2004 USS Nimitz Tic Tac UFO FLIR footage (FLIR1)
jarlrmai
Senior Member.
Who is "you guys?"
The visual light/TV part of the video has some info yeah it's blurry but it's not a dot either.
Interestingly we had some discussion about the object size/speed based on distance earlier in the thread. Is it worth revisiting that with the claimed estimated distance range given by Underwood - 10-15 (nautical?) miles. To baseline that distance estimate. Or di we already do that earlier?
Ravi
Senior Member.
No worries, I am not preventing you from doing all the analysis you want to do.
Just wanted to mention that we have some uncertainties to deal with, but yeah I am not saying anything new here so forget my post.
Agent K
Senior Member
That's not a large tail fin. This is a large tail fin. That's why I said it's probably not an S-3 Viking.
Do you see an F-18?
No, but I can see both tail fins, and a Prowler tail fin should be visible as well since it is comparable in size:
Agent K
Senior Member
Last edited:
MclachlanM
Active Member
The reason that the F18 has two tail fins is to reduce the height needed for sufficient rudder authority, thereby reducing the RADAR cross sectional size and increasing stealth. The tails are designed to not be seen.
It isn't hard to find pictures of F18s from the side where the empennage isn't clearly visible, here is an example (it doesn't take much blur to make the object seem like a misshapen blob similar to the tic tac):
Not if they were red air, and not if their position had been incorrectly estimated.
Remember that the Chilean navy had access to the radar data but failed to identify IB 6830.
Lets say
You still have telemetry of all friendly + Red Air so you can determine where things were at what time. Any investigation into this would yield an easy conclusion it was friendly/ not friendly unless a series of coincidental glitches occurred.
Yeah. Let's say that is the case.
You still have telemetry of all friendly + Red Air so you can determine where things were at what time. Any investigation into this would yield an easy conclusion it was friendly/ not friendly unless a series of coincidental glitches occurred.
So did the Chilean navy.
Right I didn't say it couldn't happen I'm saying its unlikely.
Plus competence/technology of Chilean Navy vs. US Navy.......
jarlrmai
Senior Member.
Lets see your data supporting the competence levels of both Navies, maybe we could start with commercial airliners shot down accidentally?
More unlikely than an alien spacecraft?
The Chilean Navy has approximately 25,000 people. The US Navy has 350,000. The probability of seeing something weird is roughly proportional to the number of eyes, so assuming equal competence the US Navy would be almost 15 times more likely to make a misidentification like this. Put another way, the US Navy would have to be 15 times more competent than the Chilean navy just to break even in terms of probability of seeing something.
The more lottery tickets, the more chances of winning. And the US Navy buys a lot of lottery tickets.
No one said it's Aliens...at least not I.
I would bet the US navy is easily 15x more competent from a personal, logistics and technology level but that's a speculative debate. Point is that its more likely something could go unidetified much easier on a case-by case basis in Chili than with our Navy just based on tech alone.
No one ever does.
That's a pretty extraordinary statement, so I must echo jarlmai's request for supporting data.
Thatˋs an interesting question. Maybe we do not have clear contours of the object, but we do have some kind of color. Is the black color the "real" color, or is it inverted or something like that? How usual/unusual is black color regarding any devices in the air? As far as I Know, there are just the stealth-aircrafts with special black alloys/coating. Others are coated in grey (as Military camouflage ) or colorful (at commercial aircrafts). Black should be rare, even as a color of a balloon.
jarlrmai
Senior Member.
Looking at FLIR/TV footage from military/police footage etc the designers/operators seem to prefer high contrast over everything else which tends to make sense when all you care about is making sure you see the target over the background rather than needing any sort of accurate shades, so with high contrast anything even slightly darker will show up even darker.
Like everything FLIR based we can't do experiments because we don't have access to a high zoom MWIR FLIR camera.
They crop up on Ebay occasionally but I'm not gonna drop 700-7000 on a possible broken FLIR camera I might not even be able to setup.
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/324655479535?hash=item4b96f97aef:g:ejMAAOSw0hJgty~K
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/265068239849?hash=item3db74c5be9:g:hjAAAOSwytZgON4W
Like everything FLIR based we can't do experiments because we don't have access to a high zoom MWIR FLIR camera.
They crop up on Ebay occasionally but I'm not gonna drop 700-7000 on a possible broken FLIR camera I might not even be able to setup.
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/324655479535?hash=item4b96f97aef:g:ejMAAOSw0hJgty~K
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/265068239849?hash=item3db74c5be9:g:hjAAAOSwytZgON4W
How is it "extraordinary"?
Chili's whole Military budget is $4B
The US Navy alone is $150+B
Using your math/logic that's 37 times more competent(better quality).
It's no leap with the budget difference in an industry predicated on technology to identify, track and kill that money buys quality.
1. Ever heard of diminishing returns?
2. If it's so clear, surely you can supply the requested data?
1. Yes I don't think its 37x better I'm just making a point.
2. There is no need it's obvious the US Navy is a more formidable force than the Chilean Navy
Your argument is not that the Chilean navy is "a more formidable force" than the Chilean Navy. Your argument is that the US navy is so much better at observation that a misidentification like that of IB 6830 is much more unlikely despite their much greater numbers.
jarlrmai
Senior Member.
Formidable doesn't always mean competent on an individual level, how many civilian airliners has the Chilean Navy shot down?
I would say yes. Training, technology and process would make it less likely on a case by case basis.
Individual level yes mistakes can be made obviously but in these cases it's not just 1 person who is on the hook as there is corroborating data from multiple people/platforms/sensors to make such mistakes less likely.
Its not a debate of us versus Chile; it's about: Did multiple things fail within the US Navy so that an easily explainable event fell through the cracks so that it remains unidentified. That's the real debate here.
jarlrmai
Senior Member.
People say there is corroborating data, so far the data they say is corroborating has been shown to not corroborate.
Yeah hopefully we see it!
jarlrmai
Senior Member.
How do you feel about the people who said the videos show odd things still maintaining that when they have been shown to not actually show odd things?
That's a loaded question.
How do you know the video does not show anything odd?
Without knowing what the object(s) are you can't say: "It doesn't show anything odd". We can all guess but we don't really know.
In regards to "the people":
Fravor having that stance is way different than Chris Mellon if you catch my drift.
You can surely say whether the video shows evidence of something odd. It could of course be something odd that happens to behave ordinarily on camera, but what evidence is present can be determined from the video alone.
Mendel
Senior Member.
If the video looks similar to video that is known to not show anything odd, wouldn't it be foolish to claim that it does? unless you had more evidence?
"this video shows odd movement of an object" shown to be instead produced by odd movement of the camera / image stabilisation
"this video shows odd shapes/ghosts" shown to be bokeh artifacts
so when the odd properties of the video/observation were shown to be caused by normal things, why would you go on thinking that the object is odd?
just because you are stubborn?
you came to think that this object was odd for a reason, and now you know the reason was wrong, why would you continue thinking that object is odd, except that your mind wants to hold onto this (now unfounded) belief?
the answer is, again, "human nature", of course
the answer is not "because a normal object is secretly odd" (which connects UFOlogy with conspiracy theories, and certainly makes for more colorful life experiences)
jarlrmai
Senior Member.
The claim is not "this video shows an odd thing that just happens to be behaving like a balloon, jet etc" it's "this video shows a thing behaving oddly for these specific reasons" we know now that they are not behaving oddly.
I don't catch your drift re Fravor, what do you mean?
Agent K
Senior Member
With all due respect to the U.S. Navy, it crashed destroyers into a tanker and a 30,000-ton cargo ship that "popped up" on the Automatic Identification System.
Article: Its radars were in questionable shape, and it's not clear the crew knew how to operate them. One could not be made to automatically track nearby ships. To keep the screen updated, a sailor had to punch a button a thousand times an hour. The ship's primary navigation system was run by 17-year-old software.
...
Although the Fitzgerald radars did not show them, more than two dozen ships surrounded the destroyer, all close enough to track. Three of them, large vessels off the starboard bow, posed a grave danger to the warship. They were closing in. Quickly. But the ships didn't appear on the combat room's key radar, the SPS-67, because neither Combs, nor Woodley, nor anyone else, realized that it had been set to a mode designed to scan the seas at a greater distance. With the SPS-67 button taped over, only specialized technicians could change the tuning from another part of the ship. The lack of ships on the radar screen created such a false sense of security that Woodley felt comfortable asking Combs permission to leave his station for a bathroom break, which is rare for a shift in the combat room. When he returned at 1:20 a.m., he glanced at his screens. Nothing to concern him.
"I didn't get any radar, I didn't pick up anything on the 67," Woodley said.
Then, at 1:29 a.m., one minute before the collision, Woodley looked up at the laptop with the Automatic Identification System. He noticed a "pop-up" — a ship that he had not seen before. It appeared very close.
Woodley turned to Ashton Cato, a weapons specialist assigned to midwatch. Cato operated a camera with thermal imaging that could see miles away. On some nights, he would watch the crew on faraway ship decks lighting up cigarettes.
Woodley ordered Cato to point the camera in the direction of the approaching ship. As Cato moved the camera, the screen suddenly filled with the image of a fully loaded cargo ship, lit with white lights like a Christmas tree. It was headed straight at the Fitzgerald, a few hundred yards distant.
Cato only managed to get out a few words. "I got a ship."
Last edited:
Not much that I can see.
Maybe the object darting off to the left but there isn't enough info to say for sure.
Most of you look at the video as the source of all truth. In general the video appears to not show anything that odd to me. Do you and I know that for sure? No, we don't. Anyone saying they do needs some Dunning-Kruger antivenom.
To be honest, the videos actually hurts what is an interesting and in some cases astounding event considering what reportedly happened.
For me at this point micro analysis of the videos isn't going to yield much.
I just await any new info or data to hopefully shed light on what the pilots saw.
In that case I think people saying they know 100% either way are either arrogant or foolish or both.
LilWabbit
Senior Member
Incorrect. Most of 'us' simply realize it's the only reliable piece of evidence available. And it's unimpressive.
Indeed. And many have come to that realization post-fact, after watching Mick's videos. That's why the goal posts have moved in the debate, whereby the mutually and internally inconsistent anecdotes of Fravor, Underwood and Dietrich are regarded far more interesting than these uninspiring physical records, despite physical records being scientifically more reliable data.
Sounds more like "hoping" for new info that would corroborate the more outlandish interpretations of some of the pilots. Let's call the spade a spade. It's OK to admit pro-bias for aliens.
Candy-O
Member
and vice versa?
LilWabbit
Senior Member
Let it be reminded that scientific hypotheses must be testable and not purely speculative.
A testable alien hypothesis for the Navy UAP videos, which was initially advanced by Elizondo et al, simply reads: The footage features feats of flight unattainable to known human technology.
Mick West has demonstrated rather convincingly that the seemingly extraordinary flight characteristics displayed in the Navy footage are not quite as extraordinary after closer scrutiny. They are somewhat easily explained as optical illusions. A testable alien hypothesis for the UAP footage has therefore been demonstrated to be false. That's why we're back to debating more spurious eyewitness testimonies.
A purely speculative alien hypothesis, however, is unfalsifiable, and thereby also unscientific. It would read something to the following effect: The footage features alien crafts even if the crafts do not demonstrate extraordinary flight characteristics.
Such a hypothesis is unhelpful in taking the discussion forward. This is because we can always claim anything is an alien even if it looks like a rubber duck. Such a claim, in all its absurdity, is irrefutable.
A clearer distinction between testable and untestable hypotheses is key if indeed a scientific approach is our goal.
A testable alien hypothesis for the Navy UAP videos, which was initially advanced by Elizondo et al, simply reads: The footage features feats of flight unattainable to known human technology.
Mick West has demonstrated rather convincingly that the seemingly extraordinary flight characteristics displayed in the Navy footage are not quite as extraordinary after closer scrutiny. They are somewhat easily explained as optical illusions. A testable alien hypothesis for the UAP footage has therefore been demonstrated to be false. That's why we're back to debating more spurious eyewitness testimonies.
A purely speculative alien hypothesis, however, is unfalsifiable, and thereby also unscientific. It would read something to the following effect: The footage features alien crafts even if the crafts do not demonstrate extraordinary flight characteristics.
Such a hypothesis is unhelpful in taking the discussion forward. This is because we can always claim anything is an alien even if it looks like a rubber duck. Such a claim, in all its absurdity, is irrefutable.
A clearer distinction between testable and untestable hypotheses is key if indeed a scientific approach is our goal.
LilWabbit
Senior Member
Of course, when applicable.
FatPhil
Senior Member.
There was no object darting off to the left. Stop repeating the thoroughly debunked bunk, please.
Similar threads
Trending content
-
-
-
Thread '"Active Social Engineering Defense" and "Large Scale Social Deception"'
- Mick West
Replies: 22 -
Thread 'Claim: Election Truth Alliance "proves" voter fraud in Clark County, NV'- Peter Delaney
Replies: 15 -