2004 USS Nimitz Tic Tac UFO FLIR footage (FLIR1)

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
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?

I mentioned "lost in the haze" to Robert Powell in a recent discussion. My point was somewhat lost, in that I was trying to say they did not indicate how long it took for the Tic-Tac objected to be lost from view, and "lost in the haze" takes a while. There was also a speed estimate of 600-700 knots.

https://otter.ai/u/g-FGuVasgvUFrw-rCjEFtNtZTzM
When you're up in a plane there's always some haze toward the horizon.

However Robert took this as being lost in "mist", and then wanted to make it about the weather.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Admin Note: If you a going to refer to something in an external discussion, document, or video. Please link to it and include an excerpt or transcript of the relevant part, so people don't have to go looking for it.
 

gtoffo

Active Member
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.
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.
 

jackfrostvc

Active Member
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.
Unless of course there was Haze in the true sense.

And I think it's a big stretch to say they meant Haze as in "disappear in the distance/horizon""
That doesn't make sense TBH. Especially in an official event summary. You would think they would not use words in a way that was not congruent to there literal meaning.
 

Riccardo

New Member
Hi,

this has probably already been asked above, but I can't find any reference. There is a small detail I'm rather curious about. In the infamous video at around 33 seconds (Source: https://youtu.be/lWLZgnmRDs4?t=33
) one can see that the operator tried to assess the distance to the object, 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? Is this an indication of something going on with either the radar or camera, or something more exotic with the object itself?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
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?

I asked an avionics technician about it.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/av...flir-targeting-pods-tracking-and-glare.11392/
What does the 99.9 RNG Display mean?
Metabunk 2020-09-18 11-04-24.jpg
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.
 

jackfrostvc

Active Member
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 determining whether the Haze mentioned in the Tic Tac Exec Summary is accurate or not
 
Last edited:

Mendel

Senior Member.
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
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.

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/has/HAS.DsSelect is an overview of US government weather databases, maybe that can help you?
 

Riccardo

New Member
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).
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
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).

No it just means there was no range and he turned on the range display, ie the RADAR might not have been asked to lock this target even though it was capable of doing so.

"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"
 

Riccardo

New Member
Oh, ok, that's clear now, I got it. Yeah that's the most likely explanation. Just for the sake of completeness: has Chad Underwood ever said anything about his intentions regarding the radar? His memory might have very well faded by now.
 

jackfrostvc

Active Member
@Mick West

As per the above few posts, can I ask why you think Underwood saw an F-18 in that Tic Tac footage?

Given the footage showed a Tic Tac looking craft in TV mode and not IR mode, why would you say that it was an F-18?

The Chilean jet IR signature looked similar to the Tic Tac , but it was an IR image. The Tic Tac was a TV mode image.
Are you making a mental comparison between the two, and not accounting that one is IR and the other is in TV mode?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
As per the above few posts, can I ask why you think Underwood saw an F-18 in that Tic Tac footage?
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
 

gtoffo

Active Member
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
A couple of questions:
  • Why would the TV image look blurry?
  • 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?
  • Why didn't the radar lock on properly on an F-18?
  • Where would the other F-18 come from? Another ship? Why wasn't Underwood aware/in contact with it?
Thanks
 

food-creature

New Member
Why would the TV image look blurry?
It's still like a digital zoom of a distant (unknown distance) object, right? I don't see why it couldn't be blurry
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?
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:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/av...flir-targeting-pods-tracking-and-glare.11392/
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.
Which would mean the sensor pod is also capable of just moving to keep the dot that appears on the screen in frame.

I mean, it still seems hard to believe that the object could be another F-18, it sounds like they have a very good idea + display of where friendly pilots are at all times. We'd like to think our military pilots wouldn't make that kind of mistake. But could it be a very distant airliner? Either way, I'm not sure we can rule things out without a better idea of whether there was actually a radar lock.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Why would the TV image look blurry?
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.
2021-05-05_10-21-33.jpg

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 WSO did not try to lock on on F-18.

Why didn't the radar lock on properly on an F-18?
Because the radar wasn't looking at an F-18, the ATFLIR was.

Where would the other F-18 come from? Another ship? Why wasn't Underwood aware/in contact with it?
Part of the exercise, maybe even his wingman.
 

gtoffo

Active Member
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.
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").

Given the usual distances this is used at I would assume the focus on this is basically set to infinity at all times. All other ATFLIR videos I have seen show detail in TV mode even at long range. Never such a big blob. Can we find any other example of such blobs in TV mode? (IR glare is certainly possible at extreme range).

Because the WSO did not try to lock on on F-18.
He did. As you can tell from the RNG indicator popping on the screen. He tried and it failed returning 99.9.

Because the radar wasn't looking at an F-18, the ATFLIR was.
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.

Part of the exercise, maybe even his wingman.
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?
 

gtoffo

Active Member
That does not mean it tried and failed, it means there's no range data available.
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.
 

food-creature

New Member
He asks for the radar to lock and give him range
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.

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.
from https://www.metabunk.org/threads/av...flir-targeting-pods-tracking-and-glare.11392/
 
Last edited:

gtoffo

Active Member
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/
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.

Also regarding the testimony by that technician there are several inconsistencies and mistakes in those few statements so I tend to discount it.
  1. "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.
  2. "You should listen to his interview" "Yeah I'm not interested" pity...
  3. "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.
  4. "It's not a big deal to designate something as a target" this is false. It is a big deal. The other aircraft would start receiving radar lock warning etc. if you lock an airliner and you are carrying weapons you are 1 click away from a major mishap. If you lock a friendly you get called on the radio and asked what the hell are you doing. You don't lock on and designate stuff in the sky randomly except during training or real action. That's why he also says (contradicting himself) "and he's not going to designate it a target obviously. Because I'm sure he knows, it's just a plane, airliner."
  5. "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." Radar warning receivers have been standard equipment on military aircraft for decades (see a history of RWR here: https://www.aef.se/Avionik/Artiklar/Motmedel/Nya_hotbilder/RadarWarnStory.pdf).
 

Attachments

  • unnamed.gif
    unnamed.gif
    26.4 KB · Views: 1,138

food-creature

New Member
"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.
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.

"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.
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.

The gist is that the pilot does not need a radar lock-on to attempt to get the range, even though the radar lock-on is needed for the range to be a valid number. They are also speculating about why the pilot might not have a radar lock (they didn't want to lock onto what could be an airliner) so feel free to discount that, doesn't mean everything they say is wrong. There are only contradictions depending on how you read into what they're saying. It kind of depends on what "it's not a big deal" means, from the context it could mean something like "if you see an aircraft and you're not sure what it is you could probably get a radar lock on it without it knowing" which may be wrong but it wouldn't be a contradiction.

All I'm saying is this guy could be right about being able to request range without the radar lock to actually measure the range. Even without that guy's testimony, it's a possibility. It might not even be that strange of a design choice, considering that these are different modules communicating. Like, "show range on the FLIR screen" as a function of the FLIR module doesn't seem that unnecessary; perhaps they don't always want the range readout on that screen even if they do have a radar lock.
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
  1. "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.
He means the track is not slaved to a RADAR target, which is isn't, no slaved RADAR track means the subject is not a RADAR track ie no range.

Also RADAR target track is not missile lock.
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
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...?)

https://forums.vrsimulations.com/su...ystems#Launch_.26_Steering_Target_.28L.26S.29

Launch & Steering Target (L&S)
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.

So when L+S is boxed the ATLFIR is slaved to the Launch and Steering target RADAR track. The L+S target seems to be referred to as 'soft lock' but it does seem to indicate that having an L+S target is one step along the way to launching a missile at it.

Slaved to BST seems to indicate the FLIR will point where the aircrafts boresight is pointed (dead ahead)

However seemingly you don't have to designate as L+S to track with ATLFIR.

If the SLAVE text is boxed then the FLIR is slaved to other tracks including MSI tracks provided from other sources (AWACS/Other jets/ship based RADAR) this could also be the L+S track.

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.

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.

Some other tidbits

ALG boxed means auto level/gain
RTCL shows/hides the A/A crosshairs, it's hidden in this video but the size/shape of them changes based on FOV.
The flashing B by the altitude means they are asking for RADAR altimeter altitude to be displayed, but because they are really high up it doesn't work so it's showing barometric altitude instead.
 

jackfrostvc

Active Member
I think more investigation needs to be done on the theory that the Tic Tac was something launched from the USS Louisville.

You have Jim Slaight in his only TV interview say that he (at least initially ) thought what they saw was a submarine that fired a missile

Cued up
Source: https://youtu.be/AuBIBCW5P98?t=127

You also have this curious passage from the SCU - Scientific Coalition for UFOology Tic Tac report.

1620528075918.png

Vaguely, the SCU report says the source of this above is from a 2017 investigation by someone unknown other than what they say below
It seems like someone connected with TTSA wrote the report:

1620528222580.png



Then you have the USS Louisville being located in the vicinity of the Tic Tac conducting live fire tests as per the 2009 AATIP writeup.
But they say what they launched didn't match the flight characteristics of the TIc Tac and that they would have known to keep clear of the Live fire test. Which is curious as you will see in a minute


1620526465852.png


It's curious because a little further down in that document, you have this statement which seems to contradict them knowing about the live fire tests:

1620526676561.png

It is also very curious how the report is written. In places it's almosty like they want the report to be seen as an alien encounter with comments from the report writer like this:

1620526788800.png

At least twice in the reprot are such ponderings made. Is this what you would expect in a professional investigation report ?

Then there is the SCU - Scientific Coalition for UFOology report that says their FOIA request for the deck logs for the USS Louisville was denied.
Which isn't surprising, but a real bummer, as it may have shed some light on the matter

1620527148869.png
 
Last edited:

Alphadunk

Active Member
There is virtually zero chance you'll get successful FOIA requests when they concern submarine exercises or operations so I'm not too surprised about that. I'd agree that the messaging from the government has been strange at times, basically pouring fuel on the flames of fanatical "UAP" hysteria. Why the government even entertains such an unlikely and niche subject has always interested me, strange stuff indeed.
 

gtoffo

Active Member
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...?)
Pretty cool huh :-D watch out they cause addiction!
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.
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.
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.
It would be really interesting to have one of the pilots from the time look at this video and ask him those direct questions.
  • What does RNG 99 mean and in which conditions would it show?
  • Can you display range without interrogating the radar?
  • Can you tell if the radar was tracking this object from this video alone?
 

jackfrostvc

Active Member
Just finished watching the 60 minutes UAP episode. I'd suggest if you watched it or even if you missed it, that you watch the Overtime videos they have on their website, as it has more of Dietrich talking about the Tic Tac event and generally longer interview segments.
In short, she backs up Fravor in saying they saw an object moving oddly, that dissappeared when it got close to Fravor.

See here for the Overtime segments: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/navy-ufo-sighting-60-minutes-2021-05-16/


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
 
Last edited:

Alphadunk

Active Member
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:
  1. 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?
  2. 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.
 

Cassi O

Active Member
I watched the 60 Minutes UAP episode tonight as well. Found myself yelling at the TV that this has all been debunked three years ago!
 

jackfrostvc

Active Member
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:
  1. 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?
  2. 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.

A tethered balloon in blustery wind would explain the change off directions - which is why I thought of balloon - exactly that reason ie the movement . Fravor said somewhere, (and if someone can find it, it would be appreciated), that the movements were minor as in not deviating a long way. Which is the other reason I thought of tethered Balloon

Fravor didn't have FLIR. No ATFLIR pod
 
Last edited:

gtoffo

Active Member
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.....
 

jackfrostvc

Active Member
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.....

Not an enemy sub, the USS Louisvlle was in the vicinity of the Tic Tac sighting.
It's noted in the 2009 report

1621254533476.png
 

Alphadunk

Active Member
So, given we know the sub was in the vicinity during the time we could ask the following:
  • Would releasing some type of balloon be considered "live fire"?
  • What type of balloon would subs have been deploying at the time? (I'm looking into this one)
  • Would an unpowered balloon explain the flight characteristics described by the pilots?
I don't really buy the balloon explanation but I'd agree it's really the only theory that begins to explain what they visually saw with their own eyes and calls into question the NEMESIS explanation which I had previously mostly agreed with. Ultimately I don't think we'll ever definitively solve this one unless far more data is released. Some of the more fanciful ideas of a release of a contained plasmoid could theoretically fit but that's also a really big stretch considering the timeframe. Plasmoid research and capability is nowhere near that level of sophistication even in 2021.
 

jackfrostvc

Active Member
Lets put it this way, the USS Louisville was in that area of the sighting.
Jim Slaight said in the Fox interview that his first impression when they saw the Tic Tac and disturbance . Was it was a missile fired from a sub. Unfortunatly he is cut off after that by the presenter who then asking Fravor a question

Don't you find it rather odd, that the thing that would easily explain the disturbance in the water, was actually in that area.

And the comments in the AATIP report re live fire tests are really odd, as they seem to contradict themselves. Not saying it was a missile, although it's a theory. But I just find that report really odd in a number of ways. In sections it seems to ponder strange ideas when they are not needed. For example they write that the disturbance may have been caused by an AAV having the ability to cloak or make itself invisible. This to me shows a bias by the report writer towards it being something Alien or extraordinary.

1621258030665.png
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
It's just nonsense, "it's so advanced it can cloak to visible light, but we know it probably didn't go underwater because it didn't show up on SONAR, also it might have been able to cloak from SONAR"
 
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
Mick West 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
Mick West 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
Mick West 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
Mick West Why Michio Kaku is wrong about the UFO Burden of Proof & Navy Videos UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 32
Mick West Simulating the Nimitz UFO video as a blurry plane UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 51
Mick West How Big is a Tic-Tac? Scale Models of the Nimitz Incident UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 23
Mick West 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
Mick West Avionics System Technician Discusses FLIR Targeting Pod's Tracking and Glare UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 7
Mick West Gimbal Lock and Derotation in FLIR/ATFLIR systems UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 30
Mick West TTSA's Form DD-1910 for FLIR, Go Fast, and Gimbal videos UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 69
Mick West Explained: Contrails Appear "Hot" in Thermal Imaging because the Sky Appears Very Cold Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 4

Related Articles

Top