Fravor's Hypersonic UFO observation. Parallax Illusion? Comparing Accounts

[jarlrmai]

VR is great for understanding scale. For example the blocks in Minecraft are 1m cubes and when you play in VR it's very surprising when you really see one.

The main problem I see with a VR recreation is the headset resolution is probably too low for such a small object to be seen well, flight simulator VR games have this issue, objects that in real life would be on the edge of visibility just don't have enough pixels on them in VR.

 

[cptreynolds]

I do wonder what approach path curves for the F-18s would plausibly explain the tic tac's erratic movement above the whitewash in the parallax hypothesis.

I kind of find it hard to imagine anyway, imagine spotting an erratic movement while watching a real tic tac from 24 ft away hovering above a patch the size of 3 tic tacs and then noticing and processing any movement of the first tic tac... it's all so small!

 

[Domzh]

the erratic movement could just resulting from something dangling in the wind, parallax doesnt need to account for it but could increase the effect probably.

 

[Candy-O]

the erratic movement could just resulting from something dangling in the wind, parallax doesnt need to account for it but could increase the effect probably.

Depends on how dramatic the movement is and the path it traces.
I've never seen a balloon remotely "ping ponging" in the wind the way Fravor describes. Especially one large and heavy enough to be seen from a great distance.

Anyone have a "ping ponging" balloon video to share?

 

[JMartJr]

Is there an analog to this for a small visual object (not a light source) against an at-leat-slightly more textured background?

The autokinetic effect (also referred to as autokinesis and the autokinetic illusion) is a phenomenon of visual perception in which a stationary, small point of light in an otherwise dark or featureless environment appears to move.

Content from External Source

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

 

[Ann K]

Is there an analog to this for a small visual object (not a light source) against an at-leat-slightly more textured background?

The autokinetic effect (also referred to as autokinesis and the autokinetic illusion) is a phenomenon of visual perception in which a stationary, small point of light in an otherwise dark or featureless environment appears to move.

Content from External Source

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

Good description! There's a tiny green light on the smoke detector in my bedroom. If I try to stare at it in the darkness, it gets into my eye's blind spot, and it's necessary for the eye to jump around a little bit to keep seeing it. I think the same must be true of any tiny object, and that happens whether it's small and near or large and distant. We all have a little blind spot, so might that be the reason for his description of a "ping ponging" object when it is just tiny and hard to focus upon?

@Candy-O Try it yourself by staring at any very small object.

 

[Candy-O]

@Candy-O Try it yourself by staring at any very small object.

I was referring to the idea that the motion was "the erratic movement could just resulting from something dangling in the wind". They way he motioned the object with his finger in the video I saw of him, it was very purposeful and linear, not gently drifting or swirling in a limited way, which the effect auto-kinetic appears ( For me at least. No specific ping-ponging in my personal optical illusions lol)

It was clear, perfect sunny day, so I question how dark the sea would be in the first place. Enough to cause that particular effect?

According to Wikipedia: The effect is well known as an illusion affecting pilots who fly at night. It is particularly dangerous for pilots flying in formation or rejoining a refueling tanker at night. Steps that can be taken to prevent or overcome the phenomenon include:
But again, this was not at night.

Since Deitrich saw it behave strangely as well : "it almost didn't accelerate, right, it sort of jumped from from spot to spot and tumbled around in a way that was unpredictable" I'm not buying the idea that both of them were fooled by a optical illusion of an object that was both initially unnoticed at all, aside from the movement, and but then also continued to move like then when focused on. Fravor said he did not see the object distinguished alone, and THEN it started moving, as per the auto-kinetic, but rather the movement itself drew his eye in the first place. Does the effect even work on something you only notice in your peripheral vision , or when you focus on it?

 

[Ann K]

Fravor said he did not see the object distinguished alone, and THEN it started moving, as per the auto-kinetic, but rather the movement itself drew his eye in the first place. Does the effect even work on something you only notice in your peripheral vision , or when you focus on it?

The effect I'm talking about is when you try to focus on some very small object. The discussion of the simulation suggests, if I recall, something the size of a breath mint at 24 feet, so it would be something that could be completely obscured in the blind spot of the human eye. I'd expect a larger object to be visible the whole time, but if it was visually that small, it could be wholly obscured, then the eye moves a fraction of an inch and it is seen again, etc. That could give the appearance of something moving around when it is really just obscured, then visible, then obscured.

 

[Domzh]

imo this is somewhat ridiculous tbh.
the autokinesis effect is also described to occur when looking at a star or planet at night.

if they were at 10'000 feet (douglas was told to stay above 10k and he reported that he saw them below him) and even if the object in question was on ground level and was indeed the size of an F18 then this is not a hard to focus object at all.

i am not a navy pilot, i have a slight astigmatism on one eye but with over 600 skydives and wingsuits i have a very good idea how things look from 10'000 feet (be it against water, tarmac or grass) and even during stressful situations, i dont think you can compare this to looking at a distant small dot on a wall. not once was i ever under the impression that a boat, house or airplane was moving erratically.

these guys have countless of hours of airtime, physical tests and have probably seen a ton of airplanes against a blue sky or blue sea or green ground and at some point the probability for multiple elite pilots behaving like absolute amateurs and uber deceivable people that experience all of a sudden an illussion that usually happens at night and with a distant light source such as a star when looking at a nearby (compared to a star) object (assuming its a physical object) gets near to zero and I would think it becomes more realistic that they really have seen Zorg from Uranus with a malfunctioning spaceship, than both pilots all of a sudden having an optical illusion where a stable object starts to dance erratically in broad daylight.

the hypothesis was that a submarine launched a balloon (or something else) into the sky.

you can clearly see that they tumble when being released. i think a bigger object
(such as a spy balloon or air target) would look similar, especially if the submarine was moving during its release.

 

[Nemon]

Anyone have a "ping ponging" balloon video to share?

Sure. Given they are tethered, balloons make erratic movements even without gales.

 

[Ulrich]

these guys have countless of hours of airtime, physical tests and have probably seen a ton of airplanes against a blue sky or blue sea or green ground and at some point the probability for multiple elite pilots behaving like absolute amateurs and uber deceivable people that experience all of a sudden an illussion that usually happens at night and with a distant light source such as a star when looking at a nearby (compared to a star) object (assuming its a physical object) gets near to zero and I would think it becomes more realistic that they really have seen Zorg from Uranus with a malfunctioning spaceship, than both pilots all of a sudden having an optical illusion where a stable object starts to dance erratically in broad daylight.

Not „both pilots“. „Both pilots and their WSOs“ have had by and large the same optical illusion while they were at different locations and while they are changing their relative postions every single second. Plus coincidental wrong radar Signals in that area. What is the probability for that kind of story? Not high, I think. But that is the best mundane explanation, isn‘t it? And it fits quite well with parts of Fravors Statement. Mimicking his moves, „accelerating“ when he heads towards it.

 

[Mendel]

Not „both pilots“. „Both pilots and their WSOs“ have had by and large the same optical illusion while they were at different locations and while they are changing their relative postions every single second.

First, Fravor was probably on the radio and primed the other observers to interpret what they were seeing to fit what he was saying.

Second, the 4th WSO has not spoken publicly?

Jim Slaight describes the motion as "straight across" and then as "control of the airspace". Nothing of erratic dancing in that account. See https://www.metabunk.org/threads/2004-uss-nimitz-tic-tac-ufo-flir-footage-flir1.9190/post-222204

So, at this point we're down to "both pilots", but I can't recall offhand whether Dietrich described it like that.

 

[JMartJr]

i am not a navy pilot,

Me neither, so we have that in common. ^_^

i have a slight astigmatism on one eye but with over 600 skydives and wingsuits i have a very good idea how things look from 10'000 feet (be it against water, tarmac or grass) and even during stressful situations, i dont think you can compare this to looking at a distant small dot on a wall. not once was i ever under the impression that a boat, house or airplane was moving erratically.

The comparison would not work as well with, say, a distant house -- a house will have other stuff around it to make it very clear it is sitting in the same place -- the road, the yard, trees, etc. A very tiny (field-of-view-wise) dot against the relatively featureless sea MIGHT be a different story. (I don't know that it is, which is why I asked about it rather than asserted stuff!)

these guys have countless of hours of airtime, physical tests and have probably seen a ton of airplanes against a blue sky or blue sea or green ground and at some point the probability for multiple elite pilots behaving like absolute amateurs and uber deceivable people

I don't recall saying any of that. It is not what I believe. I DO believe that pilots, highly trained and all though they may be, are still capable of making observational errors.

that experience all of a sudden an illussion that usually happens at night and with a distant light source such as a star when looking at a nearby (compared to a star) object (assuming its a physical object) gets near to zero and I would think it becomes more realistic that they really have seen Zorg from Uranus with a malfunctioning spaceship, than both pilots all of a sudden having an optical illusion where a stable object starts to dance erratically in broad daylight.

We would, I guess, assign differing probabilities to Zorg from Uranus showing up and flying around off San Diego. I'd rate some sort of mistake in observation and/or memory to be MUCH more likely. (Although I do not believe the story is entirely fictional, of the Tall Tale variety, I'd rate even THAT more likely than Zorg!) I don't have a lot of skin in the game for this exact illusion being the cause, just curious if it is possible in daylight with a distant object as well as with a light source at night. If it is not, it can be tossed in the bin, no worries on my end.

 

[tobigtofool]

If they don't know what the object is or how it is moving, then how can they tell how far away it is and how big it is?

That's not something you can train to do. It's just impossible.

Here's two different tic-tac models hanging in my room. Which one is bigger? Which one is closer?

I'm gonna guess to test my spatial recognition skills: Is the one on the right is closer to the camera?

Oops I was on the wrong page and this is an old post, but still a good test!

 

[Candy-O]

Sure. Given they are tethered, balloons make erratic movements even without gales.

But those are not similar to the the motions Fravor made with his hand in the video. And they are tiny with a very small mass.

I would not describe that as ping-ponging either, more like erratically bouncing or jerking or something. Sigh. The inaccuracies of language is a problem here. Unlike the Inuit and their numerous words for snow-conditions, the nuances of the effect we are discussing might be hard to convey with a limited number of familiar terms.

Either way, the translation from one location to another is fast because the tether is short. If the tether were much longer to allow range of movement for true "ping-ponging" of a larger balloon as Fravor seems to describe, then the movements would much slower, and the object would not ping-pong or retrace a path with smooth movement from one location to another location that is many times the length of the object.


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fAu4S_n0GE&ab_channel=SpaceSystemsLaboratory-UniPi


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bONkA8x8PEE&ab_channel=JohnBunyan


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0n-_MWE7vk&ab_channel=Thales


I will look for the video where he draws out the motions with his hand. It might be on several clips floating around. I have seen him do it, but I'm not sure what clip it was is. But then again he might not be recreating it actually either.

 

[Candy-O]

Not „both pilots“. „Both pilots and their WSOs“ have had by and large the same optical illusion while they were at different locations and while they are changing their relative postions every single second. Plus coincidental wrong radar Signals in that area. What is the probability for that kind of story? Not high, I think. But that is the best mundane explanation, isn‘t it? And it fits quite well with parts of Fravors Statement. Mimicking his moves, „accelerating“ when he heads towards it.

Don't forget the object "disappeared" and then"something" appeared at the 60 mile away CAP point a minute later.

So far the ideas presented here are that repeating radar bugs send a plane to a random location in the ocean, at the exact time a submarine happened to be launching a secret balloon that actively jammed radar and visually confused 4 pilots, and then right after it seemed to disappear, a new radar bug occured at the CAP point, and much later, a new plane directed via radar to the balloon location also encountered a new distant (commercial?) jet that jammed his radar as well, and also seemed to do a lot of strange things the pilot could not explain. Also, these optical illusions, radar bugs, and blatant misidentifications occurred only that one time in quick succession of each other.

In isolation, just one of these events is curious, but all strung together in sequence really stretches my ability to hand wave it away.

Underwood's side of the story:

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/201...o-q-and-a-with-navy-pilot-chad-underwood.html

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKbYwwwePTQ&ab_channel=JeremyCorbell


Underwood has some interesting things to say in this interview - he asserts active jamming cues, such as signal feed aberrations he witnessed, and the 999 distance reading, which he states does NOT indicate the distance is simply too far for the equipment, but rather the sensors are being jammed. How could a rogue private or commercial do that? And military jets do not actively jam outside of specific hostile conditions or training, which no one else on the carriers seemed to be aware of.

I'd love to be able to comfortably explain all of this incident away, but nothing I've seen here addresses the entirely of this incident in a convincing way. Grasping for a series of unlikely, isolated straws is not a a cogent explanation for all the aspects of this weird event. It would great to see something bubble up that explains ALL the weirdness. Quite vexing,

Not saying I know what happened, but if anything truly deserves to go in the "unexplained" category, this is it.

 

[jarlrmai]

Underwood has never addressed the issues with the description the video he filmed on the ATFLIR.

The lost of tracking is asserted to be because of high speed movement, but it always coincides with lens changes/gimbal roll adjustment that cause the unslaved optical tracking to be lost.

The final shoot off when adjusted for the zoom level actually shows the object is just moving at the same speed and moves out of frame due to no longer being tracked.

So when he says things like the 99.99 range thing means jamming, I just don't believe him, because I don't think the video shows what he says it shows and I think it is demonstrable beyond reasonable doubt and I am yet to hear anything that counters this analysis. Same with Fravor when he discussed the video on Rogan.

 

[Candy-O]

Underwood has never addressed the issues with the description the video he filmed on the ATFLIR.

What issues has he not addressed?

As for the range and jamming you think he's lying, or he doesn't know how to use the equipment? Fravor and Detitch also stated jamming. Are they lying too, or did none of them know how to use the equipment?

 

[jarlrmai]

What issues has he not addressed?

As for the range and jamming you think he's lying, or he doesn't know how to use the equipment? Fravor and Detitch also stated jamming. Are they lying too, or did none of them know how to use the equipment?

The issues raised in the thread about the video and the claims of high G maneuvers being shown in the video. Mick did a good video in on it.

I find it hard to believe things they say when they still claim the video shows things it doesn't seem to show based on basic calculations done on the video.

 

[Candy-O]

The issues raised in the thread about the video and the claims of high G maneuvers being shown in the video. Mick did a good video in on it.

I find it hard to believe things they say when they still claim the video shows things it doesn't seem to show based on basic calculations done on the video.

But he did address those issues and explanations in the video I linked. I can provide time stamps if you prefer.

There are different elements to the tic tac video in question:

1) What does range 99 mean? If an object is beyond the range of radar, what is result is displayed? And when the system is being jammed, what is displayed? Underwood says the 99 means being jammed, but you do not believe him. If it was being jammed, then the explanation of a stray commercial or private jet goes out the window.

Does someone have any solid information on the ways that jamming manifests on the radar systems involved? Or how the system displays objects beyond radar range? IIRC Mick stated the 99 reading as his assumption the object was out of radar range, but is there any way to verify that's what it means? Some sort of technical manual, or asking an expert on said systems? I doubt the manuals are unclassified, but perhaps another fighter pilot can confirm the meaning on the displays. If Mick has obtained clarification this detail, I'm not aware and would love to see a link.

2) Explanation for visual disturbances in the video feed also associated with jamming. No video evidence per se of that in the clip, so you either think he's lying or not lying. It was a very specific detail he offered, so there are only one of two options.

3) Does the video show an object accelerating away, or losing focus due to lens changing? He argues, yes. But I agree with Mick on this specific element. It does seem to coincide exactly with something changing on the camera.

Technically, it would be possible for an unknown object to be flying "normally" and not exotically at that moment in time, but that fact does not help prove anything unusual was being filmed.

If Underwood is incorrect in his belief of what the zoom away actually is, does it follow that he is lying about issues 1 and 2?

 

[JMartJr]

Underwood has some interesting things to say in this interview - he asserts active jamming cues, such as signal feed aberrations he witnessed, and the 999 distance reading, which he states does NOT indicate the distance is simply too far for the equipment, but rather the sensors are being jammed.

That jumps out at me.

We know terrestiral technology can be used for such jamming, and we know that it is possible to detect when terrestrial technology is being used to to do it (those "active jamming cues."). To my knowledge, we don't know what techniques or technology Aliens would use to do this sort of jamming -- if we are detecting jamming, then, we would seem to most likely be detecting some other humans using human tech, tech which we know how to recognize when being used, even if we assume that aliens are a possible explanation for UFO sightings.

Phrased differently: if it is generating the sorts of active jamming cues that are generated by Earthling military tech, it would seem reasonable to deduce that it is Earthiling military technology doing it.

 

[Candy-O]

That jumps out at me.

We know terrestiral technology can be used for such jamming, and we know that it is possible to detect when terrestrial technology is being used to to do it (those "active jamming cues."). To my knowledge, we don't know what techniques or technology Aliens would use to do this sort of jamming -- if we are detecting jamming, then, we would seem to most likely be detecting some other humans using human tech, tech which we know how to recognize when being used, even if we assume that aliens are a possible explanation for UFO sightings.

Phrased differently: if it is generating the sorts of active jamming cues that are generated by Earthling military tech, it would seem reasonable to deduce that it is Earthiling military technology doing it.

The same thought occured to me as well. Why would ETs even have tech on board designed to thwart a very specific modern human technology?

Unless a jamming effect could be caused by something else accidentally , such as a side effect of an unknown power source. But then sometimes it was one, and other times it wasn't, so probably not an unintentional effect caused by a power plant.

Wiki lists a whole slew of electronic jamming methods revolving around sending out confusing or deceptive electromagnetic signals, but my knowledge of the topic is very limited.

Either way, that would exclude an accidental stray commercial or private plane for both Fravor and Underwood.

 

[Agent K]

the erratic movement could just resulting from something dangling in the wind, parallax doesnt need to account for it but could increase the effect probably.

Brian Dunning or another skeptic said he saw planet Venus moving erratically due to the saccade of his own eyes, in the absence of a stationary background for reference.

 

[Agent K]

So far the ideas presented here are that repeating radar bugs send a plane to a random location in the ocean

Who said it was a radar bug? First the radar sent Fravor to a balloon that he mistook for a 40-foot UFO. Then, it sent Underwood toward a jet like an EA-6B Prowler that may have jammed his radar. I'm afraid it's a comedy of errors that shows insufficient training or critical thinking.

 

[jarlrmai]

Does the video show an object accelerating away, or losing focus due to lens changing? He argues, yes. But I agree with Mick on this specific element. It does seem to coincide exactly with something changing on the camera.

To me it's huge "red flag" for his impartiality on the video, it's demonstrable with math that the object loses tracking and is then zoomed in on thus causing it to leave frame at the same speed it is moving before when it is tracked, but to appear as if it's more rapid if you make the mistake of forgetting to account for the decrease in field of view caused by the zoom.

To maintain the view that this doesn't happen and instead it speeds of with some inhuman acceleration just makes me doubt the other things he says about it.

Sure it's possible to get this wrong and be fooled by the illusion, but if he's the expert and he's fooled and then doubles down then that just gives me more doubts.

And 99.9 RNG might happen when you lose RADAR range due to jamming, but it might also happen as well when you just don't have a RADAR track on the thing your pod is looking at. I really hope we get some clarity on that at some point as it's still a fuzzy point.

Why would aliens jam? Surely they could just not appear on RADAR at all if they wanted? Jamming is an active signal emission.

 

[AdmiralKird]

Underwood has some interesting things to say in this interview - he asserts active jamming cues, such as signal feed aberrations he witnessed, and the 999 distance reading, which he states does NOT indicate the distance is simply too far for the equipment, but rather the sensors are being jammed. How could a rogue private or commercial do that? And military jets do not actively jam outside of specific hostile conditions or training, which no one else on the carriers seemed to be aware of.

I think there is some misunderstanding regarding what jamming is and looks like, and Brian Burke's interview with Mick touched on it a bit more.

Jamming isn't something that gives a specific return, it just means your instruments return erroneous data and fail to achieve a "target solution." It can also manifest in other eccentric data. Point is, you can't necessarily tell the difference between a poor data solution or being jammed. Concluding that you're being jammed requires you to make an assessment of what data you're seeing and given the available conditions what you should be seeing; it's a judgement call. If you assume there is nothing in the area and an object you're tracking 20 miles away should be seen on the range finder data without issue, then you're gonna conclude you're being jammed by some source; probably the object you're tracking. If you think its 80 miles away and you're simply not getting sufficient data, then you can conclude you're not being jammed.

I think it is no surprise that most UFO long-range visual objects from military craft are reported as "being jammed," because the conclusion of the event begets the reporting whether the aircraft is or is not being jammed. We treat "jammed" or "not jammed" as a data point that leads to the conclusion when in reality it's erroneous because it comes after the solution is already derived by the one performing the analysis.

Anyway, it's not necessarily relevant whether the object in the tic tac is beyond 100 miles away or not. The thing to remember about the visual footage in the ATFLIR is what you're seeing in the infrared is only a one way trip of energy from the "tic tac" to the F-18. If you're using radar or a laser range finder it needs an emission from the F-18 to the object and back: a two way trip. But if you are viewing a jet on a hot day over the Pacific with exceptionally high atmospheric disturbance, considering how poor the resolution is on the visual data from the pod, the laser or radar data being half the resolution doesn't fill me with confidence it could find a series of flat surfaces to get a good return angle

 

[Nemon]

But those are not similar to the the motions Fravor made with his hand in the video. And they are tiny with a very small mass.

I can't think of anything in the whole world that would come closer to the description with the erratic movement. I think "ping pong" is also applicable here. But I don't know which video sequence with hand movements of Fravor you are referring to.

So what if it was ... balloons? ...yet I'm not saying it was balloons ... but could it well have been balloons?

Whenever a discourse gets to this point, I revisit this article from The Drive, which of course cannot conclude that it was balloons. But it rehashes the history of military balloons with strategic missions for radar deception - that reaches far back - and shows at which points paralleles to the sightings can be discerned.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...are-encountering-be-airborne-radar-reflectors

This is how the author concludes his article:

In the end, we have to look at every single possibility and evaluate each one of them with an open mind. I promised my readers that I would dig as deep as possible to find any potential existing technological answers that could address even parts of what highly-trained and credible witnesses are seeing, regardless of what or whose narrative it may fit. At this time, without going into the well-established and frankly, at this point, still relevant theories that include government cover-ups of world-changing technologies or even craft visiting the Earth from other worlds, this is the closest I have come to a valid answer.

And yes, I do realize that even implying that what people describe as unexplained objects could be 'balloons' is highly inconvenient considering the stigma surrounding that explanation. But in this case, that doesn't make it any less worthy of examination considering we aren't talking about some garden variety weather balloons here and there would be a real reason for any military power to keep such a capability secret. The fact that there is an actual precedent for employing a similar concept secretly during the Cold War also adds significant weight to the possibility.

In the end, that's all this is, a possibility. One of a number to mull over as we all continue on what has become an increasingly historic and bizarre quest for the truth.

Content from External Source

 

[Domzh]

Underwood says the 99 means being jammed, but you do not believe him. If it was being jammed, then the explanation of a stray commercial or private jet goes out the window.

not necessarily

they had a simulation going on with blue and red team, red team was a marine squadron (kurt was part of it too).

iirc they also had a f18 or f15 with electronic warfare components equipped. kevin day said it was very chaotic at this time with a lot of traffic going on.

it could be possible that underwood was indeed being jammed but not necessarily by the "tic tac" or what ever he had on his flir

 

[Mendel]

Look at it this way:
• an object is more likely to be mistaken by size or movement if the distance to it is unknown
• if an aerial object drops off the radar, its distance becomes unknown
• therefore, situations where radar is disabled are more likely to lead to UFO reports
• therefore, UFO reports where radar is disabled are expected to be more common

 

[Domzh]

what exactly is your point my friend?

 

[Mendel]

what exactly is your point my friend?

If you're adressing me, my point is that there need not be incredulity about some UFO reports observing radar jamming: if the radar had been working, the objects would've been easier to identify, because the pilot would've known the correct distance—situations like that are less likely to become UFO reports.

 

[Mick West]

No I reject that. I can get a far better estimate of what it is like to see a 'tic tac' from 25,000 feet via a simulation than I can by just 'imagining' what it would look like. The plain fact is that the tic tac was tiny. My calculation of it being the same angular size as a 1/2 inch pill at 24 feet is totally correct.

An actual Tic-Tac is about 1/1000th of a 46 foot Tic-Tac, so just going 1 foot for every 1000 feet is a good practical recreation. This was discussed five years ago, here:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/how-big-is-a-tic-tac-scale-models-of-the-nimitz-incident.9829/

The altitude at which the shape was observed is unclear, but I'll go with the lowest, 10,000 feet. Now suppose we were to take a Tic-Tac, how far away to we have to hold it to get the same visual as looking at a 46 foot long object from 10,000 feet? Well 11mm is 0.0360892 feet, so we can just do simple ratios, 0.0360892 feet / 46 feet * 10,000 feet = 7.8 feet. Around 8 feet basically (and if you want a really rough but easy ballpark, around 1/1000th the distance)

So I took a Tic Tac and took a photo of it suspended about a water surface from 8 feet up (I just held my iPhone over my head). The photo above has that Tic Tac in (I just digitally remove the supports). Can you see it?

 

[Candy-O]

not necessarily

they had a simulation going on with blue and red team, red team was a marine squadron (kurt was part of it too).

iirc they also had a f18 or f15 with electronic warfare components equipped. kevin day said it was very chaotic at this time with a lot of traffic going on.

it could be possible that underwood was indeed being jammed but not necessarily by the "tic tac" or what ever he had on his flir

No commercial or private jet would have active jamming equipment, so if jamming was happening, it would have been from a military jet or device.

 

[Scaramanga]

An actual Tic-Tac is about 1/1000th of a 46 foot Tic-Tac, so just going 1 foot for every 1000 feet is a good practical recreation. This was discussed five years ago, here:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/how-big-is-a-tic-tac-scale-models-of-the-nimitz-incident.9829/

Fravor says the tic tac was first spotted at 20,000 feet at the recent UAP hearing.....and I am sure I have seen earlier statements of 25,000 feet. So I'm unclear where you get the 10,000 feet from.

 

[Candy-O]

I'm thinking you could notice a 45foot white tic tac at both 10 and 20,000 feet when it is ping-ponging against a featureless blue background

Here is a quick gif of both distances. I mean if you are on your phone, then maybe not. But our eyes are not phones.

And wasn't there white water disturbance as well from something under the surface?

 

[Scaramanga]

And wasn't there white water disturbance as well from something under the surface?

Fravor compares the white water to the size of an airliner. Well, a Jumbo has a wing span of 224 feet, so is about 5 times the size of the 46 foot tic tac. Quite a small area for it to 'ping pong' about in. From 20,000 feet, 1 degree is 349 feet....so this entire scene is just 0.64 degrees across....not much larger than the apparent diameter of the Moon in the sky. Far smaller than any of the simulations I have ever seen of the incident.

I need to look back and find all the prior articles and mentions of the incident, because although Fravor says in the recent hearings that the tic tac was first spotted at 20,000 feet.....I'm quite sure I remember 25,000 feet from somewhere reliable. The height seems to have changed !

 

[Candy-O]

Fravor compares the white water to the size of an airliner. Well, a Jumbo has a wing span of 224 feet, so is about 5 times the size of the 46 foot tic tac. Quite a small area for it to 'ping pong' about in. From 20,000 feet, 1 degree is 349 feet....so this entire scene is just 0.64 degrees across....not much larger than the apparent diameter of the Moon in the sky. Far smaller than any of the simulations I have ever seen of the incident.

I need to look back and find all the prior articles and mentions of the incident, because although Fravor says in the recent hearings that the tic tac was first spotted at 20,000 feet.....I'm quite sure I remember 25,000 feet from somewhere reliable. The height seems to have changed !

But your eye has far more resolution than a 1200 pixel gif. I've seen Cessna sized planes that are very far away in the sky. Exactly how far, it's hard to say. That's the issue with using computers and pictures to recreate what the human eye sees. mere photos never fully capture what my brain takes in. You can alter a camera FOV to mimic the maximum that eyes can view, but that doesn't take into account what happens when we focus with our vision on something specific to peer at it.

Poking around onlne I saw this formula:

20/20 vision is about 1/3000 radians. So an object that is 15m wide can be discerned about 3000*15m = 45km away. This is only a rough estimate, since there are a multitude of factors such as how good someone's eyesight is, how clear the air is, etc.

According to this formula, that would make a 50 foot object visible at 15,000 feet. Not sure if that formula is correct though, and what does "discerned" mean if you add movement.

I was looking up info on human sight capabilities and came across this at https://science.howstuffworks.com/question198.htm

Excerpt below:

And while your ability to discern objects depends upon their size and the how much light the distant object emits, on a dark night it's possible to see a candle flame from about a 1.5 miles (2.4 kilometers) away, according to Dr. Eric Lowell Singman. He's a practicing ophthalmologist with the University of Maryland Medical System, who also is a professor of ophthalmology with the University of Maryland School of Medicine.

To understand how our eyes can see a distant object like a candle flame flickering, it helps to know something about normal vision and how the human eye works. While visual acuity varies among individuals, the naked eye definitely is a pretty impressive piece of equipment.
It's capable of 12 times the resolution of a high-end smartphone's camera. As Singman notes, we can see a nearly infinite range of colors and shapes, as well as detect very small changes in brightness and minute amounts of motion.

I boldened the WTF part that shocked me. Would love to see a testing or debunk of that claim!

Anyway, I'm half tempted to go get a 1 foot white ball and have my girlfriend hold it up and move it around on the beach and then stand back at 200 and 500 feet etc and see things with my own 2 eyeballs Like nuking the site from orbit, "it's the only way to be sure"

 

[Scaramanga]

Anyway, I'm half tempted to go get a 1 foot white ball and have my girlfriend hold it up and move it around on the beach and then stand back at 200 and 500 feet etc

About 434 feet..if we take 20,00 feet as Fravor's initial height. About 1/8 of a degree in size........1/4 of the diameter of the Moon.

 

[yoshy]

You can't really set up new situations in Sitrec yet, I still have to add some code for each one individually.

I think really this would be a great candidate for VR recreation - something I'll get around to eventually.

Is Sitrec open source? If not, have you considering making it so?

 

[deirdre]

Anyway, I'm half tempted to go get a 1 foot white ball and have my girlfriend hold it up and move it around on the beach

dietrich doesn't describe it that way, she said it was moving chaotically like if you drop something and it bounces around.

maybe bouncing a white tennis ball off a tennis racket and you can get closer.