2004 USS Nimitz Tic Tac UFO FLIR footage (FLIR1)

Agent K

Senior Member
The "tic tac" has been described as having something sticking out underneath it. That's based on the F4.mpg FLIR1 video, not on Fravor's eyewitness account of chasing a tic tac.
1627677073656.png

For example, here's how the "The Nimitz Encounters" video depicts it with appendages that look like pitot tubes.

1627676572028.png

Well, I don't know about alien spaceships, but I know that our aircraft have all sorts of things sticking out underneath, including wings and horizontal stabilizers viewed from certain angles.
 

famking

New Member
Underwood gave a powerful interview with the alien guru Corbell.

He describe that at the end of the video, he not just lose look, but the object fast disappear. And he did not found them anymore.
 

Candy-O

New Member
Underwood gave a powerful interview with the alien guru Corbell.

He describe that at the end of the video, he not just lose look, but the object fast disappear. And he did not found them anymore.
Yea I'd like to hear people's thoughts on this. Underwood states he lost contact with the object instantly. Surely if the object lost FLIR camera lock somehow, but the object was still there, they could easily reacquire it. He states that he was being jammed as well.
 

Agent K

Senior Member
Underwood gave a powerful interview with the alien guru Corbell.

He describe that at the end of the video, he not just lose look, but the object fast disappear. And he did not found them anymore.
Too bad the video cuts off after the target leaves the screen.

Underwood said
He maneuvered his fighter? Did he try simply panning the camera to the left and zooming out? Is there video of that?
 

Candy-O

New Member
Too bad the video cuts off after the target leaves the screen.

Underwood said
He maneuvered his fighter? Did he try simply panning the camera to the left and zooming out? Is there video of that?
He said it was gone and flew off, and his radar was unable to re-acquire it. He then contacted the Princeton, which also was not able to find anything.
 

DavidB66

Active Member
immediately aggressively maneuvered my fighter to the left to try to reacquire
That raises the question again, who was flying the fighter? I thought it was established that Underwood was the WSO in the rear seat behind the pilot. Would the controls even allow him to do what he said? Does he perhaps mean that he asked the pilot to maneuver? He does not actually say ' I immediately aggressively maneuvered... ' He doesn't give the verb 'maneuvered' a subject, so the phrase is ambiguous. A better interviewer might have asked for clarification.
 

Ravi

Active Member
That raises the question again, who was flying the fighter? I thought it was established that Underwood was the WSO in the rear seat behind the pilot. Would the controls even allow him to do what he said? Does he perhaps mean that he asked the pilot to maneuver? He does not actually say ' I immediately aggressively maneuvered... ' He doesn't give the verb 'maneuvered' a subject, so the phrase is ambiguous. A better interviewer might have asked for clarification.

I had the same issue, over in post #716 it was clarified, as apparently it means he "vectored" the plane (pilot?) somewhere.
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
1. He never used any RADAR tracking during the FLIR video, the object is being tracked optically only. RADAR does not matter for tracking here.
2. The optical tracking is lost and regained several times during the video due to camera/lens changes between FOVs and IR/TV.
3. When tracking is finally fully lost, the loss is caused by rapid cycling of FOV modes not any movement of the object.
4. The object when track is lost and the camera stops moving exits the screen at the same rate as it was being tracked.

We can conclude that unless the object made it's rapid acceleration directly after moving out the FOV of the camera that un-zooming the camera to the MFOV or WFOV views would have shown the object again. There would have been no need to manoeuvre the aircraft.

The ATFLIR being changed to WFOV and being manually slewed would have been a faster way to try and keep on the object.
 

Candy-O

New Member
1. He never used any RADAR tracking during the FLIR video, the object is being tracked optically only. RADAR does not matter for tracking here.
2. The optical tracking is lost and regained several times during the video due to camera/lens changes between FOVs and IR/TV.
3. When tracking is finally fully lost, the loss is caused by rapid cycling of FOV modes not any movement of the object.
4. The object when track is lost and the camera stops moving exits the screen at the same rate as it was being tracked.

We can conclude that unless the object made it's rapid acceleration directly after moving out the FOV of the camera that un-zooming the camera to the MFOV or WFOV views would have shown the object again. There would have been no need to manoeuvre the aircraft.

The ATFLIR being changed to WFOV and being manually slewed would have been a faster way to try and keep on the object.
He says in the interview that he DID get jamming cues on his radar tape. He says specially that he had radar footage on the event as well as the FLIR. Watch the interview.
 

dimebag2

Member
Since I have done it for the two other Navy videos, I decided to make a little geometric analyses of FLIR (for the sake of fun mostly!).

Two parameters are measured by my model :
- the average speed of the TicTac when it's locked, from second 0'09 to 1.09. I use the angles of bearing given by the ATFLIR camera, and consider a trajectory from right to left, perpendicular to the plane trajectory (considered straight and at a constant speed of 335 TAS).

- the speed when the TicTac supposedly accelerates and disappears on the left of the screen, when the lock is lost. I use the section at the very end when the camera is zoomed. Looking at individual frames, the TicTac crosses about 62% of half the screen in 18 frames. Considering a FOV of 0.35 at Zoom2, we can estimate the distance it covers (see formula in the legend of the model). The frame rate being 30Fps, we know the time it takes ((1/30)*18), and this gives the "unlocked" speed.

The TicTac position can be dragged to change the distance from the plane, to see how it affects the two speeds.

https://www.geogebra.org/geometry/epqdtg4b

Two takeaways :
- for the TicTac being at a distance of 10Nm and more, the two speeds are very close (less than 5% difference). This makes me think I'm not too wrong (but I trust you to find where I may have messed up!)
- if I select a distance from the TicTac of 15Nm (Chad Underwood estimate), they are ~170 Knots

So in short, no crazy speed, and more importantly, I do not see any acceleration at all at the end when the lock is lost, in agreement with what has been proposed here. I though I would share because it is a handy model to play with the FOV, distance to the jet, etc ... The only parameter that makes the locked and unlocked speed to diverge is the FOV. If the FOV is larger than my estimate of 0.35, say 0.7, the unlocked speed starts getting high. Note that the FOV does not affect the locked speed because it is calculated from the lines of bearing and plane trajectory.

So I guess we are left with the pilot's word here, which I don't like. Why didn't they provide the rest of the footage when the TicTac is gone ?

I appreciate any feedback and verification that my maths are correct (or not too wrong at least).
 

Candy-O

New Member
That raises the question again, who was flying the fighter? I thought it was established that Underwood was the WSO in the rear seat behind the pilot. Would the controls even allow him to do what he said? Does he perhaps mean that he asked the pilot to maneuver? He does not actually say ' I immediately aggressively maneuvered... ' He doesn't give the verb 'maneuvered' a subject, so the phrase is ambiguous. A better interviewer might have asked for clarification.
He or Fravor has never mentioned another pilot. The Hornet does not require two pilots, so it seems that he was the only one flying, unless they are lying by omission.
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
He says in the interview that he DID get jamming cues on his radar tape. He says specially that he had radar footage on the event as well as the FLIR. Watch the interview.

I have, I am not saying he didn't have the object on RADAR I am saying the object was not tracked in the video by the ATFLIR using RADAR.
 

Candy-O

New Member
I have, I am not saying he didn't have the object on RADAR I am saying the object was not tracked in the video by the ATFLIR using RADAR.
OK I see what you mean, but I have to ask, if losing FLIR track was simply a matter of changing optical zoom modes, then that means the object was still there, and it should show up on RADAR. Would he not have simply glanced over to his RADAR to look for it reestablish a FLIR lock again? He said it was not on his radar at all anymore, and that since the Princeton did not have it either, (and was thus the end of the encounter.)
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
OK I see what you mean, but I have to ask, if losing FLIR track was simply a matter of changing optical zoom modes, then that means the object was still there, and it should showing up on RADAR. Would he not have simply glanced over to his RADAR to look for it reestablish a FLIR lock again? He said it was not on his radar at all anymore, and that since the Princeton did not have it either, it was thus the end of the encounter.

He doesn't have the FLIR on L+S/SLAVE only optical track during the video.

From what we see on the video a lot of what he says doesn't seem to make much sense, FLIR can be slaved to an angle only track, even if you are being jammed somewhat if you have angle you can SLAVE.

The object is just there doing not much, just moving left slowly, he starts zooming in and out and changing the mode rapidly all things he should know could cause optical tracking to be lost, however if he had an angle only RADAR track then SLAVING would have meant these zooms would not have affected the track too much as it would just remain tracking using the RADAR track.

Given the speed the object leaves the frame after the optical tracking is lost the very 1st thing you should do is zoom out if you want to require the object in optical mode.

The contention seems to be that he says the loss of tracking we see in the video is because of a rapid acceleration of the object, but analysis of the video just shows this not to be the case.

It's entirely possible that the object rapidly accelerates just after the video ends, but that is not what is claimed.

Any discussion of RADAR doesn't really apply to the FLIR video because RADAR is not used for tracking in this video, in fact it's not used in any of the three Navy videos.
 

Candy-O

New Member
He doesn't have the FLIR on L+S/SLAVE only optical track during the video.

From what we see on the video a lot of what he says doesn't seem to make much sense, FLIR can be slaved to an angle only track, even if you are being jammed somewhat if you have angle you can SLAVE.

The object is just there doing not much, just moving left slowly, he starts zooming in and out and changing the mode rapidly all things he should know could cause optical tracking to be lost, however if he had an angle only RADAR track then SLAVING would have meant these zooms would not have affected the track too much as it would just remain tracking using the RADAR track.

Given the speed the object leaves the frame after the optical tracking is lost the very 1st thing you should do is zoom out if you want to require the object in optical mode.

The contention seems to be that he says the loss of tracking we see in the video is because of a rapid acceleration of the object, but analysis of the video just shows this not to be the case.

It's entirely possible that the object rapidly accelerates just after the video ends, but that is not what is claimed.

Any discussion of RADAR doesn't really apply to the FLIR video because RADAR is not used for tracking in this video, in fact it's not used in any of the three Navy videos.
OK let's look at it from another point of view.. if the object did in fact zoom off like Underwood states, then how would the FLIR footage we have look different? What would it show instead?
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
A much more rapid exit of the object as it was being tracked, it would essentially vanish in many less frames or even no frames i.e. there one moment and gone the next.
 

DavidB66

Active Member
The Hornet does not require two pilots, so it seems that he was the only one flying, unless they are lying by omission
I was going by post #714 above, which definitely states that Underwood's plane had a female pilot, whose name is known but has not been made public. I don't know what the etiquette of US Navy aircrew is, but I think if I were the pilot, I would be peeved if the guy in the seat behind me, who doesn't have eyes on the immediate front of the plane, 'aggressively maneuvered' it without first consulting me. (It might be different if Underwood was the senior officer and the pilot a trainee.) It is suggested that Underwood might have entered new instructions into the autopilot, but that doesn't sound like a good way of doing anything 'aggressive', like a sudden sharp bank and turn.
 

Candy-O

New Member
A much more rapid exit of the object as it was being tracked, it would essentially vanish in many less frames or even no frames i.e. there one moment and gone the next.
Jarlmai,

It looks to be hauling a$$ in the video to me. So let's says, just for augments sake, that the object is in fact zooming away at high speed. Not "gone without any frames" speed, but accelerating quickly to 10000 thousand miles per hour over the next 5 seconds. Both he and Fravor said it "zoomed off" at great speed, not "instantly vanished", yes? Would that not show what we see on the FLIR footage? This is where informal language gets tricky "vanished" "shot off" "zoomed away" etc are not too precise, and one person's casual "disappeared" might not mean literally, only that it was "incredibly" fast lol. I doubt after so many years Fravor, or whoever else, remembers it that clearly as to estimate airspeed with any degree of accuracy.

I have no dog in this fight, but it seems like a lot explanation for things are "possible alternatives" not exclusionary proof. BOTH A or B explanations could both show similar footage, not ONLY A or B. It's like the whole size issue with sightings. An object might be large and far away, or a small and much closer. That fact that B could explain something does not disprove A. Other facts might need to be considered before you rule that something is A, and a cannot be B.

So that's why I asked you what you think. If an object moved from stable airspeed to 10,000 miles per hour in 1/60 of a second, then sure it might seem to vanish. But what if it went from a stable speed to 10,000 miles an hour by (or whatever the supposed speed is) over a matter of a few seconds? It COULD show exactly what Underwood described. I'm looking for something that excludes the "zoom off" explanation conclusively before I'm willing to accept that it could not possibly be what we are seeing.
 
Last edited:

jarlrmai

Senior Member
Jarlmai,

It looks to be hauling a$$ in the video to me. So let's says, just for augments sake, that the object is in fact zooming away at high speed. Not "gone without any frames" speed, but accelerating quickly to several thousand miles per hour over the next 5 seconds. Both he and Fravor said it "zoomed off" at great speed, not "instantly vanished", yes? Would that not show what we see on the FLIR footage?

I have no dog in this fight, but it seems like a lot explanation for things are "possible alternatives" not exclusionary proof. BOTH A or B explanations could both show similar footage, not ONLY A or B. It's like the whole size issue with sightings. An object might be large and far away, or a small and much closer. That fact that B could explain something does not disprove A.

So that's why I asked you what you think. If an object moved from stable airspeed to 10,000 miles per hour in 1/60 of a second, then sure it might seem to vanish. But what if it went from a stable speed to 10,000 miles an hour by (or whatever the supposed speed is) over a matter of a few seconds? It COULD show exactly what Underwood described. I'm looking for something that excludes the "zoom off" explanation conclusively before I'm willing to accept that it could not possibly be what we are seeing.

Looks can be deceiving. Have you watched Mick's no sudden moves video?

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1di0XIa9RQ


Essentially the tracking rate of the camera shows us the speed of the object relative to the plane, when it stops tracking we see the object leave the FOV at the same rate. Hence we know it doesn't speed up any in the video.
 

jackfrostvc

Active Member
So where is the audio in the FLIR footage?
Why no audio?

Time to start the -> We Want the Audio ! campaign
 
Last edited:

Candy-O

New Member
Looks can be deceiving. Have you watched Mick's no sudden moves video?

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1di0XIa9RQ


Essentially the tracking rate of the camera shows us the speed of the object relative to the plane, when it stops tracking we see the object leave the FOV at the same rate. Hence we know it doesn't speed up any in the video.
Ok this was really helpful. I hadn't seen that particular video, but it does clear things up. Yes, looks CAN be deceiving, which is why I was looking for something to indicate what the object speed might be. Whatever the locked on speed happens to be is not as important as the fact that it remained the same.

Not much more to add, than thanks to you and Mick.
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
Ok this was really helpful. I hadn't seen that particular video, but it does clear things up. Yes, looks CAN be deceiving, which is why I was looking for something to indicate what the object speed might be. Ascertaining that the angular rate was the same before AND after the lock was lost is pretty compelling.

Not much more to add, than thanks to you and Mick.
Sorry yeah we do tend to assume people have seen this stuff, which we we probably shouldn't. It took a while to get to this point and the threads for each video show how the analysis was developed.
 

DavidB66

Active Member
I had the same issue, over in post #716 it was clarified, as apparently it means he "vectored" the plane (pilot?) somewhere.

I keep coming across the term 'vectored' in this and other threads, but on looking at a dozen or so Metabunk search results for the term I couldn't find any which explained what the term literally means. It is beginning to remind me of this classic Mitchell & Webb sketch:

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


(A 4-minute comedy sketch titled 'Vectron'. I know, I should give a fuller description, but that would risk spoiling the joke for those who haven't already seen it.)

'Vector', as used in discussions of the Nimitz case, etc,, is presumably a bit of US Navy jargon, but as far as I can tell it is not officially defined. It is not included in this Department of Defense 'Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms', updated to January 2021:

https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Doctrine/pubs/dictionary.pdf

Of course, outside naval or military circles the word 'vector' has several meanings, such as a carrier of a disease, but I guess the more relevant use is the mathematical term for a 'directed magnitude'. In the naval context, to 'vector' someone would plausibly mean to give them a direction and distance to travel in, e.g. 'go 10 nautical miles to north-north-east', or perhaps give them a specific map reference to go to. But if anyone has more definite information it would be helpful for the rest of us.
 

MclachlanM

Active Member
I keep coming across the term 'vectored' in this and other threads, but on looking at a dozen or so Metabunk search results for the term I couldn't find any which explained what the term literally means. It is beginning to remind me of this classic Mitchell & Webb sketch:

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


(A 4-minute comedy sketch titled 'Vectron'. I know, I should give a fuller description, but that would risk spoiling the joke for those who haven't already seen it.)

'Vector', as used in discussions of the Nimitz case, etc,, is presumably a bit of US Navy jargon, but as far as I can tell it is not officially defined. It is not included in this Department of Defense 'Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms', updated to January 2021:

https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Doctrine/pubs/dictionary.pdf

Of course, outside naval or military circles the word 'vector' has several meanings, such as a carrier of a disease, but I guess the more relevant use is the mathematical term for a 'directed magnitude'. In the naval context, to 'vector' someone would plausibly mean to give them a direction and distance to travel in, e.g. 'go 10 nautical miles to north-north-east', or perhaps give them a specific map reference to go to. But if anyone has more definite information it would be helpful for the rest of us.
David Fravor explains what he means by a vector on the Fridman podcast I think (apologies, don't have time to search for it at the moment).

It refers to the BRAA (bearing, range, altitude, aspect) readings that are given to aircraft by an ATC/AWACS.

I can't find much online either but again DCS sources come in handy, this page explains the terminology and processes around vectoring if you'd like to learn more: https://wiki.hoggitworld.com/view/Getting_started_with_GCI/AWACS.

BRAA stands for Bearing Range Altitude Aspect from your current location.

BRA, 183, 10, 2000, hot

would mean the target is located at 183 degrees, 10 nautical miles away, and at 2000 feet coming directly towards you.

Edit: found Fravor's explaination of the vector they're given from the Princeton:
Source: https://youtu.be/aB8zcAttP1E?t=4596

So as we are going out they're calling out ranges, they're called BRA calls - Bearing Range and Altitude - and they're telling us, hey it's at 40 miles or 50 miles and 40 miles and 30 miles. So they're saying; 'hey 270 30 20000', that's all they say.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
David Fravor explains what he means by a vector on the Fridman podcast I think (apologies, don't have time to search for it at the moment).

It refers to the BRAA (bearing, range, altitude, aspect) readings that are given to aircraft by an ATC/AWACS.

"Vectoring" is essentially controlling a plane by giving the pilot (or autopilot) instructions.

A "vector" in this context is basically a heading (a direction), which could be absolute ("fly heading 270" = fly east), or relative ("turn 30° left"), and can also include altitude and distance.

Vectoring can also be to a point ("Fly direct SXC") or to a navigation radial (an angle relative to a point).

A BRA is an arbitrarily defined point in space relative to you. BRAA adds "aspect", which is the heading of the target aircraft. You can be vectored to a point by being given the BRA, or you can be given instructions ("turn right heading 020, climb to FL280") which will get you there. More likely a fighter would be given the BRA for an intercept.

In this instance, Underwood describes vectoring his aircraft left. Presumably, he's communicating something to the pilot, which could be as simple as saying "turn 30° left" - but I'd don't know how that normally works.

For a more formal description of the various types of aviation vectoring, see:
https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/atc_html/chap5_section_6.html
 

jackfrostvc

Active Member
I did find out that some jets do have controls in the back seat as well, which adds another dimension of possibilty
 

DavidB66

Active Member
Thanks to MclachlanM and Mick West for the sources about 'vectoring'. Interesting to see from Mick's #748 that it is not a specifically military term, as it is also used by civilian air traffic control.

Going back to Underwood's use of the term, claiming that he 'vectored' the plane, it still isn't clear quite what he meant. It seems from the info above that a minimum requirement for 'vectoring' is to give a direction (bearing) and a distance (range), which fits with the meaning of the term 'vector' in mathematics. But in Underwood's case it is difficult to see how a distance would come into it, as the distance of the object was unknown. Perhaps he was just using the term loosely to mean 'make a sharp turn'.
 

jackfrostvc

Active Member
Thanks to MclachlanM and Mick West for the sources about 'vectoring'. Interesting to see from Mick's #748 that it is not a specifically military term, as it is also used by civilian air traffic control.

Going back to Underwood's use of the term, claiming that he 'vectored' the plane, it still isn't clear quite what he meant. It seems from the info above that a minimum requirement for 'vectoring' is to give a direction (bearing) and a distance (range), which fits with the meaning of the term 'vector' in mathematics. But in Underwood's case it is difficult to see how a distance would come into it, as the distance of the object was unknown. Perhaps he was just using the term loosely to mean 'make a sharp turn'.
I think the bigger thing to discuss is Underwoods comment below:
"When it shot off to the left, immediately aggressively maneuvered my fighter to the left to try to reacquire, and it moved with a velocity that I've not seen. I should be able to reacquire that aircraft or whatever it was."

That is strongly implying he flew the jet, at least at that moment.
Now it could be that the back seat also had controls, it's unclear
 

Metzgerov

Member
Thanks to MclachlanM and Mick West for the sources about 'vectoring'. Interesting to see from Mick's #748 that it is not a specifically military term, as it is also used by civilian air traffic control.

Going back to Underwood's use of the term, claiming that he 'vectored' the plane, it still isn't clear quite what he meant. It seems from the info above that a minimum requirement for 'vectoring' is to give a direction (bearing) and a distance (range), which fits with the meaning of the term 'vector' in mathematics. But in Underwood's case it is difficult to see how a distance would come into it, as the distance of the object was unknown. Perhaps he was just using the term loosely to mean 'make a sharp turn'.
No he was Vectored by the E-2 Hawkeye/Princeton. I think it's around the 5min mark. The object was on radar for Princeton, E-2 and Hornet SA screens. This means its almost impossible it was a friendly (civ/drone/plane) as they could interrogate the target and get friendly IFF, emissions or fan/rotor count to tell what it was.

The next thing it falls to is foreign craft but it would have to be unknown or the emissions and signature would come up. So it has to be something very new.

The key things are to a address are:

1. They were jammed so it had electronic capability meaning its not atmospheric or junk.
2. If it maneuvered like Underwood said then its under decent propulsion which brings up a whole slew of questions.
3. What size is it? I don't think we have any info on that?
 

Ravi

Active Member
I think the bigger thing to discuss is Underwoods comment below:
"When it shot off to the left, immediately aggressively maneuvered my fighter to the left to try to reacquire, and it moved with a velocity that I've not seen. I should be able to reacquire that aircraft or whatever it was."

That is strongly implying he flew the jet, at least at that moment.
Now it could be that the back seat also had controls, it's unclear

This is what I have been saying. It is unclear. It can be explained hopefully, by a knowledgeable pilot?
 

Metzgerov

Member
This is what I have been saying. It is unclear. It can be explained hopefully, by a knowledgeable pilot?
Don't forget Underwood said Spy1 and E-2 lost contact with the object at the same time Underwood lost FLIR tracking. That's key!
 
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