2004 USS Nimitz Tic Tac UFO FLIR footage (FLIR1)

deirdre

Senior Member.
How can something 'tumble into nonsensical angles' 'in a controlled manner'?
forgive if this gif is condescending (never saw the movie) it is the only analogy i can think of and only good gif that popped up... i see it as a "dodge and weave" thing like a bullet... or maybe a rabbit escaping a mountain lion?

giphy.gif
 

famking

New Member
Could it be a powerful deception operation?

In war deception is important tool. Every navy need it and use it. Image you could distract a fleet from important goals. It would be a powerful tool.

* Kevin Day said that he saw multiple unknown objects on his rader for muliple days. But what if it was just false radar signals?
* If you have false radar signals you still need convince the victim that this false signals are real. How you do it. Let submarines move near this false objects and if the enemy intercept one object then realise a balon.

This snenario would explain so many thing.
 

jackfrostvc

Active Member
Seems like Harry Reid may have told Bigelow about the Tic Tac event in 2005

"A 'credible source with direct inside knowledge" informed Lambright that Bigelow had been told by Harry Reid about the Nimitz encounter at an early stage following the incident. The same source then advised that Bigelow shared this information with "Hal Puthoff and one or two others" in 2005. However, it wasn't until former Lt. Col. Douglas Kurth went to work for BAASS in 2007, that "the Reid/Bigelow operation suddenly came to life." Hal Puthoff, speaking at the 2018 SSE/IRVA conference in Las Vegas, confirmed that the AATIP was created in June 2007."

https://ufos-scientificresearch.blogspot.com/2021/05/more-from-christian-lambrights-latest.html
 

jackfrostvc

Active Member
Does anyone have an explanation of why the Tic Tac which was reported as being white, shows up as black in TV mode on the FLIR video?
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
Unless we ever get an interview with Mick and one of either Underwood, Fravor or Dietrich the key technical questions about the footage will never be properly cross-examined. Elizondo just deflected to the experts he said had analysed it and to the other data he claims exists. An recorded interview with another confirmed F/A 18 pilot or a named and known ATFLIR technician /engineer would help, they'd also need to have actually studied the videos and the claims. The interview would probably get quite in-depth it's possible a pilot might say they don't know when asked specific technical questions which is understandable it's one tool amongst many that they use they should not be expected to know exactly how it does what it does. Even a technician may have the same issue with some aspects of the system.

Most of Mick's analysis is currently just dismissed on appeal to authority because the "Navy"/pilots say different.
 

earbrass

New Member
I can't say anything about the footage, because it is so vague. I do have a comment about the circumstance, which I have made to the SGU as well as to an expert mentioned in the Wikipedia entry on the event (but have not received any responses): The location of the planes was near the Cortes Bank, a seamount located about 100 miles west of San Diego that is well know to the surfing community. There is a Wikipedia entry for the Cortes Bank. The seamount rises to a few yards of the ocean surface and generates huge waves, which have been ridden. The Nimitz pilots reported seeing a cloud or mist on the ocean surface, which could have been water vapor from waves breaking on the Cortes Bank. I wonder if the radar return could have been created by the water vapor and the apparent movement of it an artifact caused by changing refraction angles from the aircraft banking or approaching the Cortes Bank at high speeds. I would like to know what you think. Thank you.
 

jackfrostvc

Active Member
@earbrass

I don't think there has ever been a solid fix of the location the Tic Tac was sighted at. If anyone thinks there has been, love to see it.

But from what Dave Beaty told me , the Tic Tac according to him and his analyses was located as per the map below, which is much further south than the Cortes Bank

1622512224529.png
 

Agent K

Senior Member
Comments from Chad Underwood. Not sure if this is a repost/clip of previously published comments or not. He refutes several debunker claims about tracking, object lock-on etc.
It was very clear in the video that the tracker lost lock when he switched the lens from a medium field of view to a narrow field of view (NAR). After that, he digitally zoomed in to 2X, but by then the track was already lost, and the target continued moving to the left at about the same rate as when it was being tracked. It's disappointing that he didn't know that switching the field of view can break lock, especially when switching to a narrow field of view.
It's also disappointing that he didn't reacquire the target by immediately zooming out and switching back to a wider field of view. The video cuts off when the target moves off the screen, and doesn't show how he tried to reacquire it.
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
The ATFLIR autotrack uses contrast detection to track objects, any change to the image that is not purely digital, i.e. switching lenses or optical zooms, likely has the chance to cause the contrast lock to be lost as the image is momentarily lost/indistinct to the sensor.

Lock is lost in this video when he rapidly cycles from NAR to WFOV and back to NAR. Then as lock is lost he goes to 2x digital zoom which causes the apparent increase in speed of the object.

He has never actually acknowledged this part.
 
Last edited:

Ulrich

New Member
The ATFLIR autotrack uses contrast detection to track objects, any change to the image that is not purely digital, i.e. switching lenses or optical zooms, likely has the chance to cause the contrast lock to be lost as the image is momentarily lost/indistinct to the sensor.

Lock is lost in this video when he rapidly cycles from NAR to WFOV and back to NAR. Then as lock is lost he goes to 2x digital zoom which causes the apparent increase in speed of the object.

He has never actually acknowledged this part.
But, at least, he did admit he can not confirm acceleration.

“And so what’s happening in the video is a little ambiguous as a result.
Right. Yeah. And that part kind of sucks, because I can’t confirm that the object aggressively accelerated that way. But I have my feelings, based off of my experience with my equipment — and also just logic, when it comes to, you know, physics.“

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/201...o-q-and-a-with-navy-pilot-chad-underwood.html
 

Domzh

Active Member
Analysis of the "jerk" in velocity that's actually caused by the change in zoom levels.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIl4peYb59E
.

[/ex]
The counter argument of it being a friendly FA18 was that they share their ID via datalink.

I learned they were flying an air defense simulation at this time and it was "rather chaotic" traffic wise.

The USMC "Red Devils" were playing red team.

Claim: The FLIR object is a USMC Fa18 not providing data link ID because it's not set as "friendly" in this training exercise.

Can you verify this hypothesis with someone you know Mick, maybe even Kevin Day? (however could be tricky, it seems the whole UAP thing is a business now for him and he appeared on several podcasts before pushing Aliens an supernatural stuff pretty hard.. So it might not be in his own interest to "solve" this case but who knows)
 

famking

New Member
Kevin Day said in his interview with Mick. That Underwood intercepted the objects and reached a merge plot (very close).
  • But why we have than such a horrible distance video. Their should be more video available.
 

Agent K

Senior Member
The sensor elevation angle is 5 degrees, so it should see the jet from below, not above. That's why my picture depicts it from below.

Here's what I was seeing in the FLIR1 TV mode.
1626015907476.png

Or an EA-6B Prowler.
1626016873015.png
 
Last edited:

jackfrostvc

Active Member
So here is a transcript of the interview between Corbell and Chad Underwood that Corbell posted today


CHAD UNDERWOOD My name is Chad Underwood. My callsign is ‘Nutz’. I was a lieutenant at the time on USS Nimitz. I filmed the Tic Tac video with the VFA 41 Black Aces, serving under my commanding officer Dave ‘Sex’ Fravor. I wanted to bring every single mode and zoom that the FLIR is capable of back to the carrier so we could analyze this thing because I’m not gonna be able to solve this problem in real time. It was offensively jamming us just outside international waters in peacetime operations. It’s an act of war and we’re gonna go out there and make you pay for that.
JEREMY CORBELL Good to talk with you. So you are now Commander Chad Underwood. Not anymore, Lieutenant Chad Underwood. We’re talking about the Tic Tac UFO case and I just, you know, thanks for being here. And can you just introduce yourself?
CHAD UNDERWOOD At the time of the Nimitz encounter, I was a lieutenant back in 2004. And since I’ve served almost 21 years to the day as, and got promoted to lieutenant commander and the commander a few months ago, but at the time of the Nimitz encounter, I was a lieutenant.
JEREMY CORBELL And this is the first video interview that you’re doing.
CHAD UNDERWOOD That’s correct.
JEREMY CORBELL Okay. So you are involved in the most famous modern day UFO case of all time. The Tic Tac UFO case, you are the man that filmed the Tic Tac UFO the footage that everybody knows around the world. The story’s been on 60 Minutes with Commander Fravor, with Alex Dietrich, but you are the man that filmed the Tic Tac UFO, can you tell me a little bit about that? Like how does that feel?
CHAD UNDERWOOD More weird than interesting than usual. I would never would have suspected almost 17 years ago, that this would be a thing in the media. It’s weird. It’s interesting, but it happened. And so you got to acknowledge it. And my friends and family just kind of crack up every time there’s a link on, you know, Fox, you know, on whatever news outlet is out there. I’m just like, really again? It’s very surreal. That’s for sure. And I’d never thought in a million years that the term Tic Tac would be still in the zeitgeist of where we are.
JEREMY CORBELL Okay, we got to talk about that. So there’s a funny story that you shared with me that I’d love people to hear. You’re the man that named the Tic Tac UFO, how did you come up with the name Tic Tac UFO, can you tell us how you came up with that term?
CHAD UNDERWOOD Of course, anyone who knows me, friends, family, etc. yourself, knows that my sense of humor is very rooted in these 80s and 90s. I love like the slapstick comedy of Airplane, Naked Gun, Top Secret, Fletch, Caddyshack, etc, that kind of physical slapstick humor. And so when we went out there and we had this encounter, Dave Fravor had already debriefed his flight. And so everyone on the carrier, at least in the aviation wing, knew about this by the time I landed and I went to the Intelligence Center. And so I brought my tapes back and they were like, Hey, did you see a UFO too? And I’m like, actually, I got here on video. They were like, you know, their eyeballs, just, you know, we’re like, whoa. And so we popped the tapes in and they were like, what would you describe this as? And my thoughts going through my head where the scene from Airplane where the reporters are asking that guy Johnny, one of the ground controllers, Can you describe this plane? And he’s like, Oh, it’s a big white shiny plane with wheels. And you know, it looks like a big Tylenol.
‘AIRPLANE’ CLIP What kind of plane is Oh, it’s a big pretty white plane with red stripes and curtains in the window and wheels and it looks like a big Tylenol.
CHAD UNDERWOOD And I knew if I described it as a big Tylenol that that’s too much not taking it seriously. And anyone who knows me, I don’t take a whole lot of things seriously, but I was like, ah, I probably shouldn’t say that. It’s just it’s too on the nose. And so I was like, well, it looks like a big Tic Tac, you know, and it did. Like just kind of this white, oblong, featureless thing. It looks like a Tic Tac and it just kind of became the name for it for the next few days, little did I know that 17 years ago, it would still be a thing. So it’s rooted in humor, It’s rooted in slapstick, and it’s rooted in my interest in that kind of stuff. And so that’s really how the Tic Tac was named.
JEREMY CORBELL So you thought they wouldn’t take the term Tylenol seriously. So you’re like, it looked like a Tic Tac? (laughter) I think you chose the best name for a UFO. So what was the form of footage that you took off of the plane?
CHAD UNDERWOOD Eight millimeter tapes. Just you know, they’re about you know, that big. And they now use solid state drives.
JEREMY CORBELL So the footage people are seeing, the famous footage of the Tic Tac UFO, that was off eight millimeter tapes.
CHAD UNDERWOOD Yes.
JEREMY CORBELL So when you go into the CBC, you’ve got your radar data and your FLIR footage, is that all on the same eight millimeter format?
CHAD UNDERWOOD Yeah, it’s called CVIC. Carrier vehicle Intelligence Center. That’s where we always go, you know, I’m still in my flight gear. I don’t even take my gear off. At the time, there were two sets of tapes that you would put in. One was for the right hand display. One was for the left hand display. Just so you know, we could record those simultaneously.
JEREMY CORBELL But you’re saying you got radar footage or footage of the radar as well during the Tic Tac UFO event?
CHAD UNDERWOOD I did. Yeah.
JEREMY CORBELL But the world hasn’t seen that yet.
CHAD UNDERWOOD No, and they’re probably not going to see it for a long time. Because the radar tape is are … there’s two types of sensors that we record on the aircraft, active sensors and passive sensors. The FLIR is a passive sensor, the radar however, is what we call an active sensor. So it’s shooting emissions out and receiving data in and an active sensor can be exploited by our enemies if they can see the data that’s on that screen.
JEREMY CORBELL Okay, so what you’re saying is you brought back two types of data. So one is, you know, radar data that is outward looking. And a lot of that will remain classified. And the other is a passive system, which is the FLIR which is just you know, receiving. And that’s the footage that we all know, that’s been out publicly.
CHAD UNDERWOOD Right.
JEREMY CORBELL Did I get that? Right?
CHAD UNDERWOOD You’re absolutely correct. I wish we could release the active sensor radar footage to see the initial because…
JEREMY CORBELL Yeah, what would you see on it?
CHAD UNDERWOOD Well, that was the initial contact is you know, I get a vector from the Princeton, you initially do that on your radar, you don’t do that on your FLIR. Once you acquire your target, from your radar, every other sensor that I have on board my aircraft is a slave to that target. So my FLIR, my electronic warfare systems, and it’s going to lock onto that target, and it’s going to look at that target and focus on that target. That’s what it’s designed to do.
JEREMY CORBELL So to be clear, so I understand, you did pick this thing up on radar first.
CHAD UNDERWOOD Correct. Yeah.
JEREMY CORBELL Okay. You saw other sensor data, you saw radar data?
CHAD UNDERWOOD Yeah, of course. Once I got the target of interest on my radar, I took a lock and that’s when all the kind of the funky things started happening. The erratic nature of the Tic Tac. The airspeed was very telling to me. And then we started seeing what we call jam strobe lines, strobe lines are vertical lines that show up on your radar that are indications that you’re being jammed.
JEREMY CORBELL We talked about that when we did the audio recording. And something you said to me, that I think is important kind of for people to hear. There was a 2009 investigation where they did a report, it’s called the executive summary. I’m sure you’ve read it, right?
CHAD UNDERWOOD Yes.
JEREMY CORBELL It states in there that you did not receive jamming cues. And that’s in contradiction to both your interviews and Commander Fravor interviews. Could you clarify about that? Were you consulted for that report? Is it just wrong?
CHAD UNDERWOOD I was not consulted for that report. I have been interviewed 1/10 of 1% from the government, as I have from yourself. I did get jamming cues on my radar tape, and you can see cues of jamming on both your radar and your FLIR tape. You know when Commander Fravor described on your FLIR tape, when you see like 99.9 range to target. That means you’re being jammed.
JEREMY CORBELL It was seen on your SA at the time, not just your own radar.
CHAD UNDERWOOD Yes.
JEREMY CORBELL Was there any other traffic at the cap point during the intercept?
CHAD UNDERWOOD No, nothing at all. And we were flying what we call the whiskey areas. They’re restricted for military aircraft. And we scheduled those more or less for a safety of flights just to make sure that any other military aircraft or civilian aircraft for that matter, are not flying in that sector of airspace.
JEREMY CORBELL There was no red air in the area from the previous exercise.
CHAD UNDERWOOD That’s correct. Yeah, yeah, there was nothing that wouldn’t be identifiable in the sector of airspace that we were flying. And the way that this object was behaving was not indicative of how a civilian or commercial aircraft would fly until you see the aggressive maneuver to the left off of my FLIR. Anything that it’s going to do is going to be tracked by the FLIR. And so when the target maneuvered off to the left of my screen as you see on the FLIR display, that was a result of that object maneuvering itself, not me maneuvering my own aircraft.
JEREMY CORBELL This completely went off to your left, lost track at that moment the video ends, right?
CHAD UNDERWOOD Right. Yeah, yeah, as we talked about earlier.
JEREMY CORBELL Because people are saying it loses track when the bars are widening, and it’s not losing track.
CHAD UNDERWOOD It’s maintaining track when it widens its bars. It’s basically telling me that it’s losing confidence in that track, but then it goes back, you know, you see it widens out and then it goes back. It never dragged off the target. The FLIR is designed to and engineered to be able to hack that kind of maneuvering. But that, the way that aircraft maneuvered, or that object, whatever, is not something that I can explain. It just went (sound woop) and it was off to the races wherever it’s going, and that was it.
JEREMY CORBELL At the end of the video, we see it appears the object shoots off to our left. Is that indeed what happened?
CHAD UNDERWOOD Oh, yes, yes, yes, absolutely.
JEREMY CORBELL And did you like radio into the Princeton and ask them, Where is it?
CHAD UNDERWOOD Yeah, absolutely. Because the Princeton was our controller to begin with if this Tic Tac never existed. And so I immediately got on the radar. I’m like, Hey, where’s this thing? Because I only have a certain scan volume with my radar and my FLIR and this thing is gone. And so I immediately radio the Princeton in my E2 Hawkeye controller are like, hey, this target, based off my bearing and range, where is it? Where’s it heading? And where is it going? And they’re like, negative radar contact, which means their radars are clean, you know, and they don’t see anything.
JEREMY CORBELL Yeah, but that’s important. That’s important. Because what you’re saying is, you were targeted in towards this Tic Tac object using other sensors. The Princeton had this continuous track on it, they send you out, they tell you where to go, you pick it up on your radar, you then slave it over to your optical system, you record all of that, you come back, you put it in, but also when this thing shows these unique displays of movement, the shooting off to your left, you then ask the Princeton. Hey, you have a better radar. Where is it? Where’s it going? What’s going on? They’re like, it’s gone.
CHAD UNDERWOOD Yeah, that’s … to put it clearly that’s pretty much what happened. And since it’s shot off to the left, you know, immediately vectored my own aircraft to the left to try to reacquire it, and nothing.
JEREMY CORBELL Wow.
CHAD UNDERWOOD Yeah, it’s just weird.
JEREMY CORBELL So tell me like, what was weird about what you filmed that day, compared to every other day of your flying career.
CHAD UNDERWOOD That darting off to the left, because, you know, as I’m tracking it, you know, from my radar to my FLIR, I see that kind of stuff daily. However, my radar and FLIR should be able to account for that kind of discrepancy. And so once it shot off to the left, immediately aggressively maneuver my fire to the left to try to require and it moved with a velocity that I’ve not seen, I should be able to reacquire that aircraft, or whatever it was. And that’s just, I mean, we’re talking an $80 million fighter, you know.
JEREMY CORBELL I mean, this thing shot off at beyond hypersonic speed. If you can’t bank the aircraft, and then re acquire it, something, it shot off.
CHAD UNDERWOOD Yeah. And my estimation at this point is that was about 10 to 15 miles off my nose, I should be able to see an exhaust plume on my FLIR, you should be able to see that heat, I should be able to tell that it’s an aircraft, it’s got wings, I should be able to tell what type of aircraft it is, I should be able to know that. And I wasn’t seeing any of that.
JEREMY CORBELL If somebody said the Tic Tac that you filmed was a US black project. You told me it’s not, tell me why you know it’s not.
CHAD UNDERWOOD If there is something out there that you have seen as a pilot or aviator that you weren’t supposed to see, you get vectored home airborne in real time, say, hey, head home, and then you have to debrief with someone who’s briefed on that particular project.
JEREMY CORBELL Which has happened to you, you have encountered something that is a black project, and you had to debrief because and there’s a protocol for that.
CHAD UNDERWOOD Exactly. What happens is, when you’re in the Intelligence Center, CVIC, you describe what you saw, they describe what you’ve seen, they make you sign a nondisclosure agreement or an NDA. And they say, this is the project name. They don’t describe what it is or what it does, or, you know, anything like that. It’s just, you know, you shall not speak of this again.
JEREMY CORBELL That did not happen with the Tic Tac, that did not happen.
CHAD UNDERWOOD Nope.
JEREMY CORBELL So nobody said to you, you saw something you shouldn’t, this is a black project, you know, sign this NDA, that is the protocol. That’s what would have happened if it was US technology.
CHAD UNDERWOOD Right.
JEREMY CORBELL US black technology. But that didn’t happen?
CHAD UNDERWOOD Nope. And it didn’t happen with Commander Fravor either.
JEREMY CORBELL What do you think you saw?
CHAD UNDERWOOD I don’t know, Jeremy, man, I have no idea. Like, it was just this weird thing that I should normally be able to identify or identify with characteristics. Yeah, it had no flight characteristics, you know, a method of lift, propulsion, things like that. And it was at a range where I should be able to distinguish flight characteristics, and that just just didn’t happen.
JEREMY CORBELL What is it like when your kids, you know, say, hey, Daddy did you see an alien? You know, or Hey, Daddy, did you see an alien ship? You know, your kids ask you that kind of thing?
CHAD UNDERWOOD Oh, yeah, they do all the time. And, you know, they’re, you know, as a fan of Star Wars and things like that. Guardians of the Galaxy for my kids and things like, you know what not, and they’re just, every day, they’re just like, Hey, did you see an alien, you know, at work? And I’m just like, No, I don’t know what I saw. And I told them, I can’t remember where the quote came from. But there’s a quote out there that says, either we’re alone in this universe, or we aren’t. Each is equally terrifying. With billions of galaxies and billions of planets that are out there. The odds of us being the only life forms that are here is unlikely. You just kind of have to live with that knowledge and just know that we’re probably not the only beings out there.
JEREMY CORBELL You’re leaving it on the table that this could be something not from here, this could be an extra-terrestrial vehicle, we don’t know.
CHAD UNDERWOOD Oh, absolutely, yeah, totally. And, you know, as a rational human being, I leave that completely on the table. It has to be as a logical, rational person.
JEREMY CORBELL The evidence that it’s our black technologies, that seems to be dwindling, that seems to be going away.
CHAD UNDERWOOD Yeah. That seems to be the case. I think the Pentagon and the folks that put these reports out, I think that is the correct assessment.
JEREMY CORBELL The idea this is US technology. We’ve already talked about how it’s not a black project, it’s that you would have been treated differently, does somebody have a technology 1000 plus years ahead of us, another foreign nation that had it back in 2004 when you filmed the Tic Tac? I mean, that would be pretty wild.
CHAD UNDERWOOD Absolutely. And I agree with that assessment, both now in 2021. And back in 2004, especially in 2004, this stuff would not have existed. And certainly, it wasn’t a US unacknowledged black project, or even acknowledged back project. If anyone assumes that it was a, you know, let’s just say China, Russia, you know, our kind of big threats out there that have money and projects. Nothing to describe as that kind of technology that could have acted in that way.
JEREMY CORBELL Commander Fravor said that he could imagine maybe in 2004, you know, there’s stuff he doesn’t know. But he says, This is 17 years later. So to keep that technology secret, he said, would probably almost impossible for 17 years.
CHAD UNDERWOOD Right.
JEREMY CORBELL That’s why he said he’s leaning more towards this is not ours.
CHAD UNDERWOOD I agree with that. I agree completely with that. I know, we don’t have it, that technology, which means that China and Russia, there’s no way right, and that they could just do what Commander Fravor described, you know, the up, down left, right, you know, the way that it acted on the surface and the way that it acted getting airborne, that just doesn’t, that doesn’t happen. And like I said, like that was my weirded out moment was when, you know, he described it, and then I saw it. And and then it was just like, okay, where, where do we go from here? And to be quite honest with you, Jeremy, the conversations at the chow hall and things like that, when I’m talking with my fellow aviators. We talked about it a little bit, but we just moved on.
JEREMY CORBELL What changes when you achieve commander? What does it do?
CHAD UNDERWOOD I’m in the reserves. I’ve been in Reserves for 10 years.
JEREMY CORBELL So your daily job, your daily life, is it in a similar field?
CHAD UNDERWOOD My civilian job? All that I can tell anyone, I’m a systems engineer.
JEREMY CORBELL Have you ever talked with anybody, has anybody said I know you were part of it. Nobody?
CHAD UNDERWOOD Every day.

JEREMY CORBELL People talk to you about it?
CHAD UNDERWOOD About the Tic Tac?
JEREMY CORBELL Yeah.
CHAD UNDERWOOD All the time. Because I really, I worked with other engineers. And so they’re kind of wired into this zeitgeist you know…
JEREMY CORBELL They’re into it, man. They’re really into it.
CHAD UNDERWOOD Oh, yeah. I mean, because we all work in aviation and things like that. And they’re more interested in it than I am. And so they’ll tell me like, Hey, you know, I saw your article in the New York Times, whatever. They know, before I do. And so they’re like, Hey, what’s up UFO man, I’m like, Oh, God. Because it seems like since this whole thing happened, it seems like every, you know, 3, 4, 6 months, whatever, something new comes out. I’m like, What’s new? What is new? Like, what what? What are they disclosing that we don’t already know?
JEREMY CORBELL Yeah. Well, I’m releasing a lot of s***.
CHAD UNDERWOOD Well, I know that Yeah. And, and that’s in your best interest. But you know, from my perspective, like, I wake up on a Monday morning, I’m just like, Alright, what now? Like, that’s basically just how it feels. You know, I’ll acknowledge it. And they’ll all know the story. And you know, some of the younger engineers will ask me like, hey, you’re the Tic Tac guy. I’m like, Yeah,.
JEREMY CORBELL I mean, I think the biggest point that we got here is that Commander Underwood has a great sense of humor, because he called the UFO a Tic Tac, because he didn’t want to call it a Tylenol. That would just be too absurd.
CHAD UNDERWOOD I know. Yeah, you’re absolutely right.
JEREMY CORBELL Thank you for sharing your story, the story about the Tic Tac naming with me and with anybody who watches it. Thank you so much that that’s a really cool story. I appreciate it.
CHAD UNDERWOOD You got it brother.

Source: www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/otpq6w/transcript_of_underwood_interview_navy_aviator

The interview

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

jackfrostvc

Active Member
Interesting he says he wasn't consulted for the Executive Summary report and that he was jammed
So why does the Executive Summary say that he told them he wasn't jammed.

Also, if he is being jammed, then isn't it easy for the lock to be lost.


So weird
 
Last edited:

Ravi

Active Member
Interesting he says he wasn't consulted for the Executive Summary report and that he was jammed
So why does the Executive Summary say that he told them he wasn't jammed.

Also, if he is being jammed, then isn't it easy for the lock to be lost.


So weird

Thanks for the transcript!
 

jackfrostvc

Active Member
Would love to hear from the Pilot in Chad's jet. He was the WSO, the female pilot still hasn't come out publicly yet
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
CHAD UNDERWOOD It’s maintaining track when it widens its bars. It’s basically telling me that it’s losing confidence in that track, but then it goes back, you know, you see it widens out and then it goes back. It never dragged off the target. The FLIR is designed to and engineered to be able to hack that kind of maneuvering. But that, the way that aircraft maneuvered, or that object, whatever, is not something that I can explain. It just went (sound woop) and it was off to the races wherever it’s going, and that was it.

I'm sorry, can see no way to reconcile this statement with the video we see.

The bars are static and the object moves off screen at the previous track rate.
 

Amber Robot

Active Member
I'm sorry, can see no way to reconcile this statement with the video we see.

The bars are static and the object moves off screen at the previous track rate.
Have we seen any video snippets released that show the erratic and unexplainable movements that the eyewitness claim to have seen? None of the ones being analyzed on this forum seem to show those kinds of movements.
 

Metzgerov

Member
Have we seen any video snippets released that show the erratic and unexplainable movements that the eyewitness claim to have seen? None of the ones being analyzed on this forum seem to show those kinds of movements.
He was speaking mostly about erratic movements on the radar screen not the video. FYI
 

Ravi

Active Member
Have we seen any video snippets released that show the erratic and unexplainable movements that the eyewitness claim to have seen? None of the ones being analyzed on this forum seem to show those kinds of movements.
No we have not. And what about the radar footage, of course we will not see that. We will not see anything that shows out of the ordinary things happening. Yeah, why not actually? Well..
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
Have we seen any video snippets released that show the erratic and unexplainable movements that the eyewitness claim to have seen? None of the ones being analyzed on this forum seem to show those kinds of movements.
In each of the 3 videos some sort of extreme motion is suggested in the claims by the TTSA and these claims are maintained with different level of fervour by some (they seem to have somewhat given up on Go Fast) each one has some sort of more rational explanation, they are a little harder to get your head around in ascending order of complexity of explanation.

1. Go Fast, debunks itself with the numbers on screen.
2. F4/FLIR1/Nimitz, tracking loss and zoom combine to given impression of acceleration.
3. Gimbal, probably the hardest one to get across, rotating camera and de-rotation mechanism combine to provide illusion of movement.

The Nimitz/FLIR video was originally on the web way back (before the TTSA/news articles) and was called F4.mpg, there is a plane used by the US Military called the F4.
 

Metzgerov

Member
In each of the 3 videos some sort of extreme motion is suggested in the claims by the TTSA and these claims are maintained with different level of fervour by some (they seem to have somewhat given up on Go Fast) each one has some sort of more rational explanation, they are a little harder to get your head around in ascending order of complexity of explanation.

1. Go Fast, debunks itself with the numbers on screen.
2. F4/FLIR1/Nimitz, tracking loss and zoom combine to given impression of acceleration.
3. Gimbal, probably the hardest one to get across, rotating camera and de-rotation mechanism combine to provide illusion of movement.

The Nimitz/FLIR video was originally on the web way back (before the TTSA/news articles) and was called F4.mpg, there is a plane used by the US Military called the F4.
Sadly by the Pilot and WSO accounts the erratic/bizarre movements happened via eyeball or radar so we will never see that in the flesh. You have to trust the aviators on this (or not).
 

jplaza

New Member
So here is a transcript of the interview between Corbell and Chad Underwood that Corbell posted today


CHAD UNDERWOOD Yeah, of course. Once I got the target of interest on my radar, I took a lock and that’s when all the kind of the funky things started happening. The erratic nature of the Tic Tac. The airspeed was very telling to me. And then we started seeing what we call jam strobe lines, strobe lines are vertical lines that show up on your radar that are indications that you’re being jammed.
...
CHAD UNDERWOOD I was not consulted for that report. I have been interviewed 1/10 of 1% from the government, as I have from yourself. I did get jamming cues on my radar tape, and you can see cues of jamming on both your radar and your FLIR tape. You know when Commander Fravor described on your FLIR tape, when you see like 99.9 range to target. That means you’re being jammed.
Surely I am wrong as I don't know anything on radar jamming, but being able to reckon you are being jammed ... isn't it proof of human technology at work?

I mean, I would think that if you want to jam a radar, you have to know how it works, in order to know how to jam it. On the other hand, once you know how to jam a radar, you can reckon the radiation patterns or whatever is used, or effects of being jammed (and then even apply counter-countermesures).
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
Surely I am wrong as I don't know anything on radar jamming, but being able to reckon you are being jammed ... isn't it proof of human technology at work?

I mean, I would think that if you want to jam a radar, you have to know how it works, in order to know how to jam it. On the other hand, once you know how to jam a radar, you can reckon the radiation patterns or whatever is used, or effects of being jammed (and then even apply counter-countermesures).

I looked into how jamming detection works on modern RADAR but it's very technical and mostly classified and I was not able to get anywhere. The guide for the simulations RADAR did mention symbology for jamming targets where you might only get certain information back from the track ie angle only etc.
 

jackfrostvc

Active Member
Chad is a pilot not a WSO.



Not sure what he became, but when the FLIR Tic Tac footage was taken, Underwood was the WSO in the jet.
I know who the pilot was, I know her name. She hasn't come public yet which is why no one , including myself have said who she is
And no , I'm not confusing this person with Alex, it's someone else

From the information I got on who they all where:

Jet 1) - Claims to have visually seen the Tic Tac and engaged it
Fravor - Pilot
Male - WSO who is still serving and hasn't come public yet. His name is known

Jet 2) - Claims to have visually seen the Tic Tac
Alex Dietrich - Pilot
Jim Slaight - WSO

Jet 3) - Claims to have seen the disturbance in the water
Douglas Kurth - Pilot in a single seat F/A-18C

Jet 4) - Claims to have taken the FLIR footage
Female - Pilot who has not come out public yet. Her name is known
Chad Underwood - WSO

FWIW - In regards to GIMBAL, no one I have asked knows who the pilot and WSO were except of course Ryan Graves who says he knows who they were
 
Last edited:

Ravi

Active Member
Confusing though as in the interview transcript it sounds like Chad was flying himself...
 

jackfrostvc

Active Member
Confusing though as in the interview transcript it sounds like Chad was flying himself...


I think the confusion is what is meant by vectoring the jet.

The Princeton vectored the jets also, of course they weren't flying
By all that, I mean it seems like an interpretation of terminology thing

Underwood could have simply told the pilot to fly in a particular direction. Or maybe he had access to the autopilot heading adjuster
 
Last edited:

Ravi

Active Member
I think the confusion is what is meant by vectoring the jet.

The Princeton vectored the jets also, of course they weren't flying
By all that, I mean it seems like an interpretation of terminology thing

Underwood could have simply told the pilot to fly in a particular direction. Or maybe he had access to the autopilot heading adjuster
Thanks for the explanation!
 

MclachlanM

Active Member
I think the confusion is what is meant by vectoring the jet.
Confusing though as in the interview transcript it sounds like Chad was flying himself...
I think that Underwood has deliberately started the confusion himself by claiming explicitly in several places that he was a pilot and implying that he was flying, despite actually being the WSO, see my post here: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/po...ing-in-the-nimitz-encounter.11862/post-252958

Personally I think he just likes being called a pilot instead of being the second most important person in the cockpit.
 

DavidB66

Active Member
From the information I got on who they all where:

That's a useful list. If I understand correctly, the word 'claims' does not necessarily relate to both crew members (where there were two of them). For example in the case of Jet 4 only Underwood has commented publicly and the female pilot is said not to have noticed anything remarkable.
In Jet 2, Slaight has not commented publicly, but has been reported in documents as seeing the tic-tac and giving quite a detailed description.

So far as I recall, none of these individuals has commented on the recent DoD Task Force report, or has mentioned being consulted or interviewed by the Task Force. Perhaps they were, but for some reason (NDAs, etc) have not mentioned it. The point is of interest because we don't really know how the Task Force investigation was carried out, and in all their cases one might think that interviewing them would be an important part of the investigation.
 

Agent K

Senior Member
The Nimitz/FLIR video was originally on the web way back (before the TTSA/news articles) and was called F4.mpg, there is a plane used by the US Military called the F4.
Think it was an F-4 Phantom? Very appropriate name for a UFO: "phantom." Is there any record of QF-4 target drones at that time and place?



1627702973672.png


Article:
The last Phantoms in service with the Navy were QF-4N and QF-4S target drones operated by the Naval Air Warfare Center at NAS Point Mugu, California. These airframes were subsequently retired in 2004.
 
Last edited:
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