Explained: The Navy UFO Videos

[Mauro]

Apropos this conversation, this document might be of interest:

https://www.3af.fr/global/gene/link.php?doc_id=4375&fg=1

It's a French Sigma 2 publication. One of the "conclusions" is:
Do known Laws explain everything? It seems that some cases are beyond known science
and may prompt research into extensions of known laws or lead to other discoveries,
confirming alternative theories, now qualified as speculative.

There's no doubt about this conclusion, it's even a truism, wikipedia lists a lot of 'unsolved problems in physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics etc. etc' (those page are well worth a read if you're interested).
But this does not mean that some discovery will ever allow us to overcome the basic physical limitations we know exist (indeed, future discoveries could just as well have the opposite effect and introduce new limitations to what we can possibly do). There's a long thread somewhere here on Metabunk where this has been discussed, 'UFO and the laws of physics' iirc.

 

[banditsat12oclock]

Thanks. I think the page you're referring to is here. It's humbling to look at how much we know and how little.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics

 

[DavidB66]

Just a quick heads-up for people interested in the FLIR1, Gofast, and Gimbal videos; the Nimitz TicTac incident; and Kevin Day's radar observations, among other things.

There is a new video from 5x5 News (Mike Turber) here:


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3LBeb4dl3k


It's a long video (2 hours 12 mins), and I listened to most of it in the background while doing other things, but I noted the following points:

- numerous high-altitude weather balloons were released by US military and/or NASA in the relevant period and location. Balloons of this type had not usually been detectable by radar in the past, but the new system being used by Kevin Day was sensitive enough to detect them, and resulted in surprising observations. In some cases two balloons were confused as one, giving a false impression of unfeasible movement.

- Turber's analysis of Gimbal is much in line with Mick West's, and he claims, around 1h:11min, that Atflir experts agreed. Very useful if true.

- he is sure that the Gofast object was a balloon and thinks he knows the type

- he claims that two F18s operated by or on behalf of NASA were in the relevant area, and that these were responsible for the FLIR1 and/or Gimbal observations. (The explanation was a bit complicated and I think he may also have suggested the 'partner' to Chad Underwood's plane as a candidate.) There is some discussion about transponders, radar spoofing and/or blocking, and whether or not the pilots could fail to detect another US military plane.

- he is clear that the visual observation of the TicTac by Fravor and Dietrich had nothing to do with the FLIR1 video. He has a hypothesis about testing of balloons released from a submarine but admits this is speculative.

Apologies if any of the above is confused or wrong.

This is all very interesting and important if true, because Turber claims it is based on many contacts he has had with military and weapons system experts, including Raytheon. Since the sources are confidential they are unverifiable. However, some of the information (such as records of balloon releases) comes from replies to FOIA requests. He promises several further videos. I can't assess the credibility of the claims in so far as they depend on unknown sources. An obvious objection will be that if they are true, the explanations would have been known to the UAPTF, yet they claim that all but one of the cases investigated were unresolved. There is of course the exception of the 'large deflating balloon', and it would be amusing if this turned out to be the TicTac.

 

[JarJar]

- numerous high-altitude weather balloons were released by US military and/or NASA in the relevant period and location. Balloons of this type had not usually been detectable by radar in the past, but the new system being used by Kevin Day was sensitive enough to detect them, and resulted in surprising observations. In some cases two balloons were confused as one, giving a false impression of unfeasible movement.

From the National Weather Service:
https://www.weather.gov/bmx/kidscorner_weatherballoons

More than 900 locations globally release weather balloons twice per day...that we know of. Seems the most likely candidate to me.

 

[Mick West]

However, some of the information (such as records of balloon releases) comes from replies to FOIA requests.

Has he posted any of this information? He told me once he had some big FOIA release, but it turned out they had just sent him the book "NASA's The X-43A Flight Research Program: Lessons Learned on the Road to Mach 10: Reaching for Hypersonic Flight "

Which can be downloaded from:
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20070021686/downloads/20070021686.pdf

 

[DavidB66]

Has he posted any of this information?

In the video he keeps saying there will be more details later. I don't recall that any new documents were shown in the video itself, but I was doing other things while listening and only looked at the screen when he seemed to be getting into detail on the 3 Navy videos. I would like to think it is genuine, but wouldn't bank on it.

 

[Woolery]

Just a quick heads-up for people interested in the FLIR1, Gofast, and Gimbal videos; the Nimitz TicTac incident; and Kevin Day's radar observations, among other things.

There is a new video from 5x5 News (Mike Turber) here:


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3LBeb4dl3k


It's a long video (2 hours 12 mins), and I listened to most of it in the background while doing other things, but I noted the following points:

- numerous high-altitude weather balloons were released by US military and/or NASA in the relevant period and location. Balloons of this type had not usually been detectable by radar in the past, but the new system being used by Kevin Day was sensitive enough to detect them, and resulted in surprising observations. In some cases two balloons were confused as one, giving a false impression of unfeasible movement.

- Turber's analysis of Gimbal is much in line with Mick West's, and he claims, around 1h:11min, that Atflir experts agreed. Very useful if true.

- he is sure that the Gofast object was a balloon and thinks he knows the type

- he claims that two F18s operated by or on behalf of NASA were in the relevant area, and that these were responsible for the FLIR1 and/or Gimbal observations. (The explanation was a bit complicated and I think he may also have suggested the 'partner' to Chad Underwood's plane as a candidate.) There is some discussion about transponders, radar spoofing and/or blocking, and whether or not the pilots could fail to detect another US military plane.

- he is clear that the visual observation of the TicTac by Fravor and Dietrich had nothing to do with the FLIR1 video. He has a hypothesis about testing of balloons released from a submarine but admits this is speculative.

Apologies if any of the above is confused or wrong.

This is all very interesting and important if true, because Turber claims it is based on many contacts he has had with military and weapons system experts, including Raytheon. Since the sources are confidential they are unverifiable. However, some of the information (such as records of balloon releases) comes from replies to FOIA requests. He promises several further videos. I can't assess the credibility of the claims in so far as they depend on unknown sources. An obvious objection will be that if they are true, the explanations would have been known to the UAPTF, yet they claim that all but one of the cases investigated were unresolved. There is of course the exception of the 'large deflating balloon', and it would be amusing if this turned out to be the TicTac.

I'm sure this has been covered here before, but Mike Turber claimed in 2019 on the conspiracy-theory-minded podcast "Hidden Truth with Jim Breslin" that he rode across the country at hypersonic speeds on a "Tic tac" and described its interior and operation at length. He later admitted he was lying and now claims he lied on air, multiple times, to conduct a 'social experiment':


Source: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ChR7G_UrUig


Anyone who lies knowingly and publicly for hours at a time and then claims later to be offering new truths about low-information events should, in my opinion, be heavily scrutinized. I'm a little surprised he is cited from time to time on metabunk as a credible source.

 

[taurusclover21]

Is there a "definitive" breakdown of which Navy personnel actually (claimed) to see the "tictac?"

 

[Mick West]

Is there a "definitive" breakdown of which Navy personnel actually (claimed) to see the "tictac?"

Try this:
https://somerandomstuff1.wordpress....ac-encounter-the-ultimate-guide-and-analysis/

 

[taurusclover21]

Try this:
https://somerandomstuff1.wordpress....ac-encounter-the-ultimate-guide-and-analysis/

Thank you.

 

[DavidB66]

Anyone who lies knowingly and publicly for hours at a time and then claims later to be offering new truths about low-information events should, in my opinion, be heavily scrutinized. I'm a little surprised he is cited from time to time on metabunk as a credible source.

I agree that Mike Turber's claims need to be scrutinised and backed up with evidence. Not much supporting data has yet been revealed. On Twitter on 8 September he (in his Twitter account as @5X5_NEWS) did show an extract from what looks like a genuine letter from NASA in response to an FOIA request. This at least supports the claim that he made such requests, but it doesn't actually reveal the data provided.

I'm not sure when Turber has been cited on Metabunk as a credible source. Searching the site for 'Turber' I only found two previous results. One was a comment from Turber himself in a 'flat earth' thread, and the other was a post by me drawing attention to a video which shows a large plastic object, probably a children's play pool, apparently being blown by the wind high into the air and moving erratically for about a minute. I thought this might be relevant to a number of 'UAP' cases. In my post I mentioned Turber as a courtesy, because I had discovered the video thanks to a post by him on Twitter. But he did not claim to be the original source, and I did not treat him as such.

In my more recent post (#203 above) I said

I can't assess the credibility of the claims in so far as they depend on unknown sources.

I haven't looked into Mike Turber's history in any depth. He seems to be excusing his admitted 'lies' on a previous occasion as a hoax to test people's credulity. Even if this is true, it is a dangerous tactic, which is liable to backfire (as it evidently has!) It is bound to cast doubt on any subsequent claims. But I wouldn't go so far as to rule out all 'hoax' tactics, which may occasionally have a legitimate purpose. A celebrated example is the Sokal Affair, where a physicist submitted an article containing deliberate nonsense to a journal of 'postmodern cultural studies', which duly published it. The implications of the Affair, and some similar cases, are discussed here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair

 

[taurusclover21]

Here we go again with another Chris Lehto "tic-tac" video:

FLIR1 Navy Video Analysis - Amazing video of the famous Tic Tac UAP

Source: https://youtu.be/TvU08pYyr2Q

 

[jarlrmai]

When the TTSA released the videos on the website they were accompanied by analysis

https://web.archive.org/web/2021060...tothestarsacademy.com/2004-nimitz-flir1-video

Do we know who wrote this? Did anyone claim it at the time or later?

 

[DavidB66]

Can anyone help me with a quick question: does anyone have an authoritative meaning for the abbreviation 'L + S'? From various previous posts I thought it was short for 'Lock and Slave', but I saw someone on Twitter interpreting it as 'Launch and Steer'. I was going to correct them, but I thought I had better check first, and I couldn't find a definitive source. At least one 'simulator' manual apparently does describe it as 'Launch and Steer', but that is not authoritative. 'Launch and steer' would be vaguely appropriate for guided munitions, but FLIR systems do have other uses.

 

[Fulcrum]

And a new one to expand upon the Nimitz motions

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1di0XIa9RQ

Hi Mick,
I'm a new member, I've followed your youtube for years and really appreciate your work.
I noticed whilst reading about the Chinese ballon incident on Wikipedia,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Chinese_balloon_incident

a reference under the "Additional assessments of the ballon" section on the wikipedia page, that it refers to the Washington Posts work with the classified files released on Discord:

U.S. intelligence had been aware of four other similar balloons, one of which had flown over a Nimitz carrier strike group in western Pacific, while another had crashed in the South China Sea. The documents did not date those incidents.

is it feasible this relates to the Fravor / Dietrich incident referenced in Flir and Gimbal videos?

It would be really helpful if the Navy did date those incidents at some point…

 

[Eburacum]

is it feasible this relates to the Fravor / Dietrich incident referenced in Flir and Gimbal videos?

Note that the Fravor / Dietrich incident is only related to the FLIR1 video, which occurred on November 14, 2004. The Gimbal clip was recorded in 2014/5, although the exact date eludes me.

 

[jackfrostvc]

What is the white dot that moves from the left top of the display to the centre top of the display in the Gimbal video?
I take it's some kind of system indicator

 

[taurusclover21]

What is the white dot that moves from the left top of the display to the centre top of the display in the Gimbal video?
I take it's some kind of system indicator

It indicates where the object is relative to the aircraft.

 

[logicbear]

There continue to be arguments online about what all the symbols in the Navy UFO videos mean exactly. There was a video narrated by F/A-18 pilot Vincent Aiello which served as an amazing resource to learn about all those symbols. It was taken down but luckily it got saved to the Web Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/2021101...E0&list=RDCMUCI_mZTC4UmH2ICN5MBbrDrQ&index=21
Since the video from the archive takes a very long time to load, I'm uploading it here:

He starts going over the Gimbal video from 1:22, then FLIR1 from 7:21.

Some people still didn't know that the "L+S" not being boxed means that during the video the pod was technically not slaved to the launch and steering (e.g radar) target so the pod was only tracking its target visually, whether or not the pod had been slaved to the L+S prior to the beginning of the video to acquire the target and whether or not the FLIR target still happened to be correlated with the radar target during the video. At 3:30 he says:

Here on the right we have slave options. You can slave the ATFLIR either to your launch and steering or L&S target or to the boresight of the aircraft. Now in this case we have neither since we are tracking a target.

For completeness, on the topic of whether or not the Gimbal object had also been tracked by the radar, here are Ryan Graves' comments on the matter, which don't really contradict the fact that the pod wasn't technically slaved to the L+S during the video, as they only attempt to explain how the target could in principle have been on radar as well in spite of that, even though there are no symbols in the video to confirm that this was indeed the case:

Source: https://twitter.com/uncertainvector/status/1395407175170809857

 

[jarlrmai]

In my mind it's a big point, one I've been making about the Gimbal video for a while now.

It's often claimed that Gimbal object is also on RADAR, well if it is why not slave the pod?

Also the Gimbal audio contains a seeming debate between WSO and pilot about if what they are seeing is the L+S, if it isn't and the lack of slave mode means it's possible then they could have a radar track that is different to the optically tracked gimbal object, hence the seeming oddness to the crew.

Why is the pod not slaved in both Go Fast and Gimbal? The Go Fast one is further made odd by the range that appears when the pod where does this range come from, RADAR if so why not slave the pod, maybe because you are messing around/training with the autotrack manual optical capture mode and not seriously trying to track Go Fast.

I'd love to do a Q/A with a non bias F/A 18 ATFLIR operator.

 

[yemista]

What's the rebuttal to Kevin Knuths paper, "Estimating Flight Characteristics of Anomalous Unidentified Aerial Vehicles". It appears his analysis is a bit different than what is being put forth here. I am not a scientist so I have trouble refuting either party but was curious to see what the community makes of professor Knuths analysis.

 

[Mendel]

What's the rebuttal to Kevin Knuths paper, "Estimating Flight Characteristics of Anomalous Unidentified Aerial Vehicles". It appears his analysis is a bit different than what is being put forth here. I am not a scientist so I have trouble refuting either party but was curious to see what the community makes of professor Knuths analysis.

The most promising way for you to go about this is to make a few more comments (e.g. in https://www.metabunk.org/threads/welcome-thread-new-members-post-here.1729/ ), and then create a new topic here in this forum. In your first post, you should
• link to the paper, and also
• quote the main points that you'd like to see our opinion on.
• Include the evidence that Knuth uses to support these points.
When you get replies, please ask to have them explained if they're not at your level.

Meanwhile, a quick forum search reveals that Knuth is not held in high regard here. For example:

At the recent SOL Foundation inaugural symposium, Kevin Knuth included the Aguadilla event in his talk regarding the Physics of UAPs, using it as an example of their transmedium capabilities and their affinity for water.

We think these were Chinese lanterns.

There's an obvious problem when someone calculates the "flight characteristics" of something when they don't even know what it is (or where it is), and they don't really have enough hard data to base the calculation on.

 

[jarlrmai]

What's the rebuttal to Kevin Knuths paper, "Estimating Flight Characteristics of Anomalous Unidentified Aerial Vehicles". It appears his analysis is a bit different than what is being put forth here. I am not a scientist so I have trouble refuting either party but was curious to see what the community makes of professor Knuths analysis.

Is this the Knuth paper where he takes the words of Kevin Day (and maybe some other cases?) describing what he remembers seeing on the new radar they were using and then does a lot of math on it?

The rebuttal is that Knuth does not have any data other then the recollection of Day, as in he does not have the actual raw data from the radar device.

So Day could be:

Mistaken about what the radar showed.
Misinterpreting what the radar was actually showing.
Misremembering/exaggerating what happened.
Lying about what the radar showed (maybe unlikely/unpalatable but a possibility)

Or the radar itself could have been malfunctioning in some way or glitching (Showing 2 different objects as the same object in different places etc.)

Anyone one of these scenarios could lead to the story emerging about an object descending at some extremely high velocity, one that is beyond any thing humans can do and also one that starts to be so high that the energies involved are extreme as well.

Knuth takes the radar story as verbatim and does some math and extrapolates from there with lots of speculation on how it might happen etc.

But in reality there's not any real data to base it on, if scientists using a machine get weird data the 1st thing they do is check the machine for glitches, but Knuth doesn't even have the data or the device to start with.

It's a little like if your toddler says they saw a dragon fly to the sun in a second and you based a paper on it and expected people to take it seriously, it might be fun to teach people about the laws of physics and speculate about impossible technology etc, but it doesn't make it real.

 

[Eburacum]

Note as well that none of the pilots who saw or filmed the alleged 'tic-tac' observed any object descending at high velocity.

 

[Ann K]

What's the rebuttal to Kevin Knuths paper, "Estimating Flight Characteristics of Anomalous Unidentified Aerial Vehicles". It appears his analysis is a bit different than what is being put forth here. I am not a scientist so I have trouble refuting either party but was curious to see what the community makes of professor Knuths analysis.

From the paper - my bolding:

The extreme estimated flight characteristics reveal that these observations are either fabricated or seriously in error, or that these craft exhibit technology far more advanced than any known craft on Earth. In many cases, the number and quality of witnesses, the variety of roles they played in the encounters, and the equipment used to track and record the craft favor the latter hypothesis that these are indeed technologically advanced craft.

https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/21/10/939

Knuth et al then do what we have seen before; they trust that people like pilots are incapable of making errors in their observations and estimations. But which is easier to believe, that all the known laws of physics have been overturned, or that an observer goofed when faced with something unexpected? It doesn't matter if his math is impeccable if his input data is questionable.

 

[RTM]

I saw the below article pop up on my Yahoo feed a few weeks ago, it reminded me of some of these cases in that one of the ideas was that there radar spoofing tech being tested.
This quote was interesting
Speaking at a Brookings Institution forum last week, Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Eric Smith said: The pod "can mimic, I'll be careful here, it can mimic things that are sent to it that it detects, turn it around and send it back."

Spoiler: Full Article

https://www.businessinsider.com/mq-...rine Corps has,," Marine Corps Commandant Gen.

 

[NorCal Dave]

What's the rebuttal to Kevin Knuths paper, "Estimating Flight Characteristics of Anomalous Unidentified Aerial Vehicles". It appears his analysis is a bit different than what is being put forth here. I am not a scientist so I have trouble refuting either party but was curious to see what the community makes of professor Knuths analysis.

Some of it gets discussed in the thread about the film A Tear in the Sky that follows Knuth and the UAPx guys as they search for whatever appeared in the Nimitz encounter and the FLIR video from some rooftops in SoCal.

His calculations are partly from witness statements and partly the 2004 FLIR video. User @Itsme claims to have pointed out to Knuth that the object is not moving as fast as it appears, rather the camera has lost lock and it's the camera that is moving as is pointed out upthread. If that plausible explanation is correct, there is no need to calculate the incredible speed of the object:

The "simple undergraduate level math" was applied on the ATFLIR video, but alas it contained an undergraduate level mistake...

When their paper was put online for peer review, I pointed out this undergraduate level mistake. Their only reply consisted of snarky remarks plus lots of smoke and mirrors. They published the paper with the errors left uncorrected.

My peer review remarks and their replies are still online: See comment 2 on this peer review site:
https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/201908.0233/v1

Post #69

The back and forth can be viewed using the link Itsme provided. Knuth basically dismissed Mick's analysis because Metabunk is just a website and not a legitimate scientific source.

Some of Knuth and UAPx's other strange experiments are also discussed in this thread:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/a-tear-in-the-sky-nimitz-tic-tac-catalina-ufo-documentary.12367

 

[yemista]

From the paper - my bolding:

The extreme estimated flight characteristics reveal that these observations are either fabricated or seriously in error, or that these craft exhibit technology far more advanced than any known craft on Earth. In many cases, the number and quality of witnesses, the variety of roles they played in the encounters, and the equipment used to track and record the craft favor the latter hypothesis that these are indeed technologically advanced craft.

https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/21/10/939

Knuth et al then do what we have seen before; they trust that people like pilots are incapable of making errors in their observations and estimations. But which is easier to believe, that all the known laws of physics have been overturned, or that an observer goofed when faced with something unexpected? It doesn't matter if his math is impeccable if his input data is questionable.

I see, so the difference in assumption of the two arguments is the accuracy of the testimony of the eye witnesses.

As for the known laws of physics being overturned, that assumes we fully understand the universe, but that is a separate argument.

 

[Gary C]

Knuth et al then do what we have seen before; they trust that people like pilots are incapable of making errors in their observations and estimations. But which is easier to believe, that all the known laws of physics have been overturned, or that an observer goofed when faced with something unexpected? It doesn't matter if his math is impeccable if his input data is questionable.

I was thinking about this the past couple days. Only a fraction of UAP reports include verified radar data or other means of measuring both distance and angular movement which would yield estimated velocity. Most are nothing more than eyeball estimates by the witness, pilot or no.

All aircraft with only a few exceptions are required to have a working altimeter and air speed indicator. Why? Because even trained pilots cannot routinely land their own aircraft without these technical aids. If they cannot accurately estimate the speed of the aircraft they are operating, why should I believe their estimates of the speed or acceleration of something they can't even identify?

What am I missing here?

 

[Mendel]

Most are nothing more than eyeball estimates by the witness, pilot or no.

When we have a location and a time/date, that's often enough to work with. But we don't have that for the Navy videos.

And yes, humans can only "see" distance up to a few meters; beyond that, our brain determines distance from 2D visual cues—that we don't have when we're looking at an unknown object in the sky. (Even the moon seems bigger when it's low on the horizon!) So any UFO distance estimates are unreliable.