2004 USS Nimitz Tic Tac UFO FLIR footage (FLIR1)

[Metzgerov]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[FatPhil]

Yes "thoroughly debunked" . In some peoples minds anyway but not in reality.

Describe the motion of the object in the stabilised version of the video.

 

[Agent K]

There was no object darting off to the left. Stop repeating the thoroughly debunked bunk, please.

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

 

[markus]

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]

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.

 

[Agent K]

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.

 

[Agent K]

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

My colleagues who designed it.

 

[Greene]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Mendel]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Greene]

We can only assume how long this has been in R&D

The program started in 2015. The RFP went out in 2019. The contract was awarded earlier this year.

The prototype won't be in the air until 2023.

 

[Agent K]

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.

 

[Greene]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[JMartJr]

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

Really? Would be interested in a source for that.

 

[yoshy]

Really? Would be interested in a source for that.

Elizondo himself: Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/HighStrangeness/comments/n35ecp/luis_elizondo_claims_a_senior_official_told_him/


More general https://www.jstor.org/stable/45369138

 

[NorCal Dave]

More general https://www.jstor.org/stable/45369138

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]

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.

 

[JMartJr]

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.

Thanks, I was most interested in the demon claim.

 

[DavidB66]

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]

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]

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!