2004 USS Nimitz Tic Tac UFO FLIR footage (FLIR1)

gtoffo

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
Highly improbable that the CAG would not know the position of Navy subs. Especially if weapons were being tested/released.

And curious that the sub was not detected in the area in any case.

A lot of very weird coincidences and errors need to be put together for this to be possible to explain the visual observations.

And we are left with the radar observations that match the visual and are not explained by a tethered ship balloon.

However unlikely this is the only viable hypothesis I've heard at the moment.
 

jackfrostvc

Active Member
Here is the testimony of Douglas Kurth from the 2009 AATIP report. He was the very first person to see the disturbance in the water when he flew over it in his single seater F/A-18C. As you can see, he also thought it was possibly a sub that created it

1621263913121.png

Fun Note:

And here is an odd thing. Bigelow hired Kurth via BAASS in Dec 2007. This was years before AATIP even investigated the Tic Tac incident.

Source: https://laptrinhx.com/news/the-pentagon-ufo-money-trail-24LJpRw/

https://ufos-scientificresearch.blogspot.com/2019/02/douglas-s-kurth-and-baassmufon.html
 
Last edited:

Alphadunk

Member
I really don't think anyone is saying the supposed disturbance in the water could not have been the submarine. Of course that would be the first conclusion the pilots would come to, what else would make sense in the context of their environment? The USS Louisville is obviously the most likely candidate. The question is why couldn't anyone, as far as we're aware, get confirmation that it was the sub descending?

Submarine operations are notoriously secretive and the idea that the sub released "something" has been around since we first heard Fravor's tale of seeing a disturbance on the surface of the water but there is really no more evidence of the sub releasing a balloon than there is Fravor happened upon an alien spacecraft, ghost, or secret drone. The amount of errors and strange coincidences required for the entire episode to be explained by a balloon become a little mindboggling but it is always possible, of course.
 

jackfrostvc

Active Member
Then you have this description of the Tic Tacs movements by Fravor from the 2009 report again.
As you can see, he said the movements east-west , north-south were minor. This goes back to where I mentioned before the possibility of it being a Tic Tac shaped blimp/balloon used for EW that was tethered to the USS Louisville just under the water. Then let go, changed directions as it rose in altitude due to a possible wind change . As it approached Fravor, it was then detonated to avoid collision

Just a theory.

Other theories I have seen posted around the place are it being a missile fired from the Louisville or a drone that was launched from it. Out of those, drone would make sense.

1621265346799.png
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
you guys do realize this is the FLIR footage thread, not the Fravor encounter thread... they are 2 separate things.
 

jackfrostvc

Active Member
you guys do realize this is the FLIR footage thread, not the Fravor encounter thread... they are 2 separate things.


I couldn't find a dedicated Fravor encounter thread when I looked. There was just this thread which has also been used all the way through to talk about Fravors account as well as the FLIR footage.

I would suggest changing the title.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
The two things are rather linked though,
They are only linked because Fravor/TTSA is pushing that narrative to give credence to his story (which may not be necessary now as he has other pilots who have come forward to confirm he did see something that day.)

I'm only mentioning this (on page 17) so if outside readers are still reading, they dont re-confuse the 2 incidents.
 

JMartJr

Active Member
I agree with the data we have this is basically the only viable theory to explain those sightings.
I think whenever you have an instance that is solely/largely eyewitness accounts, there are two theories that are always viable: mistaken observations with memory filling in gaps in what was observed with what fits the observers' biases, and the unfortunate fact that some people do not always tell the truth, from a variety of motives. In the former case, trying to guess what they might have seen and failed to identify is always going to be dependent on the unknowable - -which parts of what they report are accurate, which less so, which not at all. In the later case, it would be even more problematic.

That's why analyzing the Fravor Tic Tac case, while entertaining, does not strike me as likely to go anywhere, while analyzing the videos from the cases that are lumped in with it by TTSA and the media can yield results.

I wonder of this discussion of Fravor et al's sighting, which did not produce the Flir1 video this thread is about, ought to be moved into an existing thread about that incident, or into a new thread. The world is already filled with enough confusion regarding these indidents and how they are or are not related...
 

jackfrostvc

Active Member
Does anyone know if flight path data is available for 2004 so we can check what was in the air on Nov 14th in the SOCAL Range Complex?
 
Last edited:

jarlrmai

Active Member
Yeah that person (Oswald) is making an unfortunate mistake, however Alex should probably know that physical objects and their infrared display can look very different, we need more indication of why she thinks they are the same object.

Also is she sort of linking "white hot" FLIR mode to the white colour of the object that she and Fravor saw?

So much inaccuracy and extra noise in 2 small twitter posts, however Alex seems willing to discuss this I wonder if Mick could get an interview.
 

DavidB66

Active Member
If there is a 'disturbance in the water', as claimed by pilots (Kurth, see #642 above, and possibly Fravor), biological causes need to be considered. I think feeding frenzies have previously been mentioned as a possibility. If the disturbed area is approximately circular, and '50 to 100 meters in diameter', as described by Kurth, then humpback whales using the 'bubble net' technique might be responsible: see this short video showing the circular patterns produced as filmed from the air:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZlqNCPWld8


However, the technique is apparently only used by a few groups of whales, so it is a long shot.
 

Alphadunk

Member
I'd agree that biological explanations should be considered but all of the pilots have always maintained the "disturbance" in the water was roughly cross shaped, Fravor has often compared it to the size and shape of a large passenger airliner.
 

jackfrostvc

Active Member
I'd agree that biological explanations should be considered but all of the pilots have always maintained the "disturbance" in the water was roughly cross shaped, Fravor has often compared it to the size and shape of a large passenger airliner.
I've only heard Fravor mention cross shape. Douglas Kurth said Oval and I think Alex did also, but you'd need to check that re: Alex.
 

jarlrmai

Active Member
But it comes back to judging a size with no reference, maybe his thought process was, white thing in water, cross shape, must be a plane therefore is the size of a plane. This is the problem with testimony, it only takes one incorrect assumption.
 

jackfrostvc

Active Member
I messaged the 2004 commander of the USS Louisville. He actually replied, but when I asked him for his comment on the Tic Tac, he bailed ie no reply. Was hoping since the USS Lousiville was in the area of the Tic Tac sighting doing live fire tests - as per the 2009 AATIP report, that he would comment. But nope
 

Buckaroo

Member
If there is a 'disturbance in the water', as claimed by pilots (Kurth, see #642 above, and possibly Fravor), biological causes need to be considered. I think feeding frenzies have previously been mentioned as a possibility. If the disturbed area is approximately circular, and '50 to 100 meters in diameter', as described by Kurth, then humpback whales using the 'bubble net' technique might be responsible: see this short video showing the circular patterns produced as filmed from the air:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZlqNCPWld8


However, the technique is apparently only used by a few groups of whales, so it is a long shot.

This was immediately my thought when I first started hearing about the "disturbance" in the water. I used to crew on a whale watch boat on the Stellwagen Bank, and I've seen many instances of bubble-netting by humpback whales firsthand. One thing that almost always accompanies bubble-netting is seabirds, opportunistically grabbing some of the food that gathers at the surface. I wouldn't rule out the possibility that Fravor et al saw a large seabird doing the same. Humpback whales are known in this area, but what I'm not certain about is where they would be in their migratory pattern at this time, and whether they would be likely to be feeding in this part of the world (they tend to fatten themselves up before more-or-less fasting as they move to their breeding grounds, which are essentially biological deserts). There are lots of gray whales in this area, but they aren't known for bubble-netting.
 

jackfrostvc

Active Member
Hmm beginning to feel like she's not going to be open to having a technical discussion of the videos.

Yeah, she has done two interviews now, ie on CNN and on San Diego radio (I posted these elsewhere) where she refused to describe what she saw saying she didn't want to say given the effect time has on memory.

Also, she has been very elusive to provide the reports/notes, diagrams she supposedly made right after the incident. I have asked three times on twitter asking for her plan to provide the data, and have never got a straight answer. The San Diego radio interview IMO was totally bizarre, 20 minutes of saying absolutely nothing. At least that's how I saw it.

San Diego radio interview: https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/san-diego-news-fix.

CNN: CNN Interview
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
where she refused to describe what she saw
what are you talking about? she has described what she saw. the only place she hasnt is the San Diego radio interview and she says she doesnt want to have to keep repeating herself. I wouldnt want to keep repeating myself either.

She says HER goal/mission is to advocate others coming forward with sightings without shame. She can talk about what she wants to talk about. And that's what she wants to talk about.

She has talked enough about the Nimitz day. I'm sick of hearing the story, aren't you? I liked the radio interview... unlike Fravor's interviews where he just regurgitates the same stuff over and over, she provided new information and insights in the radio interview.

she has been very elusive to provide the reports/notes, diagrams she supposedly made right after the incident. I have asked three times on twitter asking for her plan to provide the data, and have never got a straight answer.
um...because she hasnt decided how she wants to handle it yet? or she wants to talk to the military lawyers first. I would want to talk to military lawyers first, myself. But even if they said "we dont care what documents you share", it would take me some time to decide how i want to handle the release since the UFO/alien community is too rabid and media blows everything out of proportion.

I actually wouldn't be surprised if she never releases it. Anyway she's got two young children and she's moving her whole life and family cross country... i doubt Twitter is a big priority for her right now.
 

Alphadunk

Member
In the San Diego radio interview it sounded like her patience was growing thin with the whole thing which is understandable. It's unfortunate she injected herself into #ufotwitter because it can be pretty overwhelming and people are hounding her nonstop for the box of reports/videos she teased. Maybe she can work out some kind of middle ground and if the data is cleared for public release she can pass it to Elizondo or one of the others who want to remain in the spotlight.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
she can pass it to Elizondo
egads no! if she passes it to Elizondo she will lose ALL credibility. He's too far out there with his alien talk and alien materials.

She doesn't need to keep aligning herself with alien people. She can just post them on Twitter, then be done with it. THe documents will speak for themselves, she doesn't need Elizondo or even Fravor "spinning" what the documents say. We can read. We can determine for ourselves what the documents "mean".
 

jackfrostvc

Active Member
@deirdre

Well she refused to give her account of what she saw in that CNN interview as well which I linked.

And on 60 minutes, if I recall correctly her description of what the tic tac was doing throughout the encounter, was limited to a snippet where she said it tumbled like an iphone falling

I would like to hear her full account of what she saw. I have yet to hear it in any interview I have seen of her since she has come out of the shadows

In regards to the notes she took, it's not a legal reason that she gave, she said she will provide it. It was about how to provide the info. . When people said the best thing to do is just post the info, she said something about wanting 60 minutes to do an AMA and had tagged the 60 minutes producer in her tweet. When asked again, she simply said her plan was to provide the info to 60 minutes - and then mentioned how she took the notes to the 60 minutes interview
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
she said something about wanting 60 minutes to do an AMA and had tagged the 60 minutes producer in her tweet. When asked again, she simply said her plan was to provide the info to 60 minutes - and then mentioned how she took the notes to the 60 minutes interview
that sounds like a pretty straight answer to me.
 

jackfrostvc

Active Member
i just rewatched it. i still dont know what you mean. she described what she saw.

I just watched it again as well, and like the 60 minutes interview, she just said two or three snippets like it tumbled, and zipped off.
What I want to hear is a much more concise account, and not a couple of snippets.
In the written report (from a few years ago) where she is noted as Source (I think TTSA published it), she went into a lot more detail than that
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
she went into a lot more detail than that
not really. and her account here contradicts some of Fravor's account so maybe she is now omitting it as a false memory.

my favorite line is:
https://thevault.tothestarsacademy.com/nimitz-report/


that sounds like something i would say to describe something :) and no one would have any idea what i'm talking about.


edit add: @jackfrostvc oh if she does an AMA ..do me a favor and ask her how she knows if a tic tac is pointing towards them. Ive always wondered about that. can you tell the butt of a tic tac from the face of a tic tac? and if its a ET ufo, how do you know it wasnt presenting it's side to the f18...you know as a protective stance ..like with a bear if you keep your side to it then you can run in the opposite direction, esp if you have the ability to manuever in nonsensical angles.


**BUt again this thread is supposed to be about the FLIR video, not an incident earlier in the day.
 
Last edited:

Buckaroo

Member
The object instantaneously- but in a controlled manner- "tumbled" into nonsensical angles that made any engagement by the F18 impossible.
"Nonsensical angles?" What does this even mean? Sounds like Dietrich has been reading too much H.P. Lovecraft... and how would the orientation of the alleged tic-tac make "engagement by the F18 impossible?" This is just word salad.
 

Alphadunk

Member
edit add: @jackfrostvc oh if she does an AMA ..do me a favor and ask her how she knows if a tic tac is pointing towards them. Ive always wondered about that. can you tell the butt of a tic tac from the face of a tic tac? and if its a ET ufo, how do you know it wasnt presenting it's side to the f18...you know as a protective stance ..like with a bear if you keep your side to it then you can run in the opposite direction, esp if you have the ability to manuever in nonsensical angles.

I understand what you're getting at but I don't think it's all that important to the conversation. The pilots clearly considered the tic-tac in the context of a conventional aircraft even if it was behaving in a way they couldn't explain. In the past, Fravor has mentioned that it somewhat resembled the fuselage of a plane but lacked wings, windows, etc. I suppose they couldn't discern a difference between the 'front' and 'back' but Fravor has always maintained it pointed the pointy end towards him when it began to mirror his looping descent.
 

Alphadunk

Member
i have no interest in Fravor or what he thinks. I was discussing Dietrich's alleged recollection.
Dietrich has given the same account although her analogy for how the tic-tac moved over the surface of the water differed slightly. Pointy end forward once it supposedly mirrored Fravor's movements. Regardless, if we have no interest in what the pilots have to say and you're going to dismiss them so candidly then it really isn't worth spending time on this encounter. It's unlikely we'll ever get any additional hard data to examine. It will just be another mystery that will eventually be lost to time.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
if we have no interest in what the pilots have to say and you're going to dismiss them so candidly
if i had no interest in what Dietrich has to say, i wouldn't have asked the question. And it's YOU (and your first comment) i am dismissing so candidly, fyi.
 

Alphadunk

Member
And Dietrich has already answered your question. Pointy end oriented towards Fravor. Anything else is pure speculation, they'd have no way of ascertaining if the supposed craft was in some sort of posturing maneuver as you've speculated.
 
Last edited:

famking

New Member
What is weird about this Nimitz occurrence is that fleets of unknow objects moving from north to south near California for some days and the so called most powerful military in the world do not care and did not stop it.
 

Lu Ann Lewellen

New Member
What is weird about this Nimitz occurrence is that fleets of unknow objects moving from north to south near California for some days and the so called most powerful military in the world do not care and did not stop it.

Suppose they weren't objects.

This was posted somewhere on this forum and it's making sense to me:

"Despite all the attention from the media and the general public, for a man who’s worked on some of the most highly-classified aerospace programs in the world, all this new UFO talk isn’t all that impressive. In fact, for T.D Barnes, a former Special Projects engineer at Area 51, this entire UFO story sounds very familiar."

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...rfare-pioneer-weigh-in-on-navy-ufo-encounters
 

DavidB66

Active Member
How can something 'tumble into nonsensical angles' 'in a controlled manner'? Maybe there is a coherent interpretation of that, but I can't think of one. 'Tumbling' and 'nonsensical' imply randomness and unpredictability, but 'controlled' implies the opposite.
 

Buckaroo

Member
How can something 'tumble into nonsensical angles' 'in a controlled manner'? Maybe there is a coherent interpretation of that, but I can't think of one. 'Tumbling' and 'nonsensical' imply randomness and unpredictability, but 'controlled' implies the opposite.
Agreed. This testimony is just gibberish.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
D Hypothesis: Fravor's Tic Tac was Kurth's FA18 UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 80
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 50
Mick West Kevin Day's Recollections of the Nimitz Encounters UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 28
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 18
Mick West Explained: Photo of "UFO" Used in Connection with Nimitz Incident [Balloon] UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 8
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 27
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