2004 USS Nimitz Tic Tac UFO FLIR footage (FLIR1)

[Kaen]

there is nothing in this Nimitz story that is remotely suggestive of ETs to me.

I like the fact-based down-to-earth investigation skills of debunkers. I also really admire the knowledge and the analysis capabilities of the members of this forum. That is why I enjoy discussing UFO cases with debunkers more than I do with ‘believers’. And since 95% of the UFO cases can be explained, they often find a good explanation.

But what strikes me as odd is this need for ‘closure’ for the other 5%: Somehow the possibility of an extra-terrestrial visitation must be excluded or pushed away as far as possible.

This may be unpopular in the eyes of ‘believers’, but it is certainly popular among fellow debunkers. A bit of peer-pressure may even be at work here.

Of course there is something in this story that opens up the possibility of extraterrestrial visitation. It is the reported 'impossible' maneuverability - often without any visible means of propulsion - that is a recurring pattern in almost all UFO reports. It has been since the late 1940’s. This case is just another example in that same pattern.

The 1947 Twining memo already mentions the ‘extreme rates of climb’ and ‘maneuverability’ as typical characteristics of UFO’s and adds that these reported ‘objects as large as man-made aircrafts’ are ‘something real and not visionary or fictitious’.

They have stayed unidentified ever since.

Nobody is making any hard claims, however, and just like you I really would want to hear more from the other witnesses. In the meantime I can perfectly live with an open-minded ‘unidentified’.

 

[marrowmonkey]

Of course there is something in this story that opens up the possibility of extraterrestrial visitation. It is the reported 'impossible' maneuverability - often without any visible means of propulsion - that is a recurring pattern in almost all UFO reports. It has been since the late 1940’s. This case is just another example in that same pattern.

It all boils down to the two pilots eyewitness account of the event, and one of the pilots (Slaight) thinks it could have been a missile (i.e. not something impossible), so there is only really one pilot (Fravor) who insists it was moving/accelerating impossibly fast.

The human mind is notoriously unreliable and as you said before:

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.

‘[...] 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’

The most likely explanation is that Fravor misjudged the speed/acceleration of whatever he saw (Ockham's razor), so there is nothing here that can not be explained easily with some ordinary boring natural phenomena. I.e. there is no real evidence of ETs here.

If it was seagulls or missiles or something else, who knows. My suggestion of missiles was only to point out that there are many other explanations that are much more likely than ETs in this case.

 

[Mick West]

Nobody is making any hard claims, however, and just like you I really would want to hear more from the other witnesses. In the meantime I can perfectly live with an open-minded ‘unidentified’.

Me too, but there's a difference between being "open-minded" and considering all possibilities equally likely. I would not exclude the possibility of an advanced technology craft, but nor would I give it a particularly high probability. Introducing a revolution in the laws of physics as a precondition for an explanation is a very strong indication that that explanation is based on faulty data.

 

[Whitebeard]

But what strikes me as odd is this need for ‘closure’ for the other 5%: Somehow the possibility of an extra-terrestrial visitation must be excluded or pushed away as far as possible.

This may be unpopular in the eyes of ‘believers’, but it is certainly popular among fellow debunkers. A bit of peer-pressure may even be at work here.

I think your grabbing at the wrong end of the stick here. Before anyone can claim flying extraterrestial craft, or trans-reality probe, or any other kind of exotic explaination for this or any other UFO sighting, ALL more mundane explainations must be examined and excluded. I know UFOlogists love to cling onto the possibility that every out of focus seagull, or Chinese ariel lantan is possible proof of ET buzzing the planet, and there are plenty of forums where those who want to believe can shout 'Aliens' at every photo. But this forum is more scientific in outlook and takes a rationalist and skeptical approach to these subjects. This is popular because here we LIKE to do the research, pick over the hypothises and work out exactly what really happened. Its not a need for closure, rather a liking for critical analysis and seeking to find out exactly what is going on.

I know I am speaking for a lot of the regulars here (whose ranks include aviation experts, engineers, historains, journalists and others with various fields of expertese - both proffessional and commited amateur) when I say most of us will agree that given the size of the universe, it is 99.9999% likely that ET is out there somewhere. However before we can claim they are here we need to make sure that the evidence presented cannot in anyway be explained in anyother way. This may upset those who really want to believe ET is playing tag with fighter jets for shits and giggles, but that is the way it is.

 

[Kaen]

Your feedback is noted and understood. But let me challenge you a bit further.

Consider the asymmetry at work here:

If credible pilots report a ‘mundane’ event, the hypothesis that their observations are correct is considered most probable.
If credible pilots report a ‘weird’ event, the hypothesis that their observations are correct is considered most improbable.

So ‘correctness of observation’ is not judged as a thing in itself but immediately linked to the preconceived probability of the reported events. Judging it as a thing in itself would mean judging it based on weather conditions, duration, quality of the observers, correlation of reported events etc.; not based on the reported events themselves.

This link is a logical approach for one freestanding event. But its logic starts to fail if there is a repetition of these reported events.
If one person says he saw a white Rhino in Africa we may doubt his observation based on the observation itself. But if such an observation occurs every few years by different, yet credible observers we may have to start assessing the quality of these observations independently from what is reported.

What if the pilot’s assessment of ‘impossible maneuverability without any visible means of propulsion’ is a recurring pattern in pilot observations? Wouldn’t it be more appropriate then to judge ‘correctness of observation’ independently from the observation itself?

In this case:
0 Two jets at two different vantage points, one with a very experienced pilot.
0 An observation in broad daylight.
0 Duration: Several minutes.
0 Minimum distance: 4000-5000 feet.
0 Perfect weather conditions.

What if their assessment is correct? What if they are reporting it simply as it is? The only possibility then is that they observed incredible technology. And the only question to answer then is ‘where did it originate from?’

 

[Mick West]

Consider the asymmetry at work here:

If credible pilots report a ‘mundane’ event, the hypothesis that their observations are correct is considered most probable.
If credible pilots report a ‘weird’ event, the hypothesis that their observations are correct is considered most improbable.

I think here you are ignoring the frequency and significance of such things. There are literally millions of mundane pilot observations every day. Tens of millions even. Of the tens of thousands of flights every days pilots are busy observing things and reporting what they see to ATC. Not only that, but tens of thousands of those observations are confirmation of radar data.

One of the most common forms of ATC communication, especially why flying VFR, are traffic advisories. ATC will tell you "traffic, 2 miles NW, 5,000 feet, Cessna", and you'll look for it and say "traffic in sight" if you see it, or "looking for traffic" if you don't.

Not all off these many mundane observations are correct.

Sometimes you'll see one plane and you'll think it's the reported traffic, so you'll say "traffic in sight" even though you are looking at the wrong thing. Sometimes you might not see the traffic at all. These types of errors and failures of observation happen all the time.

So we know that pilot error exists.

When we are faced with a reported observation that seems to break the laws of physics, the asymmetry is not between error and accuracy but between the mundane and the extraordinary.

Never in human history has an observation of a flying craft been verified as coming from some physics defying technology. During that same period people have made trillions of misidentification over a vast range of phenomena. It's what humans do.

So yes, I think pilot error is more likely than history-making technology.

 

[deirdre]

What if their assessment is correct? What if they are reporting it simply as it is? The only possibility then is that they observed incredible technology. And the only question to answer then is ‘where did it originate from?’

What if what they saw was an angel? and because they are pilots, their brains not wired for 'angel sighting' interpreted it as a 'craft'? What if what they saw was a ghost ship? What if it was a fairy (fairy light)?

What if... what if.. what if...

What if it was a known phenomenon ie. pilots misidentifying objects or birds size in the sky?

IF Fravor is correct, then it might be a [n extraterrestrial] UFO. But if Fravor expects people to believe such an extraordinary claim than some stronger evidence is needed.

If one person says he saw a white Rhino in Africa we may doubt his observation based on the observation itself. But if such an observation occurs every few years by different, yet credible observers we may have to start assessing the quality of these observations independently from what is reported.

This logic hasn't worked well for Bigfoot. If one person tells me they see a bigfoot in the woods, I myself would believe them. But if multiple people tell a similar story and years go by without any evidence popping up.. even though now thousands and millions of people are looking for evidence.. I'm going to start to doubt the observations are what these people are assessing them to be.

Cops don't fully trust one person or multiple person observations. that's why they interview witnesses multiple times.

 

[marrowmonkey]

This link is a logical approach for one freestanding event. But its logic starts to fail if there is a repetition of these reported events.
If one person says he saw a white Rhino in Africa we may doubt his observation based on the observation itself. But if such an observation occurs every few years by different, yet credible observers we may have to start assessing the quality of these observations independently from what is reported.

I don't have much faith in eyewitness accounts to begin with. What about sightings of Elvis, the Abominable Snowman, Angels, Ghosts, Fairies, Trolls, Unicorns, etc?

There are thousands of planes in the skies at all times and it is very rare you hear pilots report seeing things like this. (And as far as I know no one have been able to take a good photo of such a phenomena).

At the same time, isn't it possible that every now and then a pilot 'loose situational awareness' and think he sees something moving faster than it is, or accelerating quicker than what is possible with our current level of technology. In fact, wouldn't it be strange if that never happened and got reported?

So we should expect hearing a few repports every now and then of UFOs by pilots that lost situational awareness (or whatever the correct term would be). I think it would be strange if we never heard pilots reporting having seen strange things.

 

[Whitebeard]

If one person says he saw a white Rhino in Africa we may doubt his observation based on the observation itself. But if such an observation occurs every few years by different, yet credible observers we may have to start assessing the quality of these observations independently from what is reported.

A poor analogy if you ask me. There is a shed load of proof that northern white rhinos (I presume they are ones your talking about, the southern white is far more common with a population of around 20,000 individuals) have existed in the wild in Africa in the recent past in large numbers, and it is known two female still exist in a gamereserve in Kenya. What is more there is an on going active program of study with zoologists are looking for for other wild survivors. So anyone spotting one will be taken seriously. However even then their claims of observation will be investigated in great depth to make sure what was spotted was in fact a Northern White Rhino and not any other critter.

However there is zero evidence of alien spacecraft or any other kind of exotic arial phenomena having been spotted in the past that stands up to real hard investigation, so until does, and we are talking about HARD evidence here, CLEAR unmistakable photos or video that can be proved not to have been faked, a real bit of wreckage (or even the whole craft), multiple independent and simulatainious witness accounts etc... then these UFO reports will remain in the same file as rednecks spotting bigfoot, drunken scotsmen seeing nessie and religous belivers seeing the virgin Mary.

 

[Kaen]

So the general line of reasoning is:

Since pilots make observational errors, the UFO’s they see are most likely caused by such observational errors. This is a logical standpoint given Occam’s razor, and only an indisputable ET-case can change it.

However, if ET visits really happen, but they are rare and the ET’s tend to evade contact using their superior technology, we may have to wait forever for an ‘indisputable ET-case’.

This is especially true in the current digital age, where photographs and videos cannot be considered reliable evidence anymore and radar data is automatically filtered to only return the traces that fit within the performance envelope of a airplane. The military may have some data, but understandably they are more concerned about keeping the abilities of their sensors secret than about the progress of science. And the craziness about UFO’s on the internet does not help either to reveal any ‘signal’ that may be hiding in the ‘noise’.

Besides waiting for an indisputable case, are there other ways to find out whether any ‘signal’ may be hiding in the ‘noise’ of observational errors?

A good statistical analysis would be of help here. The last good statistical analysis was done in 1955, when the Battelle Memorial Institute was commissioned by the USAF to perform a statistical analysis of 2199 UFO reports collected by the Blue Book project and its predecessors. The analysis report has been de-classified and is known as ‘Special Report No 14’ (you can easily find it on the web).

The 2199 UFO reports were given a ‘reliability classification’, based on an evaluation of the reliability of both the (main) observer and the report itself:

Excellent reliability (213 reports): Both the observer and the report were very reliable.
Good reliability (757 reports): Either the observer was very reliable, or the report was very reliable, or they were both ‘fairly’ reliable.
Doubtful reliability (794 reports): The reliability of either the observer was poor, or that of the report was poor, or one of them could not be judged.
Poor reliability (435 reports): The reliability of both the observer and the report was either poor or could not be judged.

On top of that, these UFO reports were classified as:

Insufficient info: the UFO report contained insufficient info to be analyzed
Astronomical: the UFO report could be explained as an astronomical phenomenon/object
Aircraft: the UFO could be explained as an aircraft
Balloon: the UFO could be explained as a balloon
Other: the UFO could be explained as a known phenomenon/object other that balloon, aircraft, or astronomical
Unknown: The report contained sufficient info yet the UFO could not be identified as a known phenomenon/object

Most ‘unknowns’ were classified as such because ‘they were reported to have performed maneuvers that could not be ascribed to any known objects’.

If ALL of these UFO reports were observational errors, including the reports classified as ‘unknown’, what kind of correlation is to be expected between the percentage of unknowns and the reliability of the reports?

One would expect that the probability of identifying the cause of the reported observational error would increase with the reliability of the report. After all, a more reliable report contains more reliable information, making a positive identification of the cause of the observational error more likely.

The statistics show exactly the opposite: The percentage of ‘unknowns’ increases with the reliability of the report, which means that the probability of identifying the cause of the reported alleged observational error decreases with increasing reliability of the report. Here are the numbers:

Excellent reliability (213 reports): 71 unknowns (33.3 %).
Good reliability (757 reports): 188 unknowns (24.8 %).
Doubtful reliability (794 reports): 103 unknowns (13.0 %).
Poor reliability (435 reports): 72 unknowns (16.6 %).
Overall (2199 reports): 434 unknowns (19.7 %).

I’ll leave it at that, at least until more data on the Nimitz case or other interesting cases becomes available.

Thanks for the interesting discussions!

 

[Mick West]

One would expect that the probability of identifying the cause of the reported observational error would increase with the reliability of the report. After all, a more reliable report contains more reliable information, making a positive identification of the cause of the observational error more likely.

The statistics show exactly the opposite: The percentage of ‘unknowns’ increases with the reliability of the report, which means that the probability of identifying the cause of the reported alleged observational error decreases with increasing reliability of the report. Here are the numbers:

That's exactly what I'd expect. When a reliable observer observes something they can't identify, then it's less likely that someone else will be able to identify it.

This is getting off-topic, but the excessive deference to the skill of the observer is a fundamental problem in UFOology. Most of the time they make better observers, but there's still a point at which they make mistakes. That smaller sample of seemingly high quality observations must contain at least some observations that were in error. Without a broader set of statistics we can't tell if there's any significance to a set of observations that has simply bubbled to the top.

It's like if you canvassed all the doctors in the world you could probably find a good collection of accounts of divine miracles with a similar statistical breakdown.

 

[deirdre]

Most ‘unknowns’ were classified as such because ‘they were reported to have performed maneuvers that could not be ascribed to any known objects’.

you're going to have to do better than this on Metabunk. Don't tell people to google sources, provide them. I've attached the PDF here below.

Where are you seeing the data that shows "Most unknowns were classified such because [they were reported to have performed maneuvers that could not be ascribed to any known objects]?

 

[Kaen]

I'm not telling anyone to do anything.

But here you go, it's on page 77 of the report (page 86 of the pdf):

 

[marrowmonkey]

However, if ET visits really happen, but they are rare and the ET’s tend to evade contact using their superior technology, we may have to wait forever for an ‘indisputable ET-case’.

There is no way to disprove that there are ET visitors here under the assumption they have technology 'indistinguishable from magic'. If such beings are here and don't want to be seen, then we are not going to see them. Same as with 'Deities', you can always say they use their powers to only be seen/found when it pleases them, and that they 'work in mysterious ways'. You could say this about anything you can imagine with sufficiently advanced powers (e.g. the flying spaghetti monster). But if they have been here they haven't left any convincing evidence behind... just like the flying spaghetti monster.

 

[deirdre]

I'm not telling anyone to do anything.

You need to source information you are giving, as per Posting Guidelines.

But thank you for the link and page, it is helpful. the paragraph below yours says:

bold text by me for emphasis

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.

Content from External Source

and the radar sightings are basically dismissed as well*

Reports of sightings by radar usually were of high-speed objects,
some at extremely high altitudes. Some were identified as UNKNOWNS
because there was no object to be seen visually at the point indicated by the
radar seto It cannot be said with any assurance what these radar sightings

mean, but the most logical explanation is that they are ground targets reflected
by an atmospheric temperature inversion layer. The validity of this
statement cannot be established. It is felt that radar sightings in this study
are of no significance whatsoever unless a visual sighting of the object also
is made. ,

Taken in conjunction with the Chi Square Tests discussed earlier,
the results of the re-evaluation of reports identified as UNKNOWN
SIGHTINGS would seem to indicate that the majority of them could easily
have been familiar objects. However, the resolution of this question with
any degree of certainty appears to be impossible.

Thus, out of the 434 OBJECT SIGHTINGS that were identified as
UNKNOWNS by the data reduction process, there were only 12 that were
described with sufficient detail that they could be used in an attempt to
derive a model of a "flying saucer".

Content from External Source

and the page before describes "UNKOWNS" here as

pg76 (85 in pdf)

it was decided to put any of the UNKNOWNS which might be known phenomenon into a "possible KNOWN" category to denote the slightly lower confidence level which could be ascribed to these new evaluations. The UNKNOWNS with sufficiently detailed description would be called "good UNKNOWNS", while the remainder would simply be called UNKNOWNS.

186 object sightings in groups 1,2,3,6 and 7.

Content from External Source

*although surely, I'm guessing, there would be included reports of our military vehicles being tested (like that triangular shaped stealth plane) and they would be listed as "unknown" due to classified stuff. Ergo, it is hard to tell when the gov 'dismisses' stuff if they are just doing so because of classified technology they don't want to admit to.

 

[Landru]

I'm not telling anyone to do anything.

But here you go, it's on page 77 of the report (page 86 of the pdf):

Let's add the next paragraph.

This is a very important point. To put it differently, if these
UNKNOWNS, which represent all but about 40 of the UNKNOWN SIGHTINGS,
were reported to have performed maneuvers which could be ascribed to
known phenomena, they would probably have been identified as KNOWNS.
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.

Content from External Source

It provides some context.

 

[Gary McH-P]

UFO - Unidentified flying object. Unidentified flying bird. Unidentifield flying balloon. Unidentified flying 'anything'.

"The last good statistical analysis was done in 1955".

A time in history where technology was analogue and even more emphasis on reporting was visual, witness accounts. Good solid people, but reporting on what they have seen.

 

[Keith Beachy]

... Of course there is something in this story that opens up the possibility of extraterrestrial visitation. It is the reported 'impossible' maneuverability - often without any visible means of propulsion - that is a recurring pattern in almost all UFO reports. It has been since the late 1940’s. This case is just another example in that same pattern.
...

I see no valid/solid evidence of an 'impossible' maneuver. Is there a Radar/instrument tape. Was the data interpreted as the 'impossible' maneuver backed with solid continuous returns. What was the sweep of the Radar. Going from zero to MACH 6 or 10 is amazing, but is not hard for a false Radar return, or misinterpretation and imagination to do. Why is the possibility of ET doing it remote, because of physics. The impossible maneuver to me is more like magic. No matter what level of theoretical physics is discussed, objects, real objects in an atmosphere would behave like real matter, not magical space vehicles like the Enterprise, rising out of the ocean in a movie.

The KC-135 crew 'copilot' seeing Mars, reported "traffic twelve o'clock". I said it looks like a star or planet. I asked Magellan if it was Mars (we had navs back in the 'old days', 86-94, we were shooting celestial navigation, the nav has star charts, he can precisely tells where each star is that is visible), he said no (he was being bad, he lied, he was busy doing celecial, a busy task). The 'copilot' keep watching Mars the rest of the night, until we turned back to Beale, and Mars was behind us. Is Mars ET? A UFO? For the copilot it was an aircraft.

The key comes from the data, and when data reported technical merit is measured in a 'matter of seconds', we have a problem, no real data. The reports brag about the tracking abilities of the systems, and it boils down to a 'matter of seconds'. I was looking for data, found hearsay. Have heard claims of impossible maneuvers before, and when checking the continuous data when available (which is missing in this case), the maneuver was typical of a beginning pilot with poor skills. In this case we have an impossible maneuver for earth vehicles, and no continuous data to support the claim.

It would be neat to see what alloy, what vehicle can do Mach 13 to 50 feet and stop, when the SR-71 took a few western states to turn going MACH 3.

I loved scaring the Navigator when we experienced St Elmo's fire on our windows flying through cirrus clouds, and have heard stories and wonder how scared passengers were when ball lighting rolled down the aisle of an aircraft. Never seen ball lightning, have seen St Elmo's fire, and the best was like special effects, like fire rising off the nose and bending over the cockpit, like sparking electric fountain of flame. The flir footage looks like a bug on the pod.

 

[Kaen]

Yes, there is no indisputable evidence and the writers of Special Report No 14 are skeptical, too. I know all that.

Back on topic: I just wanted to point out that the reported ‘impossible’ maneuverability of the Nimitz ‘tic-tac’ fits into a pattern that has been observed since the 1940’s. This pattern of ‘impossible’ maneuverability is the main reason why the possibility of technology that is still beyond the reach of humanity can be contemplated.

I know the opinions of the writers of Special Report No 14, but note how they contradict themselves in the Conclusions on page 94 of the report (page 103 of the pdf) (emphasis is mine):

Scientifically evaluated and arranged, the data as a whole did not show any marked patterns or trends. The inaccuracies inherent in this type of data, in addition to the incompleteness of a large proportion of the reports, may have obscured any patterns or trends that otherwise would have been evident. This absence of indicative relationships necessitated an exhaustive study of selected facets of the data in order to draw any valid conclusions.

A critical examination of the distributions of the important characteristics of sightings, plus an intensive study of the sightings evaluated as UNKNOWN, led to the conclusion that a combination of factors, principally the reported manoeuvres of the objects and the unavailability of supplemental data such as aircraft flight plans or balloon-launching records, resulted in the failure to identify as KNOWNS most of the reports of objects classified as UNKNOWNS.

Content from External Source

In other words, the reported maneuvers - that did not fit any ‘known’ category - were a principal characteristic of the ‘unknowns’, yet the investigators could not find any marked patterns or trends in their data. This is a direct contradiction, purely based on their opinion that most of these reported maneuvers probably did not really happen but were caused by observation errors.

That is why I made the remark ‘I guess we’re still in the same situation as in 1954’ in one of my earlier posts. These people from the 50’s already formulated the opinion that is still used by skeptics today (using one of the first IBM digital systems by the way, this was the beginning of the digital age Gary .

An opinion that is debated, by the way:


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoc044pWrf0

Apart from the reported maneuvers, most ‘unknowns’ did not give much details about the appearance of the UFO because of darkness and/or distance.
So what they did next is try to filter out unknowns that contained ‘detailed information’ about the appearance of the observed object, but did not necessarily contain references to extreme maneuvers. These were called ‘good unknowns’ and there were only 12 of them. A consistent model of a UFO did not emerge from these 12 cases. If it had, this report would be world famous by now, so pointing out the inconclusiveness of the data and the absence of indisputable evidence is not really necessary

 

[deirdre]

Back on topic: I just wanted to point out that the reported ‘impossible’ maneuverability of the Nimitz ‘tic-tac’ fits into a pattern that has been observed since the 1940’s.

I agree. the pattern of.. when a person sees a blurry bird moving like they expect a bird to move, they don't file a UFO report, but when people see a blurry bird blown into erratic flight/movement by a strong wind they file a UFO report.

Not trying to blow your high of wanting to believe... just saying (add 5/31: I don't think the pattern means what you seem to think it means)

 

[Mick West]

I agree. the pattern of.. when a person sees a blurry bird moving like they expect a bird to move, they don't file a UFO report, but when people see a blurry bird blown into erratic flight/movement by a strong wind they file a UFO report.

Yeah, there's something of an illusion of frequency here. What were are seeing are rare events, but because the normal events are boring we don't hear about them. Take 10,000 banal things and one of them is going to be a lucky one that looks odd. Take a million, and one of them will be a one-in-a-million improbability.

There's seven billion people in the world. That means that every every few months someone is going to witness a one-in-a-trillion improbability.

Sometimes things just line up right. It's inevitable.

 

[marrowmonkey]

Apart from the reported maneuvers, most ‘unknowns’ did not give much details about the appearance of the UFO because of darkness and/or distance.

As expected, since people are more likely to make observational errors when something is far away and in the dark.

 

[Kaen]

Not trying to blow your high of wanting to believe... just saying.

I didn’t expect such demeaning and stigmatizing remarks here, least of all from a moderator.
Ever heard of an attribution error? Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error

 

[Kaen]

Yes, I would expect most people to assume a type I error, not a type II error (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_I_and_type_II_errors).

Only time will tell which one it really is.

 

[deirdre]

I didn’t expect such demeaning and stigmatizing remarks here, least of all from a moderator.

There isn't anything demeaning about wanting to believe. If you feel a member is being impolite, hit the report button.

add: I did edit my post, as my style of communication may have been unclear as written.

 

[Keith Beachy]

...
In other words, the reported maneuvers - that did not fit any ‘known’ category - were a principal characteristic of the ‘unknowns’, yet the investigators could not find any marked patterns or trends in their data. This is a direct contradiction, purely based on their opinion that most of these reported maneuvers probably did not really happen but were caused by observation errors.

That is why I made the remark ‘I guess we’re still in the same situation as in 1954’ in one of my earlier posts. These people from the 50’s already formulated the opinion that is still used by skeptics today (using one of the first IBM digital systems by the way, this was the beginning of the digital age Gary .
...

It is not an opinion that there is no evidence for out of this world maneuvers by something, it is a fact. As for skeptics, the biggest skeptics are those who believe in UFOs and conspiracies. Ignoring the 'official story', ignoring absence of evidence, and believing the hearsay and opinions of those with the story.

I don't have an opinion it can't be a UFO. I don't see valid evidence and data to support the story about a vehicle which appears to drop from 50,000 feet to 50 feet in a matter of seconds (MACH13 to MACH 6, and it hovers). It is a fact, not opinion, there is a lack of evidence to support proof of a vehicle capable of out of this world maneuvers. We agree, "Yes, there is no indisputable evidence ".

Proof is required to claim it is out of this world. Evidence, not opinion. It is interesting to study what people really saw or imagined.

 

[Kaen]

It seems I did not clearly convey my message, Keith.

It’s simply a matter of logic:

One cannot say in one sentence that ‘the data as a whole did not show any marked patterns or trends’ and in another sentence that ‘principally the reported manoeuvres of the objects’ resulted in the failure to put 25% of the good to excellent reports in one of the ‘known’ categories.

The latter is definitely a pattern.

Of course one can push all these observations aside with an ‘oh well, they are probably just all observational errors’ – that’s what the writers of the report offer as an explanation for this pattern. This is an opinion, not an established fact.

Even today there are scientists who studied these and later cases and who have a different opinion. They basically say ‘not so fast, you may be throwing the baby out with the bathwater’.

Michio Kaku is today’s most prominent example.

I think we agree on: There is no indisputable evidence, which basically means there is no proof.
But that doesn’t mean there is no evidence whatsoever.

 

[marrowmonkey]

Of course one can push all these observations aside with an ‘oh well, they are probably just all observational errors’ – that’s what the writers of the report offer as an explanation for this pattern. This is an opinion, not an established fact.

Even today there are scientists who studied these and later cases and who have a different opinion. They basically say ‘not so fast, you may be throwing the baby out with the bathwater’.

If we did, why would we bother sitting here and examine the evidence?

I think we agree on: There is no indisputable evidence, which basically means there is no proof.
But that doesn’t mean there is no evidence whatsoever.

I agree with both propositions. The problem is, there isn't more evidence for UFOs than there is for the abominable snowman, or fairies, or ghosts, or trolls, or mermaids, or angels, or that Elvis is alive. Chasing UFOs is therefore not much different than ghost hunting. Except as entertainment there is no reason to spend lots of resources on investigating it when we could spend the same resources trying to find a cure for cancer, i.e. there are better things to do!

 

[Clouds Givemethewillies]

If we did, why would we bother sitting here and examine the evidence?


I agree with both propositions. The problem is, there isn't more evidence for UFOs than there is for the abominable snowman, or fairies, or ghosts, or trolls, or mermaids, or angels, or that Elvis is alive. Chasing UFOs is therefore not much different than ghost hunting. Except as entertainment there is no reason to spend lots of resources on investigating it when we could spend the same resources trying to find a cure for cancer, i.e. there are better things to do!

The idea of UFO chasers and their resources curing cancer instead is a bit of a stretch. I could suggest other things to do..

 

[Whitebeard]

Even today there are scientists who studied these and later cases and who have a different opinion.

Names, links and quotes please.

 

[marrowmonkey]

The idea of UFO chasers and their resources curing cancer instead is a bit of a stretch. I could suggest other things to do..

Curing cancer is what I believed to be a uncontroversial example of something worthwhile (trying to avoid the off topic subject of what is worthwhile and not), there might be better ones. I was mainly thinking of government spending, research grants, and so on, but you could make the same argument on an individual level. Of course, the governments of the world are arguably spending money on things far less worthwhile than UFO chasing as well sadly.

 

[deirdre]

I think we agree on: There is no indisputable evidence, which basically means there is no proof.
But that doesn’t mean there is no evidence whatsoever.

There is no indisputable evidence. But this is getting all off topic. the thread topic is the Nimitz Tic Tac UFO. Fravor seeing something he, himself, couldn't ID at the time is not evidence of ET UFOs.

 

[Mick West]

This thread is drifting too far off topic into essentially semantic and epistemological discussion. Please feel free to continue via PM (not with me) (or in the thread @deirdre just created) .

The topic of this thread is ""2004 USS Nimitz Tic Tac UFO FLIR footage", please stick to that.

Objections via PM.

 

[deirdre]

Moderation Note: deirdre

Off topic "possibility of extraterrestrial life" discussion moved to https://www.metabunk.org/possibility-of-extraterrestrials.t9763/

 

[Robert Mcintyre]

How can it be a missile or a seagull when the pilots have been sent to its location by their radar operators, radar operators declared “merge plot”, pilots observed object, object broke contact and radar observers informed pilots it was at their own rendezvous several miles away?

 

[Mick West]

How can it be a missile or a seagull when the pilots have been sent to its location by their radar operators, radar operators declared “merge plot”, pilots observed object, object broke contact and radar observers informed pilots it was at their own rendezvous several miles away?

By the different observations being different events, objects, and radar glitches. Given the near teleportation needed to all be one object, it seems more likely it was different things.
In this thread though we are looking at this video, as it's the only actual hard data we have. Everything else is verbal accounts.

 

[Robert Sheaffer]

New information: the time and place of the Tic Tac UFO incident(s) match surprisingly well with NASA's test of the Hypersonic aircraft X-43A, the fastest aircraft that has ever flown (Mach 10).

Michael Huntington posted something concerning the Tic Tac video to the Black Vault that was almost completely overlooked but could turn out to be extremely important: Launched on November 16, 2004 off the coast of San Diego, "X-43A Becomes First Aircraft to Reach Mach 10, 3rd Test Flight 2004 NASA, Hypersonic Scram." This YouTube video, amazingly, has had only 29 views!

Content from External Source

Imagine seeing a thing like that on your FLIR!

https://badufos.blogspot.com/2018/06/did-nasa-hypersonic-x-43a-play-role-in.html

 

[deirdre]

the time and place of the Tic Tac UFO incident(s) match surprisingly well

that doesn't look anything like the FLIR footage. and Fravor didn't see anything on his radar.

 

[marrowmonkey]

[...] with NASA's test of the Hypersonic aircraft X-43A

Besides, the X-43A would have flown much higher up and it has no method of hovering or manoeuvring at lower altitudes and speeds. It has to be carried into the air by a B-52 and then brought to final speed and altitude strapped to a rocket:

NASA flew a third version of the X-43A on November 16, 2004. The modified Pegasus rocket which was launched from a B-52 mother ship at an altitude of 43,000 ft (13,000 m). The X-43A set a new speed record of Mach 9.6 at about 110,000 feet (33,500 m) altitude, and further testing the ability of the vehicle to withstand the heat loads involved.

Content from External Source

Source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_X-43

(Maybe could explain why the USS Princeton had seen high altitude radar echos though?)

 

[Robert Sheaffer]

that doesn't look anything like the FLIR footage. and Fravor didn't see anything on his radar.

Here is another image from later in the mission. Looks more like the Tic Tac. We still have not seen the entire video of the mission.