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

Senior 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

Senior 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.
 
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.
 

DavidB66

Senior Member
Apologies if this has already been mentioned, but in the FLIR1 video, at least in the version linked below, something odd happens around 0:17 and 0:41. I wanted to see exactly how the apparent shape of the object changes when the ATFLIR changes from IR to TV mode (at 0:17) and back from TV to IR mode (at 0:41), so I decided to go through these seconds frame by frame (by pausing the video and then pressing the 'period' key on my keyboard repeatedly, or the 'comma' key to go backwards). At 0:17, I was surprised to find that while the ATFLIR is still in IR mode, with 2x zoom, the target bars and the object simply disappear from the screen. About 5 frames later the display switches to 1x zoom, but still no target bars or object visible. After another 3 frames, still in IR and 1x, the target bars reappear, but no object. In the next frame the mode switches to TV, and the object reappears, but outside the target bars. Then the bars disappear for a few seconds. At 0:18 the zoom switches to 2x, and the bars reappear shortly after this, and lock onto the object. At 0:41, while still apparently in TV mode, the screen goes black for a few frames, then switches to IR mode, still 2x zoom, and the object reappears. It does look like the switch to TV mode and back again may have been motivated by the disappearance of the object and an attempt to regain it. The switches to and from IR come so soon after the disappearance of the object (much less than a second) that I suspect they were automated. Apologies again if this is all dead meat.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWLZgnmRDs4
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I was surprised to find that while the ATFLIR is still in IR mode, with 2x zoom, the target bars and the object simply disappear from the screen. About 5 frames later the display switches to 1x zoom, but still no target bars or object visible. After another 3 frames, still in IR and 1x, the target bars reappear, but no object. In the next frame the mode switches to TV, and the object reappears, but outside the target bars.
I think that's all just part of the switch to TV mode (and, later, back). The display symbology (IR/TV) lags behind the change - just like NAR/MFOV does later.
 

yoshy

Member
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.

This is the most frustrating appeal to authority argument that UFOlogists use over and over, especially when faced with actual testable claims like West presents in his videos. It ruins a good debate when one side always falls back to "experts can't be wrong ever". But let's recall some mistakes from the highly trained professionals.

Lehto messed up basic physics pertaining to gravity, how planes fly, and how optics work in his videos.

Fravor and Dietrich describe extremely different encounters.

Elizondo didn't know about the de-rotation mechanism until West asked him about it.

Falch similarly made several mistakes in his videos.

The entire Chilean Navy.

There are many high level individuals in the US military who are evangelical apocalyptic Christians who think the UAP are demons.

Experts are simply wrong sometimes.
 

NorCal Dave

Senior Member.
It's best practice to give us something from this link that is related to what your claiming.
Here is the abstract, the rest of it is behind a paywall for most of us, so not sure if it mentions evangelical Military people thinking UAPs are demons or not.

Abstract
Content from External Source


American evangelicals have become dominant players within the United States government. One particularly important domain of elite activity has been the U.S. military. Through important institutions like the Pentagon and the U.S. Air Force Academy, a cohort of civilian and military leaders have brought their faith to bear in their professional responsibilities and forms of public selfpresentation. Drawing on data from interviews with 360 national, public leaders who are evangelical as well as leaders of evangelical institutions, this essay traces the expressive and institutional elements of evangelical activity within the U.S. military. Informants for this essay include two former Presidents of the United States; dozens of Cabinet secretaries, governmental leaders, and senior White House staffers; over 100 presidents, CEOs, or senior executives at large firms (both public and private); and several leaders from the related defense industries and think tanks. This study involves the largest and most comprehensive examination on the role of faith in the lives of public leaders ever conducted.
Content from External Source
 

yoshy

Member
It's best practice to give us something from this link that is related to what your claiming.
Here is the abstract, the rest of it is behind a paywall for most of us, so not sure if it mentions evangelical Military people thinking UAPs are demons or not.

Abstract
Content from External Source


American evangelicals have become dominant players within the United States government. One particularly important domain of elite activity has been the U.S. military. Through important institutions like the Pentagon and the U.S. Air Force Academy, a cohort of civilian and military leaders have brought their faith to bear in their professional responsibilities and forms of public selfpresentation. Drawing on data from interviews with 360 national, public leaders who are evangelical as well as leaders of evangelical institutions, this essay traces the expressive and institutional elements of evangelical activity within the U.S. military. Informants for this essay include two former Presidents of the United States; dozens of Cabinet secretaries, governmental leaders, and senior White House staffers; over 100 presidents, CEOs, or senior executives at large firms (both public and private); and several leaders from the related defense industries and think tanks. This study involves the largest and most comprehensive examination on the role of faith in the lives of public leaders ever conducted.
Content from External Source

My bad. I should have clarified that was to demonstrate there is a growing presence of evangelicals in the US military, not directly related to the demons claim.
 

DavidB66

Senior Member
I think that's all just part of the switch to TV mode (and, later, back). The display symbology (IR/TV) lags behind the change - just like NAR/MFOV does later.
Thanks, that seems very likely. Still, it's interesting that losing lock, and sometimes losing the image altogether, coincides with the changes of mode. One would hope that there would be a seamless transition, with this multi-million dollar system!
 

yoshy

Member
Thanks, I was most interested in the demon claim.

Adding on, I think it runs much deeper than just one official. Modern evangelicals have a dangerous obsession with end time prophecies and literalist interpretations of the Bible.

Take George W Bush as another example:

In the winter of 2003, when George Bush and Tony Blair were frantically gathering support for their planned invasion, Professor Thomas Römer, an Old Testament expert at the university of Lausanne, was rung up by the Protestant Federation of France. They asked him to supply them with a summary of the legends surrounding Gog and Magog and as the conversation progressed, he realised that this had originally come, from the highest reaches of the French government.



President Jacques Chirac wanted to know what the hell President Bush had been on about in their last conversation. Bush had then said that when he looked at the Middle East, he saw "Gog and Magog at work" and the biblical prophecies unfolding. But who the hell were Gog and Magog? Neither Chirac nor his office had any idea. But they knew Bush was an evangelical Christian, so they asked the French Federation of Protestants, who in turn asked Professor Römer.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2009/aug/10/religion-george-bush

Hopefully this isn't veering too far off topic, as I think this mindset is important
 

JMartJr

Senior Member
Ha, I'd actually be as worried about how nobody in Chirac's office had the cultural literacy to know what Gog and Magog referred to, especially given the rather substantial hints about looking at the Middle East and thinking about Biblical prophecies, as I would be about Bush's religious beliefs -- but now I've seen your
Hopefully this isn't veering too far off topic, as I think this mindset is important
and raised you substantially, I'm content to leave it there! :)
 

Domzh

Active Member
any new progress with this case? has it been solved?
unfortunately no.

its a very interesting case but its a mess information wise. there are multiple sources (reports, first and second tier witnesses) but no matter what source you look at, it contradicts part of another.

the only thing that i personally would consider "solved", is that we can explain the perceived movement of the tic tac during Fravors engagement.

which assumes that he misjudged the distance to the object and it was actually smaller and closer than anticipated. him then "cutting the circle" would look to him as if the tic tac was mirroring his movement and eventually flew towards him and away.

this is the most likely and plausible explanation at this point.

the reason why Dietrich couldnt see it again was because she was focused on Fravor based on her own recollection and can and wont comment on what the tic tac supposedly did when Fravor flew towards it.

while this is also speculative, it does make a lot of sense and explains a lot.

no plausible explanation so far for the radar ping at cap point after they lost the tic tac (we guess its either spoofed or a f18 that is not in data link. maybe Kurt's jet, that was just out of service and eventually not "hooked up" but this is the same as speculating about black tech. can be but total lack of supporting evidence).

the mentioned radar tracks at 80000 feet are hearsay. the most far back we could track the origin of this info was to Kevin Day. He himself however said this was not something that he himself saw but he thinks he heard someone on the ship talk about it (source: interview with mick west on youtube).

interesting to note is that the radar tracks that he himself saw, correspond with the weather that day. wind direction and speed at altitude for that day matches speed and direction of his "weird radar tracks".

the tic tac case is most likely a collection of multiple, independent events that are strung together into one clusterfuck of an alien story.
 

Nemon

New Member
the mentioned radar tracks at 80000 feet are hearsay. the most far back we could track the origin of this info was to Kevin Day. He himself however said this was not something that he himself saw but he thinks he heard someone on the ship talk about it (source: interview with mick west on youtube).
I looked that up, you are right. And in the interview he mentions „80,000“ feet only once. Kevin day at 0:00:38:

„Yeah, it was several days, we were operating off the coast of California in our in our military operating or doing, getting ready to go on deployment. And for several days, I've been watching these weird contacts off the off the coast of Catalina Island. And the reason why I say they were weird, is because our Ballistic Missile Defense guys was tracking these things coming down from outer space, I found out later. That wasn't the view that I had on my radar, I was I'm more concerned with 30,000 feet and below. And then we go from 80,000 feet then suddenly dropped to 28,000 feet. And they were going south at about 100 knots, which is really weird for something that high in the sky to go that slow. What the hell flies like that I'd been sitting behind that radar for 18 years on three different ships behind this SPY-1 radar. I had never seen anything fly like that. And I was convinced it was sort of a glitch in the system. I was like, Hey, we need to run diagnostics, reload the systems. And I wasn't really concerned from a defense point of view, because they, as far as I knew it was something entirely civilian, and they didn't know we were down there.“
https://otter.ai/u/0OtR6GhjauIHKJIcAZbs5Qri1vc

Have the 80,000 feet been discussed elsewhere? Has Kevin Day mentioned this number in any other interview? I would assume so, but haven't seen all of his appearances and interviews.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Have the 80,000 feet been discussed elsewhere? Has Kevin Day mentioned this number in any other interview? I would assume so, but haven't seen all of his appearances and interviews.
The SCU report uses the figure of 80,000 feet. I asked Robert Powell about this, and he said he though 80,000 was most likely. He got quite defensive, and we discussed it at some length. Powell says variously that Kevin was confused, or I was confused, and that he didn't care, Starting around 43 min in:
https://otter.ai/u/g-FGuVasgvUFrw-rCjEFtNtZTzM

Here's a portion:


Mick West 57:23
So you're saying that Kevin Day saw them at 80,000 feet?

Robert Powell 57:27
Yes, he definitely saw, remember the objects that are flying South at 100 miles per hour. they'd seen them for four to five days. Right? So let me back up, you've got a Carrier Strike Group that seeing objects 80,000 plus feet, this is going on for several days, sometimes they see three or four objects, sometimes one, sometimes four or five. They're moving south very slowly. They don't know what they are. They recalibrate all the radar equipment. And they are apparently there, right. But they don't do anything because they're not a threat anyway to the Strike Group. Then the strike group gets ready to have an air exercise on November 14. In the late morning.

Robert Powell 58:14
At that time, the objects drop out of high altitude and drop it down to an altitude where they are now a safety hazard to these F-18s that are going to perform an exercise. At that moment in time, Kevin Day contacts the Captain of the ship, the USS Princeton. And remember, they're responsible for the entire Strike Group because they control radar systems. And he asked them "what should we do because I consider this a safety hazard". And he said, we've got some FAA teams in the air to have them.

Robert Powell 58:51
Should we, you know, go check this thing out. The captain gave him authorization. He redirected Fravor's and Slaight's aircraft, to the radar, to the nearest radar contact because he had multiple radar contacts. And they went and interrogated that latitude, longitude, location, and that's when they found the Tic Tac.

Mick West 59:14
Yeah, the problem with that, though, is that that's not what Kevin Day says now, he gives a very specific account, which has really nothing to do with him seeing objects at 80,000 feet. And he says that for precisely 10 days, he had seen objects at 28,000 feet moving south, he never was aware of this 80,000 feet figure during this event, it never up.

Robert Powell 59:40
No, I think you've got that wrong. You

Mick West 59:42
No, I've got I spoke to him, you know, just few months ago, and we discussed it in great depth. I actually pressed him on this point three or four times because I was kind of surprised. Not surprised, but I needed to clarify.

Robert Powell 59:54
Yes. Yeah, I don't that's not that's not correct. Just think about it logically make you don't have objects at 28,000 feet flying over an air Carrier Strike Group and they're not doing anything about it.

Mick West 1:00:07
But this is what Kevin Day says what happened.

Robert Powell 1:00:10
What he told you a few days ago whether that's true or not whether you are remembering it incorrectly or whether he has

Mick West 1:00:19
I have the transcript in front of me right here

Robert Powell 1:00:22
Well, but he's at multiple other times said 80,000 feet. So perhaps he was confused on that day. That's not what's important here, because

Mick West 1:00:31
Oh, I think it is what's important actually, because we're talking about the veracity of the eyewitness testimony

Robert Powell 1:00:36
I interviewed him, January 2018. He specifically and I've got it the recording 80,000 plus feet. Not only that, Gary Voorhis said they were originally at 80,000 plus feet. Fravor has said that they were at 80,000 plus feet. When I interviewed James Slaight, he said that we're at 80,000 plus feet initially. So there are multiple people who've said it's an 80,000 plus feet. What happened to your interview with Kevin Day, three years after we first began investigating this, I don't know. I mean, I don't

Mick West 1:01:11
So you think that over the course of three years, he could have forgotten it and completely changed his story.

Robert Powell 1:01:15
I don't I don't know and I don't care. That, there's no doubt that

Mick West 1:01:19
You don't care?

Robert Powell 1:01:19
the objects were at 80,000 feet.

Mick West 1:01:22
But the problem here is that the events happened in 2004. And you interviewed him in what, like, like four years ago, which was 10 years after the event. So if you think his his memory can completely change in three years, then surely it can completely even more change in 10 years,

Robert Powell 1:01:39
you get your you're making an assumption, his memory changed. I don't

Mick West 1:01:43
you're telling me, you're telling me he has different accounts

Robert Powell 1:01:46
Mick, he maybe he misunderstood what you were asking him, I don't know,

Mick West 1:01:50
Oh no, he understood exactly what I was asking

Robert Powell 1:01:52
I'm just telling you

Mick West 1:01:53
I can read you the transcript if you want. And
[/ex[
Content from External Source
 

Nemon

New Member
The SCU report uses the figure of 80,000 feet. I asked Robert Powell about this, and he said he though 80,000 was most likely. He got quite defensive, and we discussed it at some length. Powell says variously that Kevin was confused, or I was confused, and that he didn't care, Starting around 43 min in
Thank you, Mick.
Actually I watched the complete video to the end. Could the 80,000 feet issue be clarified since? Were you able to check all documented relevant statements? I assume you would have mentioned it if you had gained the relevant knowledge, but nevertheless I have to ask. Maybe there were at least a few new insights?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Thank you, Mick.
Actually I watched the complete video to the end. Could the 80,000 feet issue be clarified since? Were you able to check all documented relevant statements? I assume you would have mentioned it if you had gained the relevant knowledge, but nevertheless I have to ask. Maybe there were at least a few new insights?
From what I gather, the root source of all of the numbers is Kevin Day. I think the 80,000 feet thing arose because it's the ceiling of the SPY-1 radar, and there was some talk about them coming from above that (i.e. not cruising at 80,000, but descending "from space" or from some unknown altitude above 80,000 feet.

Others, like Gary Voorhis, are just repeating what they heard from Kevin.
 

Itsme

Active Member
The interview transcript of Mick interviewing Kevin can be found here:
https://otter.ai/u/0OtR6GhjauIHKJIcAZbs5Qri1vc

When Kevin talks about the whole set of contacts he saw over the course of several days, he mentions the 80000 feet (at 0:38 in the interview)
"And for several days, I've been watching these weird contacts off the off the coast of Catalina Island. And the reason why I say they were weird, is because our Ballistic Missile Defense guys was tracking these things coming down from outer space, I found out later. That wasn't the view that I had on my radar, I was I'm more concerned with 30,000 feet and below. And then we go from 80,000 feet then suddenly dropped to 28,000 feet. And they were going south at about 100 knots, which is really weird for something that high in the sky to go that slow."
Content from External Source
His radar system range went up to 80000 feet, though most traffic is around 30000 feet and below. Ballistic missiles go much higher than 80000 feet.

Later, Mick asks him specifically about the first time Kevin saw the contacts. Apparently, Kevin did not see a descend from 80000 feet that first time (at 8:36 in the interview)

Mick: "So, so what you saw, like what was the very first time you saw something that was strange."

Kevin: "It was on or about the fourth of November, I was up on watch, it was the evening watch, probably at 8pm at night 2000 in military time. And I notice, I believe there is five contacts the first time I saw it right off the coast of Catalina. They were at 28,000 feet. And in some way, they caught my attention, because they were going 100 knots, which is really slow for something that high in the sky."
Content from External Source
 

flarkey

Senior Member.
Staff member
He also describes being on site about 5 minutes. The Nimitz clip is 2 minutes. So there's 3 minutes not released if this is Fravor's jet making the recording.
Fravor's jet didn't make the recording. It was Chad Underwood who went up in search of the TicTac after Fravor had landed on the carrier. Underwood didn't visually make contact. He only recorded it on his ATFLIR camera.
 
Top