2004 USS Nimitz Tic Tac UFO FLIR footage (FLIR1)

Rory

Senior Member.
There's what appears to be a good collection of the varying radar accounts here:

https://somerandomstuff1.wordpress....imate-guide-and-analysis/#the-radar-operators

According to this:

The UAP initially appeared on the radar at an altitude of 80,000 feet. According to Day, “Our scan volume was only set to 80,000 feet at the time”. Day has speculated that due to this upper limit setting of the SPY-1 radar, the UAP may have in fact been descending from beyond this 80,000 foot altitude.

A second person who was stationed within the Princeton’s Combat Information Centre was Gary Voorhis who supports Day’s recollection of these UAP dropping from 80,000 feet to 20,000 feet.

The [day after Fravor's encounter], Day decided to again watch the radar chronicle of Fravor’s intercept. “With the software and stuff, you can do analysis of the radar. That’s when I learnt it was actually less than a second it went from 28,000 feet down to the surface of the ocean in, it turns out, 0.78 seconds. It was unbelievable.” Voorhis has a similar recollection of the objects rapid drops, “It did go from approximately 30,000 feet to negative 500 feet in an unbelievable amount of time. It wasn’t even a second."
Content from External Source
Other quotes from Day:
  • “I started detecting groups of these contacts, 5-10 at a time. 28,000 feet going at 100 knots"
  • "They were more at about 28,000 feet than any other altitude”
  • “These things would be at 80,000 feet and you would look again and all of a sudden they were at 28,000 feet or 20,000 feet. Then they’d go back to 80,000 feet. This was like a number of days before (the intercept)”
  • "They were starting at about 80,000 feet when I first saw them and then they would suddenly just drop down in altitude in a matter of less than a second. When I did some data retraction on it, it was 0.78 seconds. From 80,000 feet down to the surface of the ocean”
  • “As soon as he (Fravor) got to the merge plot position, the object which he was intercepting, dropped from 28,000 feet down to 50 feet above the water in 0.78 seconds as I found out later, the next day”
  • "These things come straight back out of the water, again in about 0.78 seconds. Back up to 80,000 feet and continue to track south at about 100 knots. Anywhere in altitude from 28,000 feet up to about 80,000 feet”
As well as highlighting the curious case of the three different contexts for the figure of 0.78 seconds - 80k to sea level; 28.5k to 50ft; and sea level to 80k - there's a whole section on inconsistencies in the radar accounts, concluding:

The most impressive and physics defying feat of the UAP has four different narratives - 28,000 feet to sea level, 80,000 feet to sea level, underwater to 80,000 feet and 60,000 feet to sea level. This is a significant inconsistency.

https://somerandomstuff1.wordpress....ncies-and-uncertainties-in-the-radar-accounts
Content from External Source
Unfortunately the sources for the quotes aren't individually referenced. Also, though very long and seemingly meticulously researched, I can't say anything about how accurate it is.
 
Last edited:

Domzh

Active Member
"As soon as he (Fravor) got to the merge plot position, the object which he was intercepting, dropped from 28,000 feet down to 50 feet above the water in 0.78 seconds"

How would he know that? Afaik merge plot refers to a point where the radar can only see one object and cant resolve two?

also all these quotes inherit hearsay, as he clearly pointed out that he himself has never seen them at that altitude
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
As well as highlighting the curious case of the three different contexts for the figure of 0.78 seconds - 80k to sea level; 28.5k to 50ft; and sea level to 80k
typically, a radar antenna is rotating, so there's a fixed time interval between each time it looks in a certain direction

if, for that system, the interval is 0.78 seconds, that means the altitude of the target changed between two consecutive sweeps—or it means the radar tracking system lost one radar return and identified a different radar return as the same object.

From https://www.metabunk.org/threads/thoughts-about-nimitz-radar-tracking-and-smoothing.12740/ :
Article:
SmartSelect_20221114-055220_Samsung Internet.jpg
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
typically, a radar antenna is rotating, so there's a fixed time interval between each time it looks in a certain direction

if, for that system, the interval is 0.78 seconds, that means the altitude of the target changed between two consecutive sweeps—or it means the radar tracking system lost one radar return and identified a different radar return as the same object.
Not in this case. The SPY-1 radar is phased array, no rotation.

I don't think the 0.78 seconds figure occured three different times. It's just three retellings of the same story.

The very first version, in 2008, actually was a story.


2022-11-13_21-30-08.jpg
 

Attachments

  • Sailors_Anthology_Book_I_PRINT_version.pdf
    970.1 KB · Views: 7

Nemon

New Member
The very first version, in 2008, actually was a story.
And we have, among others, the "Executive Report" published by George Knapp. The one you mentioned in the debate with R. Powell in Greenewald's interview. When recapitulating the events, several altitudes are referred to in the context of different situations. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to compare all these again in the different reports. Anyway, 80,000 feet doesn't even happen if I haven't missed anything. Rather, the blackened senior chief with the short surname :cool: is associated with 60,000 feet (in the paragraph under: "Anomalous Aerial Vehicle (AAV) Detection
https://media.lasvegasnow.com/nxsglobal/lasvegasnow/document_dev/2018/05/18/TIC TAC UFO EXECUTIVE REPORT_1526682843046_42960218_ver1.0.pdf

I noticed another detail now. Has it already been discussed? It is said here that Fravor had waived a function of his helmet with which he could have recorded data. Is it plausible that a pilot who knows that he is most likely facing an extraordinary rendevous would renounce this option?
 

Ravi

Senior Member.
And we have, among others, the "Executive Report" published by George Knapp. The one you mentioned in the debate with R. Powell in Greenewald's interview. When recapitulating the events, several altitudes are referred to in the context of different situations. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to compare all these again in the different reports. Anyway, 80,000 feet doesn't even happen if I haven't missed anything. Rather, the blackened senior chief with the short surname :cool: is associated with 60,000 feet (in the paragraph under: "Anomalous Aerial Vehicle (AAV) Detection
https://media.lasvegasnow.com/nxsglobal/lasvegasnow/document_dev/2018/05/18/TIC TAC UFO EXECUTIVE REPORT_1526682843046_42960218_ver1.0.pdf

I noticed another detail now. Has it already been discussed? It is said here that Fravor had waived a function of his helmet with which he could have recorded data. Is it plausible that a pilot who knows that he is most likely facing an extraordinary rendevous would renounce this option?

Where did you read this? Can you quote it?
 

DavidB66

Senior Member
Where did you read this? Can you quote it?
It's in the section of the 'Executive Summary' headed 'F/A-18F Intercept and Visual Contact', 4th para of text:

Fravor was using the Joint Helmet Mounted Cuing System [sic - I'm not sure 'cuing' is a word] which will cue the aircraft sensors such as the radar to 'lock on' to whatever the pilot is looking at and it also has a recording capability. It may have been useful in this situation but typically because of the large amount of head movement it is not practical. CDR Fravor
stated that the helmet's recording capability was rarely used therefore he did not think to use it that day.
I am not sure whether the 'it' in 'it may...' refers to the System as a whole or just to the recording capability. Nor is it clear (to me anyway) what the system records when the recording capability is used. Would it record something visual or just data about directions, etc? Perhaps some of our aviation experts could clarify! Anyway, no recording was taken, which is a pity.

I don't know whether any of the other participants (Dietrich and the two WSOs) were wearing this kit. Surely Dietrich would have mentioned it if she recorded anything?
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
The helmet's main purpose is to feed the pilot look direction to the instruments as far as I know, it turns your head into joystick, as far as I know.

So if you look to the left then radar device turns its scan direction to the left as would an ATFLIR etc.

The recording systems are different, but there could be some other integration that adds a camera or something or records the movements of the helmet etc, often things get called by one name when they are actually referring to a specific other thing that is generally attached to the main thing military jargon is endless and hyper-specific when you research it, but often used colloquially loosely making trying to work out exactly what someone refers to hard. It's the kind of question where you'd need to ask follow up questions in a Q&A to determine what anyone meant by it. Then research the answers as well, also there would probably at some point be classified information you could get no further with, like us trying to know all the exact processes in the ATFLIR.

I think JHCMS has night-vision goggles integrated, whether these are recorded I don't know, I am also unsure if Fravor was using them, I don;t think so given by all accounts this happened in the day.

Essentially the only thing that could have given some clues would have been a recording from an ATFLIR camera system or any RADAR tracks, but Fravor's plane did not have an ATFLIR attached by all accounts, if that is true, unusual etc I have no idea.
 

Nemon

New Member
The helmet's main purpose is to feed the pilot look direction to the instruments as far as I know, it turns your head into joystick, as far as I know.
yes, something like that…
The Boeing Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System (JHMCS) combines a magnetic head tracker with a display projected onto a pilot's visor, giving the pilot a targeting device that can be used to aim sensors and weapons wherever the pilot is looking. It does so by synchronizing aircraft sensors with the user's head movements so they automatically point where the pilot looks and displaying flight information on the inside of the helmet visor so data is always in view. (…)
https://www.boeing.com/history/products/joint-helmet-mounted-cueing-system.page
I guess the information on display and a log file would have been recorded.
Edit:

In fact, the text paragraph begins with the information that Fravor wanted to activate the helmet lock, but it did not work. The statement about the record function remains vague.
 

Attachments

  • Fravor-helmet.jpg
    Fravor-helmet.jpg
    46.9 KB · Views: 4
Last edited:

Domzh

Active Member
i think Fravor said in an interview (either Rogan or Friedman) that the helmet has a small camera integrated but they almost never use it so he didnt thought about it.
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
Fravor seems to contradict himself just a few sentences apart:

"CDR Fravor attempted a "helmet lock" which was unsuccessful."

"CDR Fravor stated that the helmet's recording capability was rarely used therefore he did not think to use it that day."


'Attempting' a helmet lock is not consistent with 'not thinking of using it'.
 

Domzh

Active Member
Its not a contradiction. A helmet lock (helmet shows you a radar track in 3D space) is not the same as a recording (helmet camera filming).
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
Its not a contradiction. A helmet lock (helmet shows you a radar track in 3D space) is not the same as a recording (helmet camera filming).

Thanks for pointing out. My bad. Recording and locking are two different things. Albeit the question remains why didn't Fravor want to record such an 'extraordinary' event.
 

Nemon

New Member
Albeit the question remains why didn't Fravor want to record such an 'extraordinary' event.
The following master thesis from 2003 provides information about all of the helmet's functionalities. On page 24, under "debrief", it says: "The use of the HMD camera was also evaluated during debrief. The full flight could be viewed from the 8 mm videotape (...)"

Overall, the author who tested the system evaluates it in the abstract as: "sigificant improvement of capabilities of both the air to air and air to ground roles of the F /A-18 Hornet."
https://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6714&context=utk_gradthes
 

Itsme

Active Member
I don't think the 0.78 seconds figure occured three different times. It's just three retellings of the same story.

The very first version, in 2008, actually was a story.
The reason Kevin wrote that book is explained on Amazon:
"In 2008 when I wrote the story, many involved were still in active duty. I chose to fictionalize the historical record in the effort to protect the identities of those still serving. Why did I write the story? After retiring from the United States Navy earlier that year, memories of the encounter continued to trouble me greatly. When I did try to tell others my story, I could tell that nobody really believed me or they believed there had to be a more prosaic explanation. Not knowing what else to do, I wrote these short stories and self-published them in the Library of Congress as a way to hide in plain sight what has now become contemporaneous evidence of the actual event. It was my hope then that if the TIC TAC encounter ever did become public, my book might serve as evidence now."
Content from External Source
Source: https://www.amazon.com/Sailors-Anthology-Kevin-M-Day/dp/1688423958
 

Itsme

Active Member
"As soon as he (Fravor) got to the merge plot position, the object which he was intercepting, dropped from 28,000 feet down to 50 feet above the water in 0.78 seconds"

How would he know that? Afaik merge plot refers to a point where the radar can only see one object and cant resolve two?

also all these quotes inherit hearsay, as he clearly pointed out that he himself has never seen them at that altitude
What I understood from Mick's interview with Kevin is that the objects at merge plot are still displayed side by side and by clicking on them you get additional info such as altitude.
The 0.78 s has been calculated from the logfiles the radar creates (the radar recordings). It was calculated later, not during the events.
 

Itsme

Active Member
As well as highlighting the curious case of the three different contexts for the figure of 0.78 seconds - 80k to sea level; 28.5k to 50ft; and sea level to 80k - there's a whole section on inconsistencies in the radar accounts, concluding:
Maybe, but another possibility is that all or many of these events were recorded by radar and nobody is sure anymore to which of the events the 0.78 s is linked.
Anyhow, the gist of the story is that very rapid descends were recorded by radar and a rapid climb was witnessed by the pilots (too rapid for an F18 to keep up with).
 

Mauro

Senior Member
Anyhow, the gist of the story is that very rapid descends were recorded by radar and a rapid climb was witnessed by the pilots (too rapid for an F18 to keep up with).
If the radar tracked a physics-defying object descending from 80kft to 28kft in 0.78s, then the radar glitched/malfunctioned/was misinterpreted. If the pilots witnessed the same thing in reverse then they too glitched/malfunctioned/misinterpreted. Occam rules.
 

Nemon

New Member
Anyhow, the gist of the story is that very rapid descends were recorded by radar and a rapid climb was witnessed by the pilots (too rapid for an F18 to keep up with).
... and the further events immediately afterwards are part of it with the object being located at the distant cap point in order to then reintegrate into the existing formation. (And then still being on screen to be tracked by Chad Underwood.)
Certainly, one of the puzzling peculiarities of this case is that the entire time frame was not limited to the intercept, but before and after eye contact with the binoculars was made, confirming the radar. (Assuming that the objects were correctly detected or identified and that they were not mix-ups). Even Kevin Day himself only gets doubts from the point where there are pilot eyewitnesses confirming the data. Otherwise he would probably have ticked off the whole thing as a radar error or so.
Among other things, the contradictory altitude data can be seen as a strong indication that the core of the whole case would dissolve quite quickly with more information. In the Interview mentioned above with Mick an John Greenewald R. Powell has retreated to the position that both versions, no matter which of the mentioned distances was covered in 0.78 seconds, are beyond our technical possibilities. But coupled with the contradictory eyewitness accounts, the case also dissolves from that point.
As disturbing and complex as the whole matter may be, I always get the picture that most plausibility checks point fingers at Fravor. Does he have such a strong position to bear the burden of these doubts? Unfortunately, in the end we can only shrug ... until possibly one day the confiscated records of the data appear.
 
Last edited:

Ravi

Senior Member.
until possibly one day the confiscated records of the data appear.
Apparently the US government holds a lot of corroborative data from multiple sensors for many of their (cannot quote or paraphrase here) "unsolved UAP cases". If none of that data is ever released to the public, the chances are incredibly low we will ever see the data from this Nimitz case too.
 

JMartJr

Senior Member
Occam is not a rule, it's just a guideline.
Would tend to agree, while noting that it is a very useful and successful guideline.

Now whether such a force of nature exists is speculation of course. Maybe we will discover it some day
That shades dangerously close to "if magic, then it's possible."

But I would not be too quick to write off combined sensor and eye witness data
Eyewitness accounts of what was seen in a radar scope is still eyewitness "data," no more or less reliable than eyewitness accounts of anything else.
 

DavidB66

Senior Member
Apparently the US government holds a lot of corroborative data from multiple sensors for many of their (cannot quote or paraphrase here) "unsolved UAP cases".
Has the US government itself said that, or is it just something that is constantly repeated by the UFO enthusiasts? I don't think the 'preliminary report' on UAPs said anything that strong. It did say that some cases were observed by more than one 'sensor' (including eyeballs) but I don't recall any statement about 'holding corroborative data'. Btw, what on earth has happened to the follow-up report?
 

Ravi

Senior Member.
Has the US government itself said that, or is it just something that is constantly repeated by the UFO enthusiasts? I don't think the 'preliminary report' on UAPs said anything that strong.
I believe it was mentioned in the briefing/hearing that was done some time ago. Forgot what that was called, but it was not very long ago.

It did say that some cases were observed by more than one 'sensor' (including eyeballs) but I don't recall any statement about 'holding corroborative data'. Btw, what on earth has happened to the follow-up report?
No idea.. :confused:
 

Itsme

Active Member
example precedent for balloon spoof: the one identified UAP in last year's UAPTF report was a large, deflating balloon
You're comparing apples and oranges here..

There are precedents to the Nimitz case that are more similar. The oldest one is from 1948:

In the fall of 1948, Project Sign received a report from Kyushu, Japan, describing the encounter of an F-61 aircraft with from two to six unidentified flying objects.
A statement of January 28, 1949, by 2nd Lt. Barton Halter of the 68th Fighter Squadron, who was radar operator of the P-61, explains the encounter:

"On 15 October 1948, my pilot and I started out on a routine mission off the northwest coast of Kyushu. When, at 2305 (11:O5 P.M.), we were approximately 5O miles at 330° from Fukuoka, I picked up an airborne target. It showed up at a range of five miles dead ahead and slightly below us. We increased our speed to approximately 220 MPH and obtained an advantage of 20 MPH. The target showed no evasive action at first, and we thought that it was probably one of the fighter aircraft from our home field.

As we closed in I noticed a slight change in azimuth and a rapid closure between us. Shortly thereafter, a matter of seconds, the target gave the indication of diving beneath us. We dived in an attempt to follow the target and before we could get squared away to follow, it had passed beneath us and was gone. I was notified by my pilot that we were diving at a rate of 3,500 feet a minute at 300 MPH. I had intended to ask the pilot to peel off after it split "S," but it was gone too fast.

The next, or second, interception was from the rear of the target as was the first; however, the target added a burst of speed dead ahead and outdistanced us immediately. On the third interception, my pilot called a visual at 60° portside.

By the time I made the pickup it we at 45° port 3,000’ and 5° below. My pilot made a rapid starboard turn in an attempt to head off the target. By the time we got astern of it, it was off again in a burst of speed and disappeared between nine (9) and ten (10) miles.

On the fourth interception, the pilot called to me that we had been passed from above from the rear by our target. I picked up target as it went off my scope from five to ten miles dead ahead and slightly above. On the fifth and sixth interceptions, the target appeared at 9-plus miles doing approximately 200 MPH. We had as advantage of 20 MPH taking our IAS approximately 220 MPH, a safe high-speed cruise for F-61 type aircraft. We closed in to 12,000 feet, then, with a burst of speed the target pulled away to the outer limit of my set which is 10 miles for airborne targets. This took approximately 15 to 20 seconds.

In my opinion, we were shown a new type aircraft by some agency unknown to us.

According to a Project Sign intelligence report, the pilot of the F-61 was able to make out a silhouette of the UFO (it was a clear moonlit night) and he described it as translucent with a very short body and stubby appearance. The object had clean-cut lines and no canopy was discernible. The entire six sightings lasted less than ten minutes with each individual sighting about a minute or so in duration. The UFO’s speed varied from between 200 MPH to 1,200 MPH.

An excerpted dispatch from Headquarters, 315th Air Division, to the Commanding General of the Fifth Air Force, of February 28, 1949, relative to this case, contained these interesting comments:

"2. It is believed that the object was not lost from the scope due to the normal skip "null" zones common to all radar equipment. The pilot and observer feel that it was the high rate of speed of the object which enabled it to disappear so rapidly."

The pilot of the F-61, 1st Lt. Oliver Hemphill, Jr., had this to say:

"I had an excellent silhouette of the target thrown against a very reflective undercast by a full moon. I realized at this time that it did not look like any type aircraft I was familiar with, so I immediately contacted my Ground Control Station and asked for information regarding any aircraft in the area."

The ground control radar reported no other aircraft and at no time could they pick up the UFO. Hemphill stated that he again caught "just a fleeting glance of the aircraft (UFO); just enough to know he had passed me," on the fourth sighting.

Project Sign reviewed the Kyashu, Japan UFO case and ultimately classified it as "Unidentified."
Content from External Source
Source: https://ufologie.patrickgross.org/htm/fukuoka48hynek.htm
Other source: http://www.nicap.org/docs/481015japan_docs.pdf
 

JMartJr

Senior Member
There are precedents to the Nimitz case that are more similar.
Are you still discussing whether balloons and antigravity have precedent? If so, I'm not seeing the relevance of your post. If you're moving on from antigravity into more general precedent in UFO lore, I'd agree that unsubstantiated UFO claims have a rich trove of precedent to point to, such as the one you shared.
 

Nemon

New Member
Has the US government itself said that, or is it just something that is constantly repeated by the UFO enthusiasts?
For my part, I was just referring to the fact that we know that the data from the Nimitz incident were both transmitted live to the beach and later brought off board.
 
Are you still discussing whether balloons and antigravity have precedent?

Judging by what I could glance at the first reading of this thread's page, he was not the one who's comparing apples and oranges.

I'd agree that unsubstantiated UFO claims have a rich trove of precedent to point to, such as the one you shared.

Just out of curiosity, would you or someone else please address any of such claims in case they were already stated on this thread?
 
I believe it was mentioned in the briefing/hearing that was done some time ago. Forgot what that was called, but it was not very long ago
AFAIK, it was reserved for that often addressed classified briefing/hearing, during May's public UFO hearing.
 
Last edited:

Mendel

Senior Member.
would you or someone else please address any of such claims in case they were already stated on this thread
unidentified flying objects
But I would not be too quick to write off combined sensor and eye witness data just because our current understanding of the laws of nature does not accomodate it.
this implies that the Nimitz target (possibly) exists and was not engineered by anyone we know

could everyone please stop sealioning now? or take the clarifications to PMs?
 

DavidB66

Senior Member
For my part, I was just referring to the fact that we know that the data from the Nimitz incident were both transmitted live to the beach and later brought off board
What specific data are you referring to? As far as I recall, the claim is that radar data from the ship-borne systems for the period preceding the incident (and possibly later) was taken away by unknown civilian operatives (possibly from the manufacturers of the systems, though that is just a suggestion that has been made). I don't recall any claim that sensor data from the aircraft of Fravor, Dietrich or Underwood was removed, if indeed there was any such data other than the video known as FLIR1. None of the planes seem to have had radar contact with the object or objects of interest.
 

Nemon

New Member
What specific data are you referring to? As far as I recall, the claim is that radar data from the ship-borne systems for the period preceding the incident (and possibly later) was taken away by unknown civilian operatives (possibly from the manufacturers of the systems, though that is just a suggestion that has been made). I don't recall any claim that sensor data from the aircraft of Fravor, Dietrich or Underwood was removed, if indeed there was any such data other than the video known as FLIR1. None of the planes seem to have had radar contact with the object or objects of interest.
Kevin Day talks about this in the interview with Mick. It is of course all about the radar data and Underwood's ATFLIR, not about Fravor, he did not record any data (he possibly could have, as we learn from the helmet issue - or he did record the flight but does not admit).

Kevin Day 22:28
I know. I mean, that there's all kinds of aircraft off the coast. You know, I can't intercept everything just because, okay, I had no way to do it anyway. I mean, we were reporting to the Beach over our datalinks and stuff. So if there was some entity on the Beach worried about him that I didn't know about it. I mean, we were we were reported in the whole time. Our radar picture goes to the Beach, put it that way. Yeah. People on the Beach to see what we're seeing

Kevin Day 42:07
(...) And the interesting thing about the video, let me let me talk a little bit about procedure, right? Let's say you're the pilot, and I'm the I'm the controller, I direct you to do an intercept and you accept you accepted, you will come back with a statement: "fight's on tape's on" which means all your recording devices are are turned on from the moment you get the order to intercept until after it's long over. In other words, you don't wait till you're intercepting and turn them off for 10 seconds, and then turn it off. It's left on the entire time. That's why I know that there's a longer video. A longer video definitely, definitely exists. We just don't turn them on for ten seconds then turn them off. that never Yeah.

Kevin Day 50:55
the intel side of the house maybe doing something behind the scenes? I don't know. I wasn't ,there was nothing I could have done. Except for re intercepted. But what was the point of doing that? I didn't have, the aircraft didn't have missiles didn't have ammunition, or the machine guns or anything? The only thing I could do. So I we tracked it and reported in. We took our datalink picture and send it back to the Beach.

Mick West/Kevin Day 1:04:40
MW: Yeah. All right. I think that was thing we've covered. Let me just like quickly go over my little list of things and make sure I haven't missed anything. Do anything about these, these tapes being taken away? What are your thoughts on that controversy.
KD: That's other people's testimony. That was not my situation. I had I didn't realize it had happened at the time, so I have no knowledge about that. But I have to beleive my shipmates when they told me [???]

Kevin also recalls seeing th eobject move to to CAP point etc. on the radar. So that has been recorded, too, and all the data were transmitted to the mission control at the beach. Did I get that wrong?
 

DavidB66

Senior Member
Kevin also recalls seeing th eobject move to to CAP point etc. on the radar. So that has been recorded, too, and all the data were transmitted to the mission control at the beach. Did I get that wrong?
I think that's correct as a summary of what people (mainly Day) have said. I don't recall any details of what data was recorded from the radar, such as an object moving to the CAP point.
 

Nemon

New Member
I think that's correct as a summary of what people (mainly Day) have said. I don't recall any details of what data was recorded from the radar, such as an object moving to the CAP point.
I understand Kevin Day from the quoted statements that everything was transferred. The fact that this is accompanied by a recording is probably due to the logic of data management. Tapes are also mentioned several times. For days, unidentified stimuli have been observed in the sky. They take the initiative with Fravor's Intercept - I'm not an expert, but I'd be surprised if all this hadn't been documented. This should actually have been clarified somewhere in the many discussions on the topic.
 

DavidB66

Senior Member
I understand Kevin Day from the quoted statements that everything was transferred.
I agree that according to Day 'everything' was transferred, but we don't know exactly what 'everything' includes. For example, it would be useful to have data covering the movements of the Navy planes during the 'encounter'. This would help resolve some of the uncertainties about speeds and timings, such as the inconsistency between Fravor and Dietrich over the duration of the encounter.
Even if certain data was transferred, we shouldn't assume that it was retained indefinitely. We don't know why it was taken away in the first place. The UFO enthusiasts naturally assume that it was taken by some kind of 'Men in Black', either keen to investigate the latest alien encounter, or to destroy the evidence. But from a skeptical point of view, it may seem more likely that the 'Men in Black' were technicians from the DoD or the manufacturers of the new radar system, who would mainly be concerned to find out why the radar was playing up.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
the biggest problem with the "zip-down" is that the objects tracked at 100 mph at jet stream height, and then they're supposed to suddenly zip down at supersonic speed. I highly doubt that a supersonic aircraft can stay airborne at or above 80,000 ft. at a speed as slow as 100 mph.
 

Nemon

New Member
I agree that according to Day 'everything' was transferred, but we don't know exactly what 'everything' includes.
The more I think about it, the more I wonder why the question of what is transmitted and recorded by default, and what to do about it in particular situations, has never been asked to any of the parties involved. I can't really imagine this has not been asked. Maybe one of the readers remembers that it was mentioned somewhere?
But from a skeptical point of view, it may seem more likely that the 'Men in Black' were technicians from the DoD or the manufacturers of the new radar system, who would mainly be concerned to find out why the radar was playing up.
That's what I assume.
 
Top