 meters an F-18 super hornet is 18,31 meters long
Ok, that pretty much rules out a large passenger plane, which would be doing around 450 knots but be much larger.

A Bombardier Glocal Express business jet would be about 30m long and do 500 knots. So if you find a slightly larger plane, it could be slightly above 40 miles out.

If you think about a close plane, and the F-18 is doing 350 knots, it'd close 4 nm in 60 seconds, so the 20nm distance would see some apparent acceleration just from the closing rate (somethig moving from right to left appears faster if you're closer).
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
It's a lot hotter than the cold sky in IR.
Yeah, against the sky everything looks hot, even ice. Consider the plane in this video.


Source: https://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XNzQyMzMzNDE2.html


When coming towards the camera it's a fairly uniform white shilloette
Metabunk 2020-05-12 16-15-16.jpg

From the side the engines are more apparent. But really this is just because the camera is getting a bigger image of the plane, and has adjusted the contrast better.
Metabunk 2020-05-12 16-15-43.jpg

As it flies away, we see the glare from the engines, but the tail (vertical stabilizer) is the same color.
Metabunk 2020-05-12 16-17-07.jpg

It's also interesting looking at the portion of the video where it loses focus.

Metabunk 2020-05-12 16-19-14.jpg
 

Attachments

Last edited:

gtoffo

Member
Yes, obviously there's motion towards the left. I'm talking about the sudden movements. Sorry I was not clear.

The motion towards the left is what continues each time the camera stops tracking the plane.
Appendix K refers to the calculations regarding the final "acceleration". Appendix J refer to the "rifle shot" seen around 71 seconds in the video (I had never even noticed).

The Prowler would've been testing its jammer on the radar. Those who need to know would've known. The radars did see it, but Underwood's radar couldn't track it.
It's coming towards us because it gets bigger over time. It's a lot hotter than the cold sky in IR.
It looks like a plane to me in TV mode. I discussed it on page 11.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/2004-uss-nimitz-tic-tac-ufo-flir-footage-flir1.9190/post-223161
Except that's not how planes look in TV mode. Why isn't it visible? Also, an aircraft's skin exposed to sub zero temperatures heats up if the plane is going very fast but is not "a lot hotter". The leading edges might be but other parts will be colder. That's why the airframe is usually clearly visible and delineated. A Prowler just doesn't add up.

Mick's video above proves this. That explanation only makes sense form an IR point of view if the plane is going AWAY. However the TV mode is inconsistent with that explanation. There is no plume in visible light unless this is something like a huge rocket of some sort or something with a huge exhaust. Any rocket launches on that day?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
There is no plume in visible light unless this is something like a huge rocket of some sort or something with a huge exhaust. Any rocket launches on that day?
No plume? Why would you expect a "plume?" Can you draw or show a photo of what you would expect?
 

gtoffo

Member
Yes and I'm rewatching with the new info in mind. A couple of questions for Mick:

- you say the field of view is 0.35° for NFOV. That's actually half of the NFOV of 0.7°. Am I missing something? The traverse time you indicate would be half of what you calculated.
- When discussing the "rifle shot" the switch to WFOV + raise in gain have you considered the object might have "jumped" as described in appendix J of the SCU report? The sensor response seems automatic given how brief the event is. I haven't got to reading the appendix yet and I need to find a way to do a frame by frame analysis of this as it is too fast otherwise to accurately track.
 

gtoffo

Member
No plume? Why would you expect a "plume?" Can you draw or show a photo of what you would expect?
We have demonstrated the size the object would have to have at that distance. It's 40 meters at 40nm and the longer you go the bigger it gets. No afterburner is big enough to cover the whole airframe in visible light. You posted a nice pic of an F-14 with afterburners on seen from the back somewhere.

Imagine those pictures in black and white basically. You would see the airframe clearly and the engines are much smaller (in IR they may look bigger but not in TV mode): https://www.shutterstock.com/it/search/jet+afterburner

Another video for reference of how an aircraft normally looks through ATFLIR Source: https://twitter.com/warsmonitoring/status/910843986734182400


It's out of focus.
Why? This is a state of the art sensor not a cheap IR camera.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
- you say the field of view is 0.35° for NFOV. That's actually half of the NFOV of 0.7°. Am I missing something? The traverse time you indicate would be half of what you calculated.
It's at zoom 2.0. i.e 2x zoom.
When discussing the "rifle shot" the switch to WFOV + raise in gain have you considered the object might have "jumped" as described in appendix J of the SCU report? The sensor response seems automatic given how brief the event is. I haven't got to reading the appendix yet and I need to find a way to do a frame by frame analysis of this as it is too fast otherwise to accurately track.
No, because it reappears back in the middle of the frame when the new lens rotates into place. What it do? Fly away at 10x the speed of sound and then teleport back to where it was?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Another video for reference of how an aircraft normally looks through ATFLIR
Closer and in focus.

Why? This is a state of the art sensor not a cheap IR camera.
A) It still has to focus
B) It looks like it's out of focus

Metabunk 2020-05-12 17-00-39.jpg
Notice the grey "halo" around it. Objects that are in focus don't have this. It's about six pixels deep of halo, about the size of the solid black part, which means it's entirely out of focus.


Of course, it cloud be a giant shape-shifting furry peanut - but at some point you really should consider the simpler explanation.
 

gtoffo

Member
It's at zoom 2.0. i.e 2x zoom.
Are you sure that's how it works? I have not considered this in my calculations above so everything would need to be doubled. EDIT My bad. I did use 0.35 as well in my calculations. (time to sleep)

No, because it reappears back in the middle of the frame when the new lens rotates into place. What it do? Fly away at 10x the speed of sound and then teleport back to where it was?
Yes. That's exactly what they are saying. "like a ping pong ball bouncing inside a glass"

According to the Appendix K (just a quick look so I could be wrong) the target disappears BEFORE the lens change (WideFOV) which is a consequence of the loss of target with subsequent gain increase since no IR target can be seen. The camera goes back to NFOV automatically when the target returns. I have not verified this as a frame by frame analysis is needed.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
According to the Appendix K (just a quick look so I could be wrong) the target disappears BEFORE the lens change (WideFOV) which is a consequence of the loss of target with subsequent gain increase since no IR target can be seen. The camera goes back to NFOV automatically when the target returns. I have not verified this as a frame by frame analysis is needed.
All the indicators lag the changes (i.e. the indicators changed after the lens change).

While it's certainly a possibility that some kind of anti-gravity craft or non-physical dark and hot patch could exhibit impossibly fast 2000g motion to one side (dragging the sky with it - see the bright area in the upper right)) and then back again to a dead stop at the exact same time a lense was being rotated away from the sensor and a new lens coming in, there's no actual evidence of this happening.
 

gtoffo

Member
Closer and in focus.


A) It still has to focus
B) It looks like it's out of focus

View attachment 40791
Notice the grey "halo" around it. Objects that are in focus don't have this. It's about six pixels deep of halo, about the size of the solid black part, which means it's entirely out of focus.
Looks at how many pixels are occupied by the lock lines. This is a very low res video. How much of that loss of focus is due to the video itself? We could use the blurry lines as an estimation of this maybe? The left bar is 5 pixels wide. How many should it really be? 1 or 2?

I don't see why AFTLIR would be out of focus for over 1 minute in any condition except extreme close range. Slightly out of focus ok. Extremely out of focus for an instant? Sure. For so long and so much that an aircraft within detection range (40 nm) looks like a tic tac? Improbable.
 

Agent K

Active Member
Also, an aircraft's skin exposed to sub zero temperatures heats up if the plane is going very fast but is not "a lot hotter". The leading edges might be but other parts will be colder.
Other parts are colder than the hot parts, but a lot more intense than a clear sky that's close to zero intensity.
 

gtoffo

Member
Does it matter?
Yes since we are trying to fit "a aircraft in a round peg" :) As I have said it's an extreme assumption given the sensor characteristics, range, and image shown and requires the malfunction of another system (the radar) and the nullification of witness accounts.

Doesn't really fit that well as an explanation and is not "the most probable answer"
 

jarlrmai

Active Member
Is it more or less probable that some equipment failed or was used in a suboptimal way and people got confused than an advanced alien craft that has similar radar jamming capabilities to our own aircraft but not the ability to hide itself in IR/Visible light performing stunts in front of our military for some unknown reason? And what are you using to assess the relative probabilities?
 

gtoffo

Member
Is it more or less probable that some equipment failed or was used in a suboptimal way and people got confused than an advanced alien craft that has similar radar jamming capabilities to our own aircraft but not the ability to hide itself in IR/Visible light performing stunts in front of our military for some unknown reason? And what are you using to assess the relative probabilities?
Slow your horses.

The most probable explanation here is: there is some earthly/mundane explanation that we still haven't proposed.

Let's keep looking. Aircrafts and aliens are not the only possibilies. The are two extremes I think. There are infinite other possibilities in between (balloons? missiles? rockets? Weird glitches? etc.). We are here to explore. Let's find something that fits all the data we have in a comfortable way and with the least amount of assumptions needed.

If you need to say "it is solved" to ease your mind fine. But if an aircraft is all we have. It is not a very solid explanation. Quite the opposite actually for the (verifiable) reasons I have pointed out above

Also: please have a look at Mick's excellent interview with Tim McMillan Source: https://youtu.be/Ncppqq41XRI
. The Navy considers this still unexplained. It happened in a highly patrolled area of the U.S. airspace. Planes don't just go around undetected there. They knew exactly at what range this thing was, where it was going, and how fast. They just won't share that info with us. If this was a passenger place of any kind they would not be saying it is still unexplained (that would be breaking federal law in a major way).
 

jarlrmai

Active Member
Why do you think they shared this small fragment of the encounter alone?

We've done a lot of work collectively on this, we don't know exactly what it is we think it most likely fits the profile of another aircraft but yes another object like a missile/balloon is possible but maybe less likely. We've also said glitches are possible as well. Past that we don't know anymore.

Our investigation of these videos is to more provide alternative analysis to the TTSA's own explanation of the videos. The Navy list the object as unidentified, that's hard to know what they mean do they mean they think they know what type of object but not the exact model or or is it just default operational secrecy. The US Military is not going to provide details unless they legally have to.

It boils down to there is a video, some people think the contents of the video alone shows something extraordinary, we do not think that it does. What exactly the ordinary thing is we do not know, nor does it seem do the the US Navy but the Navy might say be 95% sure its a Prowler or a Learjet or a balloon but saying so would potentially reveal something about US Navy operations/equipment and even if that information is out of date and functionally useless to anyone they are not going to reveal any more than they have to.

The fact that there is testimony about odd things is interesting but the video needs to stand alone to match the TTSA analysis, we do not think it does.
 
Last edited:

gtoffo

Member
Why do you think they shared this small fragment of the encounter alone?
Witnesses say no other data is still available and no longer versions of the video still exist today.

We've done a lot of work collectively on this, we don't know exactly what it is we think it most likely fits the profile of another aircraft but yes another object like a missile/balloon is possible but maybe less likely. We've also said glitches are possible as well. Past that we don't know anymore.
New information is coming out every day. Are we afraid to debunk the conclusions reached by others? Also, I wasn't here so I might have missed some items (I apologise if I am repeating past discussions) but my questions should be easily explained if the aircraft thesis was solid and thoroughly discussed in the past.

Our investigation of these videos is to more provide alternative analysis to the TTSA's own explanation of the videos. The Navy list the object as unidentified, that's hard to know what they mean do they mean they think they know what type of object but not the exact model or or is it just default operational secrecy. The US Military is not going to provide details unless they legally have to.
I reccoment Mick's interview I linked above for context regarding this. The release is nothing "default". Quite the contrary it is an extremely extraordinary event.

It boils down to there is a video, some people think the contents of the video alone shows something extraordinary, we do not think that it does. What exactly the ordinary thing is we do not know, nor does it seem do the the US Navy but the Navy might say be 95% sure its a Prowler or a Learjet or a balloon but saying so would potentially reveal something about US Navy operations/equipment and even if that information is out of date and functionally useless to anyone they are not going to reveal any more than they have to.

The fact that there is testimony about odd things is interesting but the video needs to stand alone to match the TTSA analysis, we do not think it does.
I agree we should let the video stand alone and only use outside witnesses to guide our hypotheses. My doubts are independent of any outside testimony. The aircraft explanation does not hold at the moment.

Find me an aircraft that is flying to the side of an ATFLIR and tell me the range of your choosing that results in speed consistent with the observation, altitude consistent with the observation and a resulting TV and IR image consistent with the observation. And no radar lock as demonstrated by the video.
Then we can say this was an aircraft.

You can't pick just one of those items individually. They must ALL be true at the same time.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Also, I wasn't here so I might have missed some items (I apologise if I am repeating past discussions) but my questions should be easily explained if the aircraft thesis was solid and thoroughly discussed in the past
as cumbersome as it seems, you should really go back and read the whole thread. Your questions might not make sense if people are assuming you read the whole thread.


I reccoment Mick's interview I linked above for context regarding this.
why? don't tell people to go watch a whole long video. give us a synapsis of what you think is interesting in the interview. (with timestamps).

Quite the contrary it is an extremely extraordinary event.
is it? has this situation ever occured before where the NYTimes and almost every other media publication on the Earth is inciting perhaps [tens/hundreds of thousands of people to bother them with FOIA for the videos?

ind me an aircraft that is flying to the side of an ATFLIR and tell me the range of your choosing that results in speed consistent with the observation
are you talking about the [fly off the screen in an unnatural, extraordinary way at the end of video] bit? That has already been explained.
The claim of evidence that this is [extraterrestrial] is that it jumps off screen at the end in an impossible way. Without that claim there is nothing really extraordinary about this video. (which is why they need the gish gallop of "witnesses" with old muddied memories).
 

gtoffo

Member
why? don't tell people to go watch a whole long video. give us a synapsis of what you think is interesting in the interview. (with timestamps).
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1243&v=Ncppqq41XRI&feature=emb_logo
at 1h0.7min Tim Talks about what the release by the Pentagon "means" for such a bureaucratic machine and why they would be unable to "lie" to the american public without breaking several federal laws. Highly recommended.


is it? has this situation ever occured before where the NYTimes and almost every other media publication on the Earth is inciting perhaps [tens/hundreds of thousands of people to bother them with FOIA for the videos?
As far as I know it only happened during the "glory days of Ufology" before the Condon Report (also discussed in Tim's interview above which again I reccomend in its entirety). Before that report there was widespread studying of UFO reports by academia and governments alike. After that report most serious investigations ceased.

are you talking about the [fly off the screen in an unnatural, extraordinary way at the end of video] bit? That has already been explained.
The claim of evidence that this is [extraterrestrial] is that it jumps off screen at the end in an impossible way. Without that claim there is nothing really extraordinary about this video. (which is why they need the gish gallop of "witnesses" with old muddied memories).
No. I'm talking about the "boring" TV part in the middle. That is sufficient to disqualify this being an aircraft in my opinion and I don't think we have a clear explanation for that even. The "acceleration" parts might not even be accelerations at all (as Mick is trying to prove). I think it is incorrect to focus on the acceleration exclusively. The other part still requires an explanation and is "interesting" (not necessarily extraordinary). People that are not familiar with those technologies think we should have a clear picture of a green little person making barrel rolls or this is irrelevant. I totally disagree. The devil is in the details here and I would ignore anything that is published in the media regarding this incident. They must show some video of extraordinary things happening otherwise what will average joe look at in those news reports? They must talk about "crazy acceleration" or the report is just a boring black and white image. I would like to stay above that and focus on a precise analysis to figure out what this really is.
 

jarlrmai

Active Member
So just to be clear do you think the video (and using information from the video alone) shows an object the actions/appearance of which cannot be explained by a known natural or manmade object/entity. Or do you just disagree with us that object is most likely to be an aircraft.
 

gtoffo

Member
So just to be clear do you think the video (and using information from the video alone) shows an object the actions/appearance of which cannot be explained by a known natural or manmade object/entity. Or do you just disagree with us that object is most likely to be an aircraft.
I don't know yet what this video shows but I don't think it's an aircraft as the evidence is inconsistent with that explanation. The apparent size and blurriness disqualifies an ordinary aircraft at any range.
 

jarlrmai

Active Member
I don't know yet what this video shows but I don't think it's an aircraft as the evidence is inconsistent with that explanation. The apparent size and blurriness disqualifies an ordinary aircraft at any range.
Okay so do you think it exhibits any characteristics which cannot be explained by a known man made or known naturally occurring object/entity?
 
Top