2004 USS Nimitz Tic Tac UFO FLIR footage (FLIR1)

Metzgerov

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.
I didn't have to watch Mick's videos to know that. IN fact many things Mick still gets wrong about the videos but that's irrelevant.

I'm "hoping" to understand what went on no matter what it is. I come from the military aviation aviation side of things so I want to know what fooled some of the best people/tech on the planet. Its fascinating!
 

Metzgerov

Member
There was no object darting off to the left. Stop repeating the thoroughly debunked bunk, please.
Yes "thoroughly debunked" ;). In some peoples minds anyway but not in reality.

I live in a world where keyboard jockeys seem to know more about military systems/tactics than highly trained professionals and also know more about what happened on a particular day than the guy/girl in the cockpit.

Some of you are cool but some are just as bad as the true believers & Ufologists.

Be humble and know you don't have all the answers but it's fun debating/discussing what it could be.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
and also know more about what happened on a particular day than the guy/girl in the cockpit.

1. There is really no reason to believe that the video taken 3 hours after Fravor's flight, was the same "object" Fravor says he saw. To conflate the two is grasping in the extreme.

2. Who exactly is the "highly trained professional" who knows more about that FLIR system?

3. What specifically did Mick "get wrong" in the Opening post video showing the exaggerated "zoomed off effect? THis is a legit question, i haven't been following your personal conversation, so sorry if i missed your prior debunk.
 

LilWabbit

Active Member
Yes "thoroughly debunked" ;). In some peoples minds anyway but not in reality.

This is the perfect forum for you to demonstrate in detail how Mick's debunking has failed "in reality". Or else be just another 'keyboard jockey' claiming more than he can prove.

I live in a world where keyboard jockeys seem to know more about military systems/tactics than highly trained professionals and also know more about what happened on a particular day than the guy/girl in the cockpit.

You shouldn't presume (1) all of us are unfamiliar with military systems/tactics, (2) those that are can never offer very valid and reasoned arguments to be studied in humility and openness, or (3) you're upholding scientific standards by expecting us ignorant "keyboard jockeys" to swallow inconsistent anecdotes by "highly trained" pilots without question, especially if these amazing pilots claim to have seen something as extraordinary as aliens.

Some of you are cool but some are just as bad as the true believers & Ufologists.

Be humble...

And vice versa.
 

markus

Active Member
It darted off to the left the same way this F-18 did when the tracker broke lock, but here the operator had the sense to pan left and zoom out.
I thought the latest interview with Underwood was very revealing. Discounting for a moment the confusion of who vectored the plane where and what that means, it sounds like they attempted to reacquire the target under the assumption that it did shoot off to the left very rapidly, and instead of zooming out and a gentle slew, "aggressively maneuvered the plane to the left". So that is one piece of the puzzle solved -- they overshot, which is why they couldn't reacquire a target that looks in hindsight very easy to reacquire.
 

Agent K

Senior Member
I come from the military aviation aviation side of things so I want to know what fooled some of the best people/tech on the planet. Its fascinating!
Me too, that's why I read reports about mishaps like the shootdown of Iran Air Flight 655 and the USS Fitzgerald's collision with a 30,000-ton cargo ship that "popped up" on the screen.
 
Last edited:

Agent K

Senior Member
I thought the latest interview with Underwood was very revealing. Discounting for a moment the confusion of who vectored the plane where and what that means, it sounds like they attempted to reacquire the target under the assumption that it did shoot off to the left very rapidly, and instead of zooming out and a gentle slew, "aggressively maneuvered the plane to the left". So that is one piece of the puzzle solved -- they overshot, which is why they couldn't reacquire a target that looks in hindsight very easy to reacquire.
Even if the target did shoot off to the left, it's faster to zoom out and turn the camera than to turn the jet.
 

Greene

New 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.

The Northrop P-530 (progenitor of the F/A-18) moved to twin tails due to the high AoA performance imparted by the LERX (leading edge root extension) . They were also canted outwards to keep them in the airstream & maintain effectiveness due to the vortices created by the LERX.

Canting vertical stabilizers from the vertical can improve the RCS but that was not the primary reason for doing so on this aircraft. That being said the physical size of an object is not necessarily indicative of the radar return.
 

FatPhil

Active Member
It darted off to the left the same way this F-18 did when the tracker broke lock, but here the operator had the sense to pan left and zoom out.
Source: https://youtu.be/HUwQ2MCuFi4?t=106

Indeed it did dart off in exactly the same way. More precisely - both didn't dart off at all. Count along with the AZ reading, and notice that the "darting" happens precisely as the azimuth movement stops.

That is *specifically* why I mentioned the stabilised version of the video, where the movement of the camera is negated. Your misdirection has not not been helpful.
 

Agent K

Senior Member
Indeed it did dart off in exactly the same way. More precisely - both didn't dart off at all. Count along with the AZ reading, and notice that the "darting" happens precisely as the azimuth movement stops.

That is *specifically* why I mentioned the stabilised version of the video, where the movement of the camera is negated. Your misdirection has not not been helpful.
I think it has been helpful, and the video makes it obvious. "Dart off" is relative like "sunrise." From the operator's perspective, the object on the screen darted off, as it were, or appeared to dart off even though the physical object didn't suddenly accelerate.
 

Meat5000

Member
I think I found our tic-tac.

RAF training could be featured in the video.
"Future plane" : Lanca
This could be a test exercise for the new tech. Classified so US servicemen do not have a 'need to know'.
"Are you armed?" I believe was a question to one of the involved pilots? Correct me if Im wrong.

I was actually looking for thin profiled single thruster jet fighter, of which there are many, for the Gimbal vid. I noticed in a lot of the still photos that the actual thin profile metalwork, wings, seem to disappear at a certain distance threshold. Behind a thin veil of cloud you would not see the body but IR would not 'see' the thin cloud and still show the heat.
 
Last edited:

Mendel

Senior Member.
I think I found our tic-tac.
You spotted a single 2004 UAP in a 2019 weapons program; a program that puts a number of "loyal wingman" drones near a fighter aircraft.
I don't think that fits.

The US did have drones in 2004, but it wouldn't be this drone.
 

Meat5000

Member
You spotted a single 2004 UAP in a 2019 weapons program; a program that puts a number of "loyal wingman" drones near a fighter aircraft.
I don't think that fits.

The US did have drones in 2004, but it wouldn't be this drone.
We can only assume how long this has been in R&D
 

Meat5000

Member
I think you should put the reaction on the hypothesis rather than the R&D statement. Yeah that many years is a stretch but I dont think we know about the timescales of classified military projects. I think thats a fair statement.
 

Agent K

Senior Member
I think you should put the reaction on the hypothesis rather than the R&D statement. Yeah that many years is a stretch but I dont think we know about the timescales of classified military projects. I think thats a fair statement.
Other drones existed before 2004, like the Miniature Air-Launched Decoy, but what does it explain? The inertia-defying ping-ponging and shooting off described by Fravor? The decoy certainly wouldn't explain the inability to get a radar lock, since its whole purpose is to look like a jet on radar. The new version, MALD-J, jams radar, but it didn't exist in 2004.
1629123896474.png
 

Greene

New Member
Other drones existed before 2004, like the Miniature Air-Launched Decoy, but what does it explain? The inertia-defying ping-ponging and shooting off described by Fravor? The decoy certainly wouldn't explain the inability to get a radar lock, since its whole purpose is to look like a jet on radar. The new version, MALD-J, jams radar, but it didn't exist in 2004.
1629123896474.png

If we absolutely have to look for something that fits that profile, Lockheed's Minion was being talked about around that time frame before all talk of it disappeared.
 

taurusclover21

New Member
The Northrop P-530 (progenitor of the F/A-18) moved to twin tails due to the high AoA performance imparted by the LERX (leading edge root extension) . They were also canted outwards to keep them in the airstream & maintain effectiveness due to the vortices created by the LERX.

Canting vertical stabilizers from the vertical can improve the RCS but that was not the primary reason for doing so on this aircraft. That being said the physical size of an object is not necessarily indicative of the radar return.
Interesting. I have a very old (1972?) issue of Military Airtrails that has the P-530 mock-up shown on the inside front cover.
 
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