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?
Thanks for clearing this up.The official Event Summary or the report describes the object as simply being lost in the haze, that kind of really means that they can visually track it all the way until they disappeared, you know, far off in the distance in the haze, which is radically different from the instantaneous disappearing, that Fravor has later come to describe.
Unless of course there was Haze in the true sense.Thanks for clearing this up.
Yeah I think by haze they mean "disappear in the distance/horizon".
In a clear day that's pretty far off. So even if the managed to track it for 10 seconds instead of "instantly"(=0 sec) disappearing that would be an insane acceleration.
A missile like acceleration that would kill anyone on board and require a lot of energy and tech beyond what is possible today (missiles only fly for seconds and then fall and can't hover).
So I understand that the story might have changed from a certain point of view but the underlying information is valid. Even 10 seconds to disappear over the horizon is "instantaneous" acceleration for a pilot. Nothing normally does that.
but the radar returned a range equal to 99.9, which to the best of my understanding means "infinity". Is this correct? What is the most accepted explanation of this apparent mismeasurement?
What does the 99.9 RNG Display mean?
M: Do you know what the 99.9 thing means? The 99.9 RNG.
K: That means he's not tracking..., that means he's not locked on to it with radar.
K: Is it that way the whole video?
M: No, it starts out blank, there's nothing there and at about 33 seconds that pops up and stays there for the rest of the video.
K: Let's see... [watching video]
M: Some people say that's an indication of the radar being jammed.
K: It's definitely not. You get all kind, you know you're... no, it's not the radar being jammed.
M: Good to know.
K: Okay, so he's just doing an optical track on this as well. So he initiated that range in TV, just doing the optical track, it looks like here, so you are not going to get a range in TV, and he's not going to designate it a target obviously. Because I'm sure he knows, it's just a plane, airliner.
M: He says he doesn't know that. You should listen to his interview, it's kind of interesting, he just did it.
K: Yeah I'm not interested, after hearing Fravor, and that other guy.
M: Jeremy Corbell
K: Yeah, Jeremy Corbell
M: Yeah this was Jeremy Corbell interviewing Chad Underwood, the guy who says he took this video.
K: Yeah, he knew exactly what that was. That's why he didn't designate it as a target. It's not a big deal to designate something as a target, you haven't engaged it, it's just giving you a radar range, but, technology 2004 they probably wouldn't know. Nowadays you know you are designated as a target because you are getting tracked with radar. You're getting ranged, you're getting blasted. So those 99.9s just mean null, null reading.
M: Now is it showing up because he's requested it, like he's pressed the button to get the range?
K: So, yeah, in TV mode he did that, just on an optical track.
M: So there was nothing there before, so he presses the range button, and this crops up just ot show him that he can't get a range?
K: Right, well, I mean, it's "invalid".
M: or it's saying there is no range
K: yeah, there is no range, it's not like a bad range. It's not "you could not get a range", it's "there is no range". He just pulled up the display for range.
I tried ogimet for aviation weather reports (METARs), but they only go back to 2005. San Diego airport itself might have an archive; the report would include information about visibility.So I have searched the forum and could not find anyone who posted the weather conditions for Nov 14th 2004 in the rough location where the Tic Tac event occurred. And to be clear, I don't mean the temperature for the day, I mean the atmospheric conditions on whether there was any reports of Haze, Smog etc.
Be nice if this could be obtained somehow, I have looked a bit myself online , but no luck so far.
It would be pivotal in terms of whether the Haze mentioned in the Tic Tac Exec Summary is accurate or not
Cool, thanks! From other sources, I gather that this may mean that the object was further than 40 nautical miles (~75 km) from the jet. Is this compatible with the size of the blurry object in the frame? I mean, a F-18 hornet has a wingspan of about 15 meters. In normal condition, is the radar powerful enough to resolve such a small thing at that distance? If the answer is positive, then the fact that it didn't in the Nimitz encounter points either to a malfunction or to something else (people say jamming?). I wonder if one could get a ballpark estimate of the size of the object knowing the aperture of the train of radar waves (assuming they travel in a cone).I asked an avionics technician about it.
Cool, thanks! From other sources, I gather that this may mean that the object was further than 40 nautical miles (~75 km) from the jet. Is this compatible with the size of the blurry object in the frame? I mean, a F-18 hornet has a wingspan of about 15 meters. In normal condition, is the radar powerful enough to resolve such a small thing at that distance? If the answer is positive, then the fact that it didn't in the Nimitz encounter points either to a malfunction or to something else (people say jamming?). I wonder if one could get a ballpark estimate of the size of the object knowing the aperture of the train of radar waves (assuming they travel in a cone).
I think it's a good match for for the approximate size, given that the image appears blurry. It also matches with the IR glare at the start, which then seems to shift to the right, consistent with the engine placementsAs per the above few posts, can I ask why you think Underwood saw an F-18 in that Tic Tac footage?
A couple of questions:I think it's a good match for for the approximate size, given that the image appears blurry. It also matches with the IR glare at the start, which then seems to shift to the right, consistent with the engine placements
It's still like a digital zoom of a distant (unknown distance) object, right? I don't see why it couldn't be blurryWhy would the TV image look blurry?
Do we know for sure they tried a radar lock-on? It's kind of hard to get a grasp on what certain parts of the FLIR display mean, but the recent video was from a simulation hobbyist and could be mistaken. From the discussion with the supposed technician:When the WSO tried locking the radar on the target why didn't the F-18 get a radar warning and signal a buddy spike?
Which would mean the sensor pod is also capable of just moving to keep the dot that appears on the screen in frame.K: So what it's tracking is not like tracking with radar, or infrared, it's not tracking from the pod, it's the pod talking to the CDU, talking to the actual display. It's tracking the pixels on the screen, if that makes sense.
M: There are various points where the bars widen. Does that indicate that it has lost lock, or is it just, what is it?
K: Well, I think the terminology is just a little weird there, because it never had "lock." It's just a visual track.
Two reasons. Firstly it's a poor quality copy. You see the text on screen is blurry. Secondly, it might be out of focus. There's what looks like FOCS 8 on the left.Why would the TV image look blurry?
Because the WSO did not try to lock on on F-18.When the WSO tried locking the radar on the target why didn't the F-18 get a radar warning and signal a buddy spike?
Because the radar wasn't looking at an F-18, the ATFLIR was.Why didn't the radar lock on properly on an F-18?
Part of the exercise, maybe even his wingman.Where would the other F-18 come from? Another ship? Why wasn't Underwood aware/in contact with it?
Certainly low quality. And I don't know how the FOCS setting works. It isn't simulated usually and I can't find any info looking around. From most videos I've seen it seems to always indicate 8. It's probably a static setting (for example it could mean "infinity").Two reasons. Firstly it's a poor quality copy. You see the text on screen is blurry. Secondly, it might be out of focus. There's what looks like FOCS 8 on the left.
He did. As you can tell from the RNG indicator popping on the screen. He tried and it failed returning 99.9.Because the WSO did not try to lock on on F-18.
The RNG indicator appearing shows that the radar was also trying to get a lock at what ATFLIR was pointing but failed. Also this is right in front of the aircraft basically. The radar is pointing straight at it.Because the radar wasn't looking at an F-18, the ATFLIR was.
This is straight in front of Underwood. He can see exactly where ATFLIR is pointing. He is the WSO. His only responsibility is to use those systems. He isn't even piloting the plane to ensure he has full focus on those instruments. He would need to be totally incompetent to be recording his wingman. And why did the radar fail to lock an F-18 right in front of him?Part of the exercise, maybe even his wingman.
|Thread starter||Related Articles||Forum||Replies||Date|
|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||11|
|Kevin Day's Recollections of the Nimitz Encounters||UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy||6|
|D||[Possible explanation] Kevin Day (Nimitz tictac ufos) radar encounter||UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy||9|
|Why Michio Kaku is wrong about the UFO Burden of Proof & Navy Videos||UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy||32|
|Simulating the Nimitz UFO video as a blurry plane||UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy||51|
|How Big is a Tic-Tac? Scale Models of the Nimitz Incident||UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy||18|
|Explained: Photo of "UFO" Used in Connection with Nimitz Incident [Balloon]||UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy||8|
|Avionics System Technician Discusses FLIR Targeting Pod's Tracking and Glare||UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy||7|
|Gimbal Lock and Derotation in FLIR/ATFLIR systems||UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy||26|
|TTSA's Form DD-1910 for FLIR, Go Fast, and Gimbal videos||UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy||69|
|Explained: Contrails Appear "Hot" in Thermal Imaging because the Sky Appears Very Cold||Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky?||4|