2004 USS Nimitz Tic Tac UFO FLIR footage (FLIR1)

Brian Vincent

New Member
Can we talk about information that the government almost certainly has, which will help with the debunking process? Maybe this information can be released eventually through FOIA requests.

  • An exact time date and location of this video.
  • The next minutes of this video. The object is being tracked, and by a fighter jet. I can't imagine any reason why the next minutes of this video would be uninteresting. Even if they completely lose track and can't find it, more video would help.
  • Fravor's gun tape footage. The written report at https://coi.tothestarsacademy.com/nimitz-report/ says that OK-2, which is believed to be Fravor, immediately started making electronic copies of his gun tape. Rather than speculate that the video we have is the same object, it would really help to see footage directly from Fravor's incident.
  • Most versions of the story talk about how the object in Fravor's incident jammed the radar of the F-18s. They might not have had FLIR pods, but they did try to get a weapons lock on the object. More information here almost certainly exists, but probably will never be public because it would reveal too much about US radar capabilities.
  • Likewise, radar data from the USS Princeton also exists, but would probably reveal too much about US radar capabilities.
 

Brian Vincent

New Member
There was an investigation done, I believe by AATIP, even though the program was created after 2004, they went back and investigated this incident. This was also probably the investigation mentioned in the fightersweep.com article. Dr Eric Davis, who is confirmed to have been a contractor by Bigelow Aerospace to study these incidents, received a copy of the investigation summary. He felt that the summary was not classified, and he read it outloud on a radio program. He said a longer version of this investigation report exists, but this is just a cover sheet. So as a resource, here it is:

https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/7qtxxv/2004_nimitz_tic_tac_incident_executive_summary/
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Curt Collins

New Member
Dr Eric Davis, who is confirmed to have been a contractor by Bigelow Aerospace to study these incidents, received a copy of the investigation summary.

Confirmed by whom? Davis works for Hal Puthoff, who supposedly was a contractor to Bigelow Aerospace. Davis read an alleged report on Linda Moulton Howe's "Phenomenon Radio" UFO show, but hasn't actually produced the document.

There's a lot of hearsay, but little or no documentation - even of the mundane matters like project staffing.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
After spending some time on the "GO FAST" video, which has a very useful RNG display (RNG = Range to target), I revisited Nimitz, to find:

Metabunk 2018-03-24 21-55-18.jpg
Metabunk 2018-03-24 21-55-40.jpg

From 32;13 to the end there is a display of 99.9 RNG 99

A google search for this shows it was mention here, but I missed it:
In the last part of the Nimitz video a range indication pops up: 99.9 RNG 99.
I wonder what that means. Maybe the WSO tries a radar lock but the radar basically indicates 'out of range'?

There's one other reference:
https://www.allmystery.de/themen/uf28955-1638
They are just suggesting the video is fake.

I think @Kaen is correct, this is probably an "out of range" display.

Raytheon says:
https://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/atflir
Although it's not clear if that is the limit for tracking, or designating ("painting" with a coded laser for targeting).
 

Thomas lewis

New Member
The Missile Crusier USS Princeton was tracking activity by "Anomalous Aerial Vehicles (AAVs)" focusing around a point about 30 nautical miles off the Baja peninsula for 'several days'
Do we have any information regarding radar reports,interviews with operators,documentation ?,and if not would that be something we could inquire about through FOIA regarding the 2004 Nimitz incident ?
 

Brian Vincent

New Member
A 13 page report was created when this event was investigated. The report has been released.
https://media.lasvegasnow.com/nxsglobal/lasvegasnow/document_dev/2018/05/18/TIC TAC UFO EXECUTIVE REPORT_1526682843046_42960218_ver1.0.pdf


mod add:
above pdf attached to this article by George Knapp
 
Last edited by a moderator:

deirdre

Senior Member.
A 13 page report was created when this event was investigated. The report has been released.

the article the pdf is attached to says

Does [the Pentagon] usually use Wikipedia references when making military reports for the military?
one ex:
op.PNG
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Attached is an OCR (copyable text) version

The does seem to be quite a bit of cut and paste of terminology from online sources, which seems rather odd for a military sourced paper. Like:
Fromm various online descriptions like:
http://www.airforceworld.com/attacker/eng/av8_harrier_vertical_landing_short_takeoff_marine.htm
 

Attachments

  • TIC TAC UFO EXECUTIVE REPORT_1526682843046_42960218_ver1.0 OCR.pdf
    3 MB · Views: 1,033

igoddard

Active Member
A 13 page report was created when this event was investigated. The report has been released.
https://media.lasvegasnow.com/nxsglobal/lasvegasnow/document_dev/2018/05/18/TIC TAC UFO EXECUTIVE REPORT_1526682843046_42960218_ver1.0.pdf


mod add:
above pdf attached to this article by George Knapp
Fascinating how several times they refer to "armchair experts" who say the videos show a bird or balloon. The presence of those unidentified skeptics is sustained throughout the I-Team report as a background problem that the new documents supposedly put to rest. Yet as relevant as those skeptics apparently are to the story, the I-Team is not going to give even a split second to inform their viewers exactly why skeptics propose those mundane explanations.

By revealing that they are aware of skeptical commentary but then not presenting it in a fair and objective fashion the I-Team reveals that its goal is to promote the UFO narrative, not actually investigate the extraordinary claims.
 

Agent K

Active Member
Does [the Pentagon] usually use Wikipedia references when making military reports for the military?
one ex:
View attachment 32934

For background info like this, yes. Here's a whole list of reports that reference Wikipedia.
https://publicaccess.dtic.mil/psm/api/service/search/search?site=default_collection&q="en.wikipedia.org"#

One example: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1016721.pdf
 

Agent K

Active Member
A 13 page report was created when this event was investigated. The report has been released.
https://media.lasvegasnow.com/nxsglobal/lasvegasnow/document_dev/2018/05/18/TIC TAC UFO EXECUTIVE REPORT_1526682843046_42960218_ver1.0.pdf


mod add:
above pdf attached to this article by George Knapp

Is this the same report whose executive summary you posted above, in February?
https://www.metabunk.org/posts/218633/

You said, "Dr Eric Davis, who is confirmed to have been a contractor by Bigelow Aerospace to study these incidents, received a copy of the investigation summary. He felt that the summary was not classified."

It sounded like the report was written by Bigelow Aerospace, but now it sounds like the report was written by the military and given to Bigelow Aerospace. Then what did Bigelow do?
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
For background info like this, yes. Here's a whole list of reports that reference Wikipedia.
https://publicaccess.dtic.mil/psm/api/service/search/search?site=default_collection&q="en.wikipedia.org"#

One example: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1016721.pdf
thanks!

although that paper and report has clear documentation on the paper itself (below), as well as a separate "report documentation page".(ie "Form approved OMB no. 0704-0188)
upload_2018-5-20_10-34-51.png
 

igoddard

Active Member
John Greenewald @ theblackvault has been pursuing FOIA investigation of the ATIPP program and has commented on the I-Team document. He makes an important observation about the lack of supplemental context for the document (the Gimbal and Go Fast videos are also without context, rather a theme). Greenewald concludes:

@ http://www.theblackvault.com/casefi...onge-and-the-secret-dod-ufo-research-program/

Greenewald is also skeptical about the provenance of the document, pointing out how it does not look like government documents and not even like one might expect from a government contractor. But he allows that it might nevertheless be genuine. He has a lot of experience handling government documents.

Also attached, I made the I-Team document searchable...
 

Attachments

  • I-Team-tic-tac-assesment.pdf
    2.8 MB · Views: 476
Last edited:

Agent K

Active Member
About the actual video, the Executive Report says, "The object, according to the FLIR, appeared stationary," when it was actually being tracked from right to left. It says, "The FLIR showed an object at 0 ATA and approximately -5 deg elevation," when it actually showed 5 degree elevation. I don't know where they got the negative from. It says that when the object moved to the left, the WSO "made no attempt to slew the FLIR and subsequently lost situational awareness to the object." He couldn't zoom out and slew left? And it doesn't discuss any INS metadata other than what's displayed in the video.
 

Curt Collins

New Member
I'm curious about this part of the Tic Tac executive summary:

"The Meteorological Officer (METOC) on board the Princeton provided a briefing that discussed a high altitude weather phenomena where ice crystals can form and be detected by the AN/SPY-1."

Obviously, that wouldn't explain the entire incident, but just what could the ice crystals have caused?
 

Kaen

Member
About the actual video, the Executive Report says, "The object, according to the FLIR, appeared stationary," when it was actually being tracked from right to left. It says, "The FLIR showed an object at 0 ATA and approximately -5 deg elevation," when it actually showed 5 degree elevation. I don't know where they got the negative from. It says that when the object moved to the left, the WSO "made no attempt to slew the FLIR and subsequently lost situational awareness to the object." He couldn't zoom out and slew left? And it doesn't discuss any INS metadata other than what's displayed in the video.

The AAV was not really treated as a threat for some reason. Maybe because they were not in hostile territory and the commanding officers assumed the object originated from the US and/or was not related to anything military.

The second F18 crew were only asked (by Fravor and his crew) to get some ATFLIR recordings if possible, they did not seem to have official orders to engage or to intercept the object. So they simply recorded some footage and then continued with their training exercises (although seeing the object with the ATFLIR left them a bit confused according to the report).

As discussed earlier in this thread, the object’s angular velocity relative to the ATFLIR seems to remain stable, even during the time it moves out of the ATFLIR FOV (see graph). So there is no clear reason why the ATFLIR would lose its lock on the object. Yet the ATFLIR lock was broken. Was this due to an action by the object itself or did the WSO cause the lock to break? The WSO may have simply decided they had collected enough footage and should continue with their training exercises.

Unfortunately there is no information whether the AN/SPY-1 continued to detect/track the object.
In any case the F18 radar was unable to get a stable lock (just a temporary one that was used to point and lock the ATFLIR).


upload_2018-5-23_16-57-37.png
 

Keith Beachy

Senior Member
From 60,000 feet to 50 feet in a matter of seconds? That might be 10,000 mph 5,000 mph in the vertical, depending on the number of seconds found in a 'matter of seconds' (4 to 8 sec, or?). Which I don't understand given all the technical specs discussed in the documents, precision comes down to a 'matter of seconds', an undefined value. MACH 13 to MACH 6, only capable from a false return, and errors. Has anyone estimated the g-force associated with the AAV to do the imagined maneuvers out of this world? I have seen radar false returns off my wing, and when I look, there is nothing. Anyone else estimated the 'matter of seconds' decent speed.

https://media.lasvegasnow.com/nxsgl...TIVE REPORT_1526682843046_42960218_ver1.0.pdf

If this report cost money to taxpayers, the contract, the grant, the money needs to stop.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
From 60,000 feet to 50 feet in a matter of seconds? That might be 10,000 mph 5,000 mph in the vertical, depending on the number of seconds found in a 'matter of seconds' (4 to 8 sec, or?).
We can presume it stopped at 50 feet (otherwise it would hit the ocean rather hard), so the minimum g-force needed would be the same as going 30,000 feet from a dead stop in half the "matter of seconds".
So if t = half the matter of seconds
distance = 0.5 * a * t * t
a = distance / (0.5 * t * t)
(and peak speed = a * t)
so:
Metabunk 2018-05-23 11-23-08.jpg

I would assume a "matter of seconds" would be <30, but it's very vague. But pulling something between 8g and 100g (!) And this assumes the craft is capable of instantaneous thrust reversal.
(note g force is +/- 1 for the local acceleration of the craft. Gravity is either with the thrust or against it, although presumably the theory is that this is something that operates outside the constraints of gravity.)
 

Kaen

Member
Thrust with its accompanying ‘g-forces’ is not the only way to accelerate (or decelerate).

If you are in a free fall towards Earth, you accelerate at 1 g without feeling any g-force. You simply move along the so-called space-time geodesics created by the Earth’s mass and don’t feel any forces, yet you are accelerating.

Similarly, if someone would throw you upwards into the air, you are decelerating without feeling any forces as soon as you are moving freely through the air.

In other words: gravity fields (which can be modeled as space-time geodesics) are able to accelerate and decelerate objects without the annoying ‘g-forces’.

So if a technology exists that can manipulate the space-time geodesics around an object in an energy-efficient way, such technology would be able to create the correct geodesics for the desired movement of an object and the object would accelerate or decelerate without any g-forces acting upon it.

Humanity is currently investigating similar techniques for space travel (just search for ‘Alcubierre Warp Drive’) and Dr. Harold Sonny White of NASA has managed to lower the energy requirements for such a drive considerably over the years with smart engineering tricks.

The only thing that we currently know is able to manipulate space-time is energy or mass (mass being equivalent to energy via E = m.c-square). But who knows what other mechanisms may exist that we haven’t discovered yet?

Further reading:
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/ph...force-how-does-it-accelerate-objects-advanced

https://www.universetoday.com/89074/what-is-the-alcubierre-warp-drive/
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Thrust with its accompanying ‘g-forces’ is not the only way to accelerate (or decelerate).

If you are in a free fall towards Earth, you accelerate at 1 g without feeling any g-force. You simply move along the so-called space-time geodesics created by the Earth’s mass and don’t feel any forces, yet you are accelerating.

Yes, that's what I was referring to with:
(note g force is +/- 1 for the local acceleration of the craft. Gravity is either with the thrust or against it, although presumably the theory is that this is something that operates outside the constraints of gravity.)


Humanity is currently investigating similar techniques for space travel (just search for ‘Alcubierre Warp Drive’) and Dr. Harold Sonny White of NASA has managed to lower the energy requirements for such a drive considerably over the years with smart engineering tricks.
Not in a way that it's at all practical, since it probably needs some matter with negative mass in order to work.

Of course one could theorize that it was some incredible technology that warped space and time - that's really what TTSA are saying. The question is if there's any evidence of this. If one warps spacetime to move 60,000 feet in ten seconds within Earth's atmosphere, then what evidence would that leave? I'd suspect quite a bit.

But all we have are some blips on the radar, a barely moving dot on the FLIR, and some mixed accounts of unknown things.

One should not leap to explanations for which there is no need. Especially on such scant and unverified evidence.
 

Agent K

Active Member
So there is no clear reason why the ATFLIR would lose its lock on the object. Yet the ATFLIR lock was broken. Was this due to an action by the object itself or did the WSO cause the lock to break? The WSO may have simply decided they had collected enough footage and should continue with their training exercises.

The WSO caused the lock to break by switching the FOV to medium and back to narrow.
It should've been trivial to zoom out and reacquire the target. Compare with the GO FAST video where the WSO slews several times to acquire the target.
 

Keith Beachy

Senior Member
... In other words: gravity fields (which can be modeled as space-time geodesics) are able to accelerate and decelerate objects without the annoying ‘g-forces’.
...
Which would not work in a space filled with real matter, but does work in the world of false radar returns, and human error.
 

Kaen

Member
I fully agree that the proof that some extraterrestrial technology was at work here is not impressive, since it is mainly based on the eye-witness testimony of two pilots.

I’m just pointing out that you cannot use anthropomorphic arguments or arguments based on our current understanding of physics to absolutely prove the opposite: That an instrument malfunction or a human error MUST be the cause.

IF (and that’s a big ‘IF’) these are observations of actual extraterrestrial craft, we don’t know anything about the physics and engineering that make them fly. We hardly understand gravity and have yet to find out how it relates to dark matter and dark energy. Moreover, we haven’t fully succeeded to reconcile gravity with the other forces of nature yet. There may be other ways to generate gravity fields besides the brute force of applying huge amounts of energy (or requiring ‘negative energy’).

We therefore also cannot assume that their propulsion system must have huge effects on the environment.

As an example: We can generate an air pressure field around an airplane that lifts 400.000 kg. This kind of air pressure is equivalent to a major hurricane. But the effects on the environment are minimal because this field is neatly confined to the airplane’s wings – the airport buildings are not blown to bits if an airplane takes off.

If something similar can be done with a kind of gravity field, the effects may be limited to some strangely churning water below the craft if it is hovering just above sea level.

In the end it’s a discussion about probabilities, not certainties. The only thing left is choosing the ‘simplest’ hypothesis with Occam’s razor in hand, i.e. the one with the highest probability.

But do we really know anything about the probability of two jet pilots making huge observational errors for many minutes in a row on a clear sunny day? And can we really say anything about the probability of an extraterrestrial visit to our planet?
In the end we only know that both probabilities are ‘low but not 0’. Anything else is based on speculation.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I’m just pointing out that you cannot use anthropomorphic arguments or arguments based on our current understanding of physics to absolutely prove the opposite: That an instrument malfunction or a human error MUST be the cause.

Nobody has said otherwise. https://www.metabunk.org/explained-chilean-navy-ufo-video-aerodynamic-contrails-flight-ib6830.t8306/

But do we really know anything about the probability of two jet pilots making huge observational errors for many minutes in a row on a clear sunny day? And can we really say anything about the probability of an extraterrestrial visit to our planet?
In the end we only know that both probabilities are ‘low but not 0’. Anything else is based on speculation.

We know one is a type of event that has happened before (See: Chilean Navy UFO), and the other is not, and requires the introduction of some incredible things. Occam's razor steers us towards the first. Boring, but far more likely.
 
But do we really know anything about the probability of two jet pilots making huge observational errors for many minutes in a row on a clear sunny day? And can we really say anything about the probability of an extraterrestrial visit to our planet?
In the end we only know that both probabilities are ‘low but not 0’. Anything else is based on speculation.
I'm not so sure that the probability of jet pilots making observational errors is so low. Also, jet pilots rarely report these kind of things, it would be different if reports like this was common. If the probability of pilots making observational errors is low but not zero then given enough time, you would expect a few (rare) but not zero repports just like this one.

EDIT: Winning the lottery is very unlikely, even so, some people win the lottery. It would be strange if no-one won, or if people won often...
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
From
https://www.metabunk.org/attachment..._1526682843046_42960218_ver1-0-ocr-pdf.32935/

I'm a little unclear on two things here. Firstly how does it differ? Who estimated "500-1000 feet at approximately 500 knots." and what did the other guy estimate?

Secondly, when they describe it as "solid white, smooth, with no edges. It was uniformly colored with no nacelles, pylons, or wings." How far away is it supposed to be? How on earth can you determine something is 46 feet in length, and see the texture of its surface if it's two miles away? 46 feet is not particularly big. it's around this size:
Metabunk 2018-05-24 17-36-06.jpg
 

Kaen

Member
I think they mean that ‘hovering like a Harrier’ is not the same as 'flying at level 500 kts'. The second observation may have been made by the pilot of the other jet, Jim Slaight.

The capsule’s description is probably based on the entire encounter, where Fravor came as close as about a mile.

Some time ago I tried to correlate several sources to get a better impression of what might have happened: The official Navy Event Report, a recent video-taped narrative by Fravor, and a recent interview report of an interview with Jim Slaight (the name Jim Slaight is not mentioned but the fact that it is Slaight can be easily deducted from the information in the interview).
Below is a correlated set of statements that I took from these sources.

Sources:
[Navy event report] http://www.nicap.org/reports2/2004_Navy event document 2004 Nov 14.pdf
[Slaight] https://coi.tothestarsacademy.com/nimitz-report
[Fravor] Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCaruUtiPHo


--------------------------------

[Navy event report] WHILE SEARCHING FOR UNID AIR CONTACT, FAST EAGLES SPOTTED LARGE UNID OBJECT IN WATER AT 1430L. PILOTS SAW STEAM/ SMOKE/CHURNING AROUND OBJECT. PILOT DESCRIBES OBJECT INITIALLY AS RESEMBLING A DOWNED AIRLINER, ALSO STATED THAT IT WAS MUCH LARGER THAN A SUBMARINE.

[Slaight] As Jim Slaight looked down at the ocean from the cockpit, they noticed a small patch of water, approximately 60 by 80 feet, which appeared unusually choppy and turbulent amongst a calm sea. The area was generally the shape of an oval and appeared to be ‘roiling’. Towards the center of the disturbance, the water appeared lighter in color and smooth again as if an unknown object had recently submerged beneath the surface. Jim Slaight thought they were witnessing a crash, perhaps that of an unidentified aircraft.

[Fravor] “I look out the right side and I see something in the water, and it looks like … about the size of a 737 … in the water, pointing east. So, you don’t see an airplane but if you’ve ever been out to sea with like an underwater seamount, as the waves come and there’s something right under the surface they’ll break – same thing that happens on shore – they’ll break and you’ll get whitewater. So this thing looks kind of like that shape, looks really like if you put a 737 about 10, 15 feet under the water the waves are going to crash over the top and you’re going to get this whitewater.”


[Navy event report] WHILE DESCENDING FROM 24K FT TO GAIN A BETTER VIEW OF THE UNID CONTACT IN THE WATER, FAST EAGLE 110 SIGHTED AN AIRBORNE CONTACT WHICH APPEARED TO BE CAPSULE SHAPED (WINGLESS, MOBILE, WHITE, OBLONG PILL SHAPED, 25-30 FEET IN LENGTH, NO VISIBLE MARKINGS AND NO GLASS) 5NM WEST FROM POSITION OF UNID OBJECT IN WATER. CAPSULE (ALT 4K FT AT COURSE 300) PASSED UNDER FAST EAGLE 110 (ALT 16KFT).

[Slaight] Approximately two seconds after noticing the unusual water disturbance, Jim Slaight witnessed a small, unidentified object cross over the turbulent area of water. The object was elongated, approximately 30 to 40 feet in length, white in color, and described resembling a ‘tic-tac’ candy mint. It had no distinguishable control surfaces, was uniformly smooth, with no windows, doors, or lights visible. The object was opaque with a solid, definable edge. It did not appear to emit any noticeable light or radiation from its surface nor did it have any noticeable exhaust trail. The object traveled in a straight line from left to right over the disturbed water at an altitude of approximately 1000 to 3000 feet and a speed of approximately 300 to 500 knots.

[Fravor] “So we see that, and then … so he’s pointing east so it would be on the right hand side of the airplane just forward of the wing line is this little white – which looks like a tic-tac which is why we call it ‘the tic-tac’ – and it’s moving around erratically – so it’s doing this [makes irregular horizontal motions with his hand]. It’s not hovering, it’s moving just randomly around, not fast, just kind of left, right, forward, and back. There’s no rotor wash – which you would see from a helicopter – it’s just this odd object.”


[Navy event report] FAST EAGLE 110 BEGAN TURN TO ACQUIRE CAPSULE.

[Slaight] Upon noticing the object, David Fravor indicated over the radio “I’m in” to which Jim Slaight replied “I have high cover”. David Fravor conducted an aggressive banking maneuver and dropped his aircraft at the same time in order to catch up with the object.

[Fravor] “So at this time we passed by and now I’m starting a right hand turn so we’re going from a six o’clock towards a nine o’clock position. And I’m like ‘well that’s interesting’, I said “well I’m going to check it out”.
So between probably nine and ten I started an easy descend and I’m watching this thing and it’s just kind of randomly moving around this vehicle and it’s basically forward of the right wing by the cockpit and then it goes back and it’s kind of moving around, like it was checking it out.”



[Navy event report] WHILE 110 WAS DESCENDING AND TURNING, CAPSULE BEGAN CLIMBING AND TURNED INSIDE OF FAST EAGLE’S TURN RADIUS.

[Slaight] The object immediately responded.

[Fravor] “So as we pass through about the twelve o’clock position and we’re descending, it kind of recognizes that we’re there and it starts to mirror us. So now think of it at the six o’clock position and we’re at the twelve o’clock position, we’re coming down and it starts coming up. So it’s going towards nine o’clock, we’re going towards three o’clock. And we do this all the way around until I get all the way back towards about the nine o’clock position. So I’m still coming down nice and easy and I’m watching this thing because it’s just kind of watching us and following and I’m like ‘that’s kind of weird’.
So now it’s probably about maybe 3000 feet below us and about a mile across the circle. It’s about the size of an F18, so about 47 feet long, it has no wings, I don’t see any exhaust plume – like an older airplane would have smoke - there’s none of that.”



[Navy event report] PILOT ESTIMATED THAT CAPSULE ACHIEVED 600-700 KTS. FAST EAGLE 110 COULD NOT KEEP UP WITH THE RATE OF TURN AND THE GAIN OF ALTITUDE BY THE CAPSULE. 110 LOST VISUAL ID OF CAPSULE IN HAZE. LAST VISUAL CONTACT HAD CAPSULE AT 14KFT HEADING DUE EAST.

[Slaight] David Fravor’s jet was was approximately 1000 to 3000 feet from the object when the object turned and pointed at them. David Fravor conducted one or two evasive turns but the object appeared to maintain positive and dominant control of the airspace. After approximately 8 to 10 seconds, both Jim Slaight and David Fravor lost visual contact with the object.

[Fravor] “So as I come across, I’m a little above him, he’s at the three o’clock position, and I go ‘the only way I’m going to get this is to do an aggressive out-of-plane maneuver, so I dump the nose and I go from the nine o’clock through the vertical down to go across to the three o’clock.
So as I get down to about – and I’m probably about 60 degrees nose low pulling through the bottom – it starts to accelerate, it has an incredible rate of acceleration and it takes off and it goes south. And it takes off like nothing I’ve ever seen. It literally is - one minute it’s there and the next minute it’s like ‘poof’ and it’s gone.”
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The descriptions really don't seem to make sense in terms of the distances involved or consistency. An object that's 25-30 or 30-40 feet long passing over or 5NM away from a bit of white water that's 80 feet wide, at 300 knots, altitude1000 to 3000, or 4000, feet.

It really sounds like they were looking at different things. And relating these objects to a small bit of white water seems like a bit of a leap - in neither case was it anywhere near it, and based on the sped and angles it's impossible to really make a connection - it (or more likely they) were just in the same region of several square miles.

I know it will be unpopular, but I'd have to go with loss of situational awareness and seagulls as the best fit explanation.
 

Kaen

Member
I could agree with ‘seagulls on steroids’, since they managed to outrun two F18’s ;)

The inconsistencies in exact initial location, size, speed, and distance guestimates, exact maneuvers, directions etc. do not surprise me.

After all, the two interviews were taken 14 years after the incident. We all know that human memory reconstructs – it does not reproduce.

At the core of all stories and records is a featureless capsule that managed to outrun two F18’s. It may have looked something like this (a snapshot of Ian’s video):

upload_2018-5-26_9-39-22.png

Whether it was 25 or 45 feet long, was seen above or five NM from the water disturbance initially, was moving erratically or in a straight line when they first saw it… we’ll never know exactly.
 
I could agree with ‘seagulls on steroids’, since they managed to outrun two F18’s ;)

The inconsistencies in exact initial location, size, speed, and distance guestimates, exact maneuvers, directions etc. do not surprise me.

After all, the two interviews were taken 14 years after the incident. We all know that human memory reconstructs – it does not reproduce.

At the core of all stories and records is a featureless capsule that managed to outrun two F18’s. It may have looked something like this (a snapshot of Ian’s video):

View attachment 33015

Whether it was 25 or 45 feet long, was seen above or five NM from the water disturbance initially, was moving erratically or in a straight line when they first saw it… we’ll never know exactly.
While we are guessing: for a slightly less mundane theory what about some sort of (experimental) cruise missile then, they match the description fairly well (pill shaped, right size, etc)

Source: https://youtu.be/G92dljw0XA0?t=44s

Or some sort of (experimental) submarine launched ballistic missile. Ballistic missiles are even designed to enter/exit space. In one interview Jim Slaight says that was his first impression. (The reporter interrupts him and says it doesn't look like a missile from a sub to him, but he is looking at the wrong video to begin with and I doubt he would know what missiles look like on a flir camera anyway):

Source: https://youtu.be/AuBIBCW5P98?t=2m15s

It wouldn't be the first time experimental military technology gets mistaken for aliens.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Or some sort of (experimental) submarine launched ballistic missile. Ballistic missiles are even designed to enter/exit space. In one interview Jim Slaight says that was his first impression. (The reporter interrupts him and says it doesn't look like a missile from a sub to him, but he is looking at the wrong video to begin with and I doubt he would know what missiles look like on a flir camera anyway):

Don't confuse the pilot testimony with the video. The video is a completely different thing (with no pilot testimony), recorded at a different time.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I could agree with ‘seagulls on steroids’, since they managed to outrun two F18’s ;)
Don't make the mistake of extrapolating one explanation to all the observations.

The "seagull" part of the mundane theory is part of the loss of situational awareness - the pilot is mistaking relative motion for a very fast motion on the part of one object. He's first excited to be going after drug runners, then he's frightened thinking he's going to have to ram another aircraft to prevent a new 9/11, and he momentarily sees a seagull in the distance, a white blob, his frazzled brain interprets it as a flying craft further away than it actually is, and hence interprets the movement relative to the ocean as movement of the "craft" — like in the "go fast" video. He's turning, and sees another seagull, but misinterprets where it is and loses sight of it.

Later a different plane records a jet plane flying away. This all get mixed up with the glitchy radar returns from waves and cirrus clouds, and think it's all related.
 
Don't confuse the pilot testimony with the video. The video is a completely different thing (with no pilot testimony), recorded at a different time.
Agreed, the Nimitz video is not from the same event the pilots are describing.

I was trying to point out that the reporter is looking at the Gimbal video, i.e. completely unrelated to the Nimitz incident, so the reporters comment about the video can be ignored.

The interesting part is that Jim Slaight is about to explain how he initially believed it was a missile from a sub when the reporter interrupts him and steers the conversation back to UFOs, so we unfortunately never get to hear Slaight describe what made him change his mind.
 

Kaen

Member
The interesting part is that Jim Slaight is about to explain how he initially believed it was a missile from a sub when the reporter interrupts him and steers the conversation back to UFOs, so we unfortunately never get to hear Slaight describe what made him change his mind.

The answer to that can be found here: https://coi.tothestarsacademy.com/nimitz-report

It tells how Jim Slaight, upon first seeing the object, ‘initially thought that perhaps this was an unannounced, classified missile test by a U.S. Navy submarine’.

What follows in the report is a classic example of Hynek’s ‘escalation of hypotheses’: When Fravor engaged the object, Jim Slaight – flying above the scene in the other jet – comments:

The UFO turned on [Fravor’s jet] as if it knew or somehow anticipated what they were going to do and even pointed towards them! I was worried for them because whatever this was, [Fravor] didn’t stand a chance against it! There is no way any aircraft or missile that I know of could conduct maneuvers like what we saw that day.

Slaight, however, did not fully reject the possibility of a weapon test. Upon arrival back on the Nimitz he was ‘furious that colleagues on the ship were not taking the incident seriously’ and ‘believed that it was a flight safety issue at a minimum, especially if they were deliberately vectored to a testing location of a blue force weapon system’.


Special Report Nr 14, published in 1954, already stated that most ‘unknowns’ were classified as such because ‘they were reported to have performed maneuvers that could not be ascribed to any known objects’.
The report adds: ‘with the exception of some radar sightings, all of these maneuvers were observed visually. The possibilities for inaccuracies are great because of the inability of an observer to estimate visually size, distance, and speed’.

So I guess we’re still in the same situation as in 1954...
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
What follows in the report is a classic example of Hynek’s ‘escalation of hypotheses’: When Fravor engaged the object, Jim Slaight – flying above the scene in the other jet – comments:

That escalation of hypotheses starts earlier, as I wrote earlier, highlighting the changes in emotion as his interpretation rapidly changes.


One also has to consider the mental state of the pilot, who described his escalating concern in the following way:
So breaking that down, firstly he's nervous because it's "not a drill", then he's excited because he thinks it drug runners, then he's frightened because he thinks it's a 9/11 attack and he's going to have to ram an airline with his plane, then he thinks there a plane just crashed, and then literally two seconds later thinks that it's a missile test, and is worried that he will die because he won't be able to shoot it down, then he thinks he sees something moving so rapidly that he'd not have a chance, so he's scared of that. Then he loses sight of it, and when he gets back to the ship he's angry that nobody is taking him seriously, and thinks he may have been deliberately sent into the path of a US missile test and now everyone is making fun of him. After three different UFO theme films have been played, which he and his friends sees as mocking, they go into the ready room, slam the door shut, one of them makes a copy of of the video, and "Source" write a letter to his Aunt.
 

Kaen

Member
So breaking that down, firstly he's nervous because it's "not a drill", then he's excited because he thinks it drug runners, then he's frightened because he thinks it's a 9/11 attack and he's going to have to ram an airline with his plane, then he thinks there a plane just crashed, and then literally two seconds later thinks that it's a missile test, and is worried that he will die because he won't be able to shoot it down, then he thinks he sees something moving so rapidly that he'd not have a chance, so he's scared of that. Then he loses sight of it

What exactly are you implying? That Slaight’s observations and hypotheses are wrong because he felt ‘fear’ and ‘excitement’? That he was not able to observe accurately from his high cover position above the scene with Fravor and the object because he was ‘worried’? That he lost situational awareness because his situation changed rapidly?

That would make him totally inadequate as a pilot.

To me his reasoning seems logical given the information he had and the observations he made at the time. There is no indication that he ‘lost it’. His emotions were logical, too, given the situation. And he is able to accurately observe and describe them. Pilots are selected and trained to keep their rational and observational abilities intact under stress.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
What exactly are you implying? That Slaight’s observations and hypotheses are wrong because he felt ‘fear’ and ‘excitement’? That he was not able to observe accurately from his high cover position above the scene with Fravor and the object because he was ‘worried’? That he lost situational awareness because his situation changed rapidly?
More of less, yes. He was in a rapidly evolving situation, his perception of which, and his reported emotional state may have contributed to imperfect observations. Pilots make mistakes at the best of times. Thinking they might have to ram a hijacked passenger jet is not going to help.

He reported that he "experiences some time dilation during the incident" because of a "heightened state of excitement and adrenaline" - it seems reasonable that this "heightened state of excitement and adrenaline" may have altered his perception of positions and velocities, as well as time.

Motion, after all, depends on time. If he's experiencing time dilation, then how is he accurately judging speed?
 

Keith Beachy

Senior Member
"WHILE DESCENDING FROM 24K FT TO GAIN A BETTER VIEW " 24,000 feet away, and they saw what? I could see smoke from F-4s from 60 miles, because I knew they were USAF F-4 coming to be refueled. From 24,000 feet, the only thing I remember from 15,000 to 20,000 feet that was useful visual reference, n-s e-w cross roads to line loops and aerobatics. It would be cool to have use from 0 to 50,000 feet an area you can roam freely to check out interesting things. I have seen spherical shiny objects visually above me near Guam, I assumed it was a weather balloon at a very high altitude, it was following us like the moon or mars. If I reported this, or something like 'tic tac', insisting it was out of this world, drug test time. Is anyone associated with the 'tic tac' ufo event hired by Bigelow Aerospace Advanced Space Studies (BAASS), which appears to be a pork project from Senator Reid.

Being in a training area/air refueling track/Warning area while two separate groups think they have sole access to the training area, unaware of joint use. Our KC-135 crew in orbit at the ARCP (air refueling control point) in W-179, waiting for the SR-71 off Okinawa, the copilot and I saw an F-86 dragging a triangular target on a long line pass in front of us at 27,000 feet. I shrunk up in my seat trying to make a smaller target. As we orbited I noticed what looked like bees (fighters attacking the target) in a dog fight below us in W-179. We were only 5 to 10 thousand feet away, and the fighters looked like bugs, and we must of looked like a little bird, when one of the pilots finally saw us in orbit, in 179. There was a 'knock it off call' on Guard, someone in the fighter exercise called on guard, 'tanker in 179 what are you doing', told them we would be out of 179 in 10 more minutes. We reported our refueling area was used at the same time by another unit, not sure who messed up. The coordination of military use airspace would be an interesting investigation.

This is the type of aircraft/target, could be the one, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sabre_with_tow_target_at_Kadena_AB_1984.JPEG.

Pilots are not totally inadequate as a pilot for what is being discussed, and USAF pilots spend a lot of class time discussing why humans are not beings suited by design for flight in high performance aircraft. We discuss and learn our limitations and how we can use our instruments, and knowledge of our limitations to be qualified/capable pilots of high performance aircraft. Knowing our limitations of our senses which were designed to run around earth at 10 to 15 mph, not 550 knots pulling 7.33 g at 24,000 feet. Qualified pilots have lost their lives when they fail to realize they have lost situational awareness, and crash into the ocean while disoriented on the wing. Pilots study accident reports constantly and review the causes related to our limitations as humans. Here is an intro for more info associated with physiological effects related to flying, https://www.faa.gov/pilots/training/airman_education/media/IntroAviationPhys.pdf
 

Kaen

Member
You give some examples of frightening situations you experienced as a pilot where you did not lose your ability to observe and judge despite the emotions you went through. That is exactly my point.

I would assume that ‘loss of situational awareness’ (and subsequent crashes) mainly occurs during fast and violent maneuvers. But Slaight did not chase the object, he was just giving high cover.

The hypothesis that Slaight’s ability to observe was severely impaired by his emotional state is weakened further by the fact that Fravor basically made the same assessment of the object and its maneuvering capabilities from a different jet at a different position.

Concerning the alleged distance of 24000 feet: The Nimitz event report gives some clues about the distances involved:

The jets entered the area at 24000 feet, but then they first seem to have descended to 16000 feet to get a clearer view of the water disturbance. At 16000 feet the object was first seen and Fravor went after it while Slaight stayed put. The object was estimated to be at 4000 feet at that time, so an initial altitude difference of 12000 feet with Slaight’s jet.

During the chase the object climbed to 14000 feet and Fravor could not keep up, which leaves an altitude difference of only 2000 feet with Slaight’s jet at the end of the chase.

The event report further states:
CPA OF ACFT 110 FROM CONTACT 4000-5000 FT.

CPA probably means ‘Closest Point of Approach’, ACFT 110 was probably Fravors Aircraft.

I think what these men saw remains 'unidentified', unless more data becomes available.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
I think what these men saw remains 'unidentified', unless more data becomes available.

Everyone thinks that. The point is that extraordinary claims (it was an extraterrestrials, an angel, Mothman, a ghost, one of those giant birds on shows like MonsterQuest, etc) require at least some evidence. And nothing about the testimony meets that requirement. There are many natural explanations for what Fravor and this 'new pilot' observed.

There were 6 men in the sky at that place at that time. (3 planes each with 2 crew) and only 2 are implying extraterrestrials. and Slaight (the second of those 2) is barely suggesting that, in his interviews he seems rather uncommitted to me. IF the fightersweeper article is even remotely correct, than "Cheeks" was there long enough to see the whitewater spot disappear and he didn't see any craft at all. The testimony is extremely weak. And the FLIR footage, which this thread is about, is extremely weak as well ...IF it was even the footage from later that day.

It's fun to contemplate they saw an ET, just like it's fun to contemplate ghosts or angels. But there is nothing in this Nimitz story that is remotely suggestive of ETs to me.
 
Last edited:
Top