Dr Phil Metzger's Take on the Nimitz Incident (Post UAP Hearing)

DavidB66

Senior Member.
This may not be the best thread for what follows, but it does arise from discussions of the recent House committee hearing.

Mick West and Art Levine have both retweeted a comment on Twitter (X?) by a Dr Phil Metzger, who describes himself as a planetary scientist who has previously worked on radar analysis at NASA. His Twitter account is 'verified', which means very little, but a Florida Space Institute webpage does list a Dr Philip Metzger who meets the description in the Twitter account, so I will assume it is genuine.

Metzger's initial comment was that:

Lots of people are telling me that the radar observations make the aviator TicTac observations more likely an advanced vehicle, but tbh the radar observations are my biggest cause for doubt. (I used to be a radar/avionics engineer for NASA for many years chasing such anomalies.)

Amazingly, this provoked some disagreement! When not merely personal insults, the objections mostly boiled down to 'you're not an expert on Navy radars' and 'trust the highly trained pilots'. But in response to one comment Metzger gave one of the best skeptical summaries of the evidence as a whole that I have seen:

Thank you for sharing this. Apologies for the long reply. I just studied this and read it entirely. I have read some other material on these events, and this confirms what I had seen previously. I don’t see anything compelling about an advanced aerial vehicle in this. It seems like

(1) random radar anomalies,

(2) Hawkeye saw nothing except maybe locked into waves at a much lower altitude than the Princeton reported (so likely unrelated).

(3) The first pilot only saw the water disturbance, nothing else.

(4) The next two aircraft confirmed the water disturbance but also saw an airborne object. The two crew members that descended for a closer look had a significant disagreement over what they saw. One thought it was stationary. The other thought it was flying at several hundred knots. This disagreement illustrates my point about the aviators possibly misjudging the distance. As they turned toward it, it seemed to move then they lost sight. This can be a symptom of misjudging its distance so doesn’t seem that exciting.

(5) The Princeton then saw a radar object about 40-60 km away, possibly unrelated though the personnel made the leap to believing it was connected. This willingness to connect unrelated radar behaviors far away from each other may be the result of the excitement over all the events, causing them to be inflated [sic: does he mean 'conflated'?] unintentionally.

(6) A sub crew member who was retired at the time the report was written (like others mentioned; btw this indicates the report was written long after the events so memory is less reliable; also it cites Wikipedia for naval capabilities so I wonder who wrote it — certainly not the military) — this retired submariner says there were no sonar contacts, but the UAV observations spanned an area of 60 km and sonar range is 20-30 km so he was probably speaking in broad, non-precise terms.

(7) I should have included first, the whole thing started because of radar anomalies that one of the navy personnel said could have been upper altitude ice crystals with the radar having trouble tracking such a weak target so it seemed to dive faster than possible toward the ocean repeatedly. This is just a radar anomaly. They sent planes to look at it and they happened to see an unrelated water disturbance (a Chinese sub spying on the naval training, or a classified U.S. sub testing a capability the US won’t talk about?) and possibly a balloon over the sub (?), in any case not at all the same thing the Princeton’s radar saw. The Hawkeye had a lock at water level, much lower than what the Princeton saw, so maybe it was actually seeing the sub.

(8) The final aircraft went out hours later and at a different location and received input from an external radar that there was an object, but it was too weak for onboard radar to acquire. The onboard FLIR saw it, and it was a stationary object, probably a balloon. Maybe unrelated to the first balloon or maybe the same one. He saw nothing unusual about it.

(Summary) The observations all disagree and don’t add up to anything interesting, IMO. I worked aviation radar for many years at NASA and it looks to me like this is all just normal radar behaviors that resulted in pilots being sent to investigate, and maybe they saw a balloon but the weird circumstances caused them to be misidentified. The report even says the intelligence officer was not interested (maybe he knew what it was but wasn’t allowed to tell) and another officer said there was an anti-drug activity (a balloon?) operating in the area so he wasn’t concerned.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This may not be the best thread for what follows, but it does arise from discussions of the recent House committee hearing.

Mick West and Art Levine have both retweeted a comment on Twitter (X?) by a Dr Phil Metzger, who describes himself as a planetary scientist who has previously worked on radar analysis at NASA. His Twitter account is 'verified', which means very little, but a Florida Space Institute webpage does list a Dr Philip Metzger who meets the description in the Twitter account, so I will assume it is genuine.

Metzger's initial comment was that:



Amazingly, this provoked some disagreement! When not merely personal insults, the objections mostly boiled down to 'you're not an expert on Navy radars' and 'trust the highly trained pilots'. But in response to one comment Metzger gave one of the best skeptical summaries of the evidence as a whole that I have seen:
I would love to know if he has read these forums because that sounds very like possible scenarios we have discussed possibilities across various threads here.

I seem to recall it being summarised in a thread but I can't find the exact post.
 
This may not be the best thread for what follows, but it does arise from discussions of the recent House committee hearing.

Mick West and Art Levine have both retweeted a comment on Twitter (X?) by a Dr Phil Metzger, who describes himself as a planetary scientist who has previously worked on radar analysis at NASA. His Twitter account is 'verified', which means very little, but a Florida Space Institute webpage does list a Dr Philip Metzger who meets the description in the Twitter account, so I will assume it is genuine.

Metzger's initial comment was that:



Amazingly, this provoked some disagreement! When not merely personal insults, the objections mostly boiled down to 'you're not an expert on Navy radars' and 'trust the highly trained pilots'. But in response to one comment Metzger gave one of the best skeptical summaries of the evidence as a whole that I have seen:
Counter goes

"If it was this simple, almost anyone should have been able to figure it out, let alone the Navy. As they haven't, clearly there must be more to it than that."

(Not my view, just incredibly hard to disprove).
 
I would love to know if he has read these forums because that sounds very like possible scenarios we have discussed possibilities across various threads here.
Possibly, but he seems to think the object in the Flir1 video is probably a balloon (his point (8) appears to refer to whatever is shown in Flir1), which I don't think is a popular view here. I can't recall if it has even been discussed.
 
It shows up as a glare in the IR portions of FLIR1 so probably not a balloon would be my assessment.

I guess it would be handy if he could be directed here, it would be very interesting to see what he thinks.
 
It shows up as a glare in the IR portions of FLIR1 so probably not a balloon would be my assessment.
I agree, but the IR signature would depend to some extent on the background. If the object has a background of empty sky, essentially at the temperature of space, while the object has the temperature of the ambient air, it might still appear as 'hot'.

There is also the question of motion. A balloon would be drifting with the wind, at a low speed relative to the ground. While no-one here thinks it shoots off at supersonic speed towards the end of the video, where the zoom factor changes and the Flir system loses lock, is it compatible with merely wind speed? I don't recall if anyone has put an estimate on it.
 
I agree, but the IR signature would depend to some extent on the background. If the object has a background of empty sky, essentially at the temperature of space, while the object has the temperature of the ambient air, it might still appear as 'hot'.

There is also the question of motion. A balloon would be drifting with the wind, at a low speed relative to the ground. While no-one here thinks it shoots off at supersonic speed towards the end of the video, where the zoom factor changes and the Flir system loses lock, is it compatible with merely wind speed? I don't recall if anyone has put an estimate on it.
It's not just hot on IR it's glaring, this indicates it's a strong emitter of IR, like a jet engine.

I think some work was done on speed by looking at angle changes on the tracking of the camera, but they only provide a range of speeds based on distance.

You should probably read the original flir1 thread and watch Mick's videos again this stuff is likely discussed there in greater detail, and if not we can resurrect it to discuss.
 
But in response to one comment Metzger gave one of the best skeptical summaries of the evidence as a whole that I have seen:

Except the FLIR video was not taken 'hours later' and Chad Underwood did get a radar lock on the object ( according to what he's said on Weaponized recently ).
 
Except the FLIR video was not taken 'hours later'
Underwood and Fravor passed each other on the deck of the Nimitz, so Fravor had enough time to land and Underwood had enough time to make his plane ready and take off. This suggests a significant period of time between the two events.

and Chad Underwood did get a radar lock on the object
Perhaps. Or maybe he is misremembering the FLIR lock, which is shown onscreen. This lock doesn't seem to last very long before they lose it altogether. This all happened nearly twenty years ago now, and witnesses are likely to start 'remembering' things that may or may not be accurate. Happens all the time.
 
Counter goes

"If it was this simple, almost anyone should have been able to figure it out, let alone the Navy. As they haven't, clearly there must be more to it than that."

(Not my view, just incredibly hard to disprove).
It's designed to be impossible to disprove. That's how you know it's a conspiracy theory:
• You can't figure it out? Clearly, it's alien tech!
• You can figure it out? Well, the Navy couldn't, so you're being deceived by alien tech!

That's why metabunk doesn't address conspiracy theories; we discuss claims of evidence.
 
Last edited:
Metzger gave one of the best skeptical summaries of the evidence as a whole that I have seen:
(4) The next two aircraft confirmed the water disturbance but also saw an airborne object. The two crew members that descended for a closer look had a significant disagreement over what they saw. One thought it was stationary. The other thought it was flying at several hundred knots. This disagreement illustrates my point about the aviators possibly misjudging the distance. As they turned toward it, it seemed to move then they lost sight. This can be a symptom of misjudging its distance so doesn’t seem that exciting.
Content from External Source
Did Dietrich say it was stationary? Providing high cover, she was better placed to judge than Fravor.

Except the FLIR video was not taken 'hours later' and Chad Underwood did get a radar lock on the object ( according to what he's said on Weaponized recently ).
And Fravor didn't, so, obviously they saw different objects?
Balloons with radar reflectors inside exist.
 
But in response to one comment Metzger gave one of the best skeptical summaries of the evidence as a whole that I have seen:
Thanks for sharing it here. There's an excellent JFQ article that discusses the broader implications for military joint force operations based on the Nimitz incident, which gives an interpretation very much in line with Dr Metzger's. It's not just the "NASA nerd", people interested in the military operational side also reach similar conclusions.

Article:
The military’s Aegis SPY-1 radar system can reportedly track an object as small as a golf ball, and the Aegis computer system can be programmed to ignore objects matching certain profiles. Thus, while the Princeton’s computers could easily detect small meteors, they should have filtered out astronomical phenomena such as the Taurids. However, despite its sophistication, neither the radar system nor its operators can be described as infallible. Aegis is something akin to Frankenstein’s monster, built as it is from many different constituent systems, including the SPY-1 radar itself, weapons control systems, navigation equipment, and various other integrated components. This introduces multiple potential failure points in the system’s hardware and software. As a result, Aegis has a well-documented history—however rare—of misidentifying or failing to identify aircraft operating in the vicinity of American warships. Assuming Aegis operated flawlessly, the system’s human operators would still represent its most common points of failure.

Consider the July 3, 1988, tragedy involving the USS Vincennes. While pursuing and firing on multiple Iranian gunboats in the Strait of Hormuz, the crew of the Vincennes detected a civilian airliner, Iran Air Flight 655, shortly after it took off from the airport in Bandar Abbas. Like the IFF system failure that resulted in the Black Hawk shootdown incident 6 years later, the plane’s IFF computer was not working properly. Meanwhile, the ship’s brand-new Aegis SPY-1 radar system indicated that the plane was ascending in a commercial air traffic lane. Nevertheless, the crew of the Vincennes mistook the plane for a diving Iranian F-14 Tomcat and shot it down, killing all 290 people onboard. Human communications failures, misinterpretation of the Aegis data, and the IFF failure combined with the crew’s resulting unease to cause the disaster.

Returning to the Princeton, the ship’s November 2004 mission likely served as a shakedown cruise for the very same—albeit updated—equipment. Like the Vincennes, the Aegis systems that Day was working with had only recently been installed. It is probable that the radar system’s programming (or the operators’ training) was not fully prepared for the Taurids. Even if it was working properly, Day clearly ignored the [ice crystals] explanation proffered by his meteorologist when he dispatched the Black Aces to investigate the anomalous radar returns. Fortunately, the stakes in the Pacific were nowhere near so consequential as they were for the Vincennes. Nevertheless, this is troubling because some details associated with the Nimitz incident may indicate that Fravor narrowly avoided an accidental collision with the UAP he and Dietrich were dispatched to assess.

Consider Dietrich’s public comments: she suggests that the water below the Tic Tac–shaped UFO was churning violently, as if a submarine had just submerged. This is an important detail; it implies that the two pilots entered a weapons test site to investigate the Princeton’s UAPs. Indeed, according to the government’s unclassified executive summary from a 2009 report documenting the Nimitz incident, the USS Louisville, the Los Angeles–class submarine attached to the Nimitz battlegroup, was conducting weapons tests in the area. While the executive summary also states that no pilots would be vectored into a live-fire test site coordinated with the battlegroup, it acknowledges—just one sentence earlier—that Fravor and Dietrich were in fact directed into the area of the Louisville’s weapon test. Add to this the facts that the Tic Tac was reportedly a low-visibility aircraft capable of erratic, unpredictable high-G maneuvers, including aggressively gaining altitude, as well as the fact that it flew directly at Fravor’s plane before disappearing, and the suggestion that Fravor or Dietrich (like Mantell before them) placed their lives in danger chasing the Princeton’s UAPs becomes quite plausible.

Admittedly, this interpretation relies on the assumption that the Tic Tac was part of the Louisville’s weapons test. Yet even if that assumption is incorrect and the pilots instead encountered an interagency program, such as NASA’s unmanned X-43, or an asset belonging to one of the Navy’s other partners, the evidence points to the same important lessons illuminated by the Mantell, Vincennes, and Black Hawk shootdown incidents. That is, misidentification is a common problem that could lead to expensive or fatal accidents, like the loss of an aircraft or a pilot, and consistent and clear communication is required to prevent such accidents while operating jointly in a complex environment.
 
Sounds like a conspiracy to me.
Not really.

Actual conspiracies can be tried in court; there are claims that are amenable to being decided by evidence.

A conspiracy theory is impossible to disprove because it just morphs to integrate any evidence it encouters; its purpose is not the gathering of knowledge, but the defence of a belief.

Compare the above example:
• "you can't figure this out, must be a UFO"
• well, here's what we figured out, based on the evidence
• "that can't be right, otherwise the Navy would have figured it out"
The evidence does not change the end result—it can't, because it's a CT.
 
Back
Top