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

[JMartJr]

1/4 of the diameter of the Moon.

Many folks way over-estimate how big the moon appears in the sky. It is roughly the apparent size of an aspirin tablet held at arm's length. (Allowing for variations in arm length, slight variations in the apparent size of the moon and [possibly]the size of aspirin tablets!)

We tend to get fooled by seeing pictures of the big huge full moon:

More accurate moon-size pics don't tend to get made into posters or put in art galleries:

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 !

To be expected, memories are fungible, which is of course one of the major problems of trying to figure something out based on eye witness testimony alone.

 

[Candy-O]

Many folks way over-estimate how big the moon appears in the sky. It is roughly the apparent size of an aspirin tablet held at arm's length. (Allowing for variations in arm length, slight variations in the apparent size of the moon and [possibly]the size of aspirin tablets!)

We tend to get fooled by seeing pictures of the big huge full moon:
View attachment 61262

More accurate moon-size pics don't tend to get made into posters or put in art galleries:
View attachment 61261



To be expected, memories are fungible, which is of course one of the major problems of trying to figure something out based on eye witness testimony alone.

More than enough especially if moving against a featureless dark blue background

 

[Candy-O]

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.

For both her and Fravor to see strange bouncing from wildly different vantage points, what is Mick's latest theory on that. I'm not getting how the parallax thing could cause the ping-ponging. Maybe something might appear to jump once if you glance away briefly, but to see it continuing, and from different people, in the middle of the day under ideal conditions, precludes the alternatives I've seen here so far IMO.

I'm looking back again at the 3 videos I posted of larger, tethered balloons, and none of them look remotely like they are bouncing all over the place. Of course 3 examples do not make a rule, but given the mass of those balloons and their payload, it doesn't seem possible for them to ping-pong swiftly outside of very heavy winds. The weather was perfect that day, and I've heard no mention of heavy winds.

 

[deirdre]

what is Mick's latest theory on that

am i supposed to care what Mick's theory is on that? I dont understand why you would ask me that.

from wildly different vantage points

I dont see how they were wildly different, Fravor said as he started to go down towards it it started to come up..ie. the pingponging stopped.

I'm looking back again at the 3 videos I posted of larger, tethered balloons, and none of them look remotely like they are bouncing all over the place. Of course 3 examples do not make a rule, but given the mass of those balloons and their payload, it doesn't seem possible for them to ping-pong swiftly outside of very heavy winds. The weather was perfect that day, and I've heard no mention of heavy winds

what does any of this have to do with my suggestion you can sue a tennis ball and racket?

 

[Mick West]

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!

It was a trick question. I only have one tic-tac, so I faked the image. The point is that you can't tell.

 

[DavidB66]

My point is that people are being beguiled by simulations of the incident that do not show the true scale of things and many that show the tic tac way larger than Fravor could ever have seen it.

That (your last point) depends in part on how close Fravor got to it. In his prepared statement to the Congressional Committee he implied that he got to about half-a-mile from it. I don't know if he has ever claimed anything closer than that. At that distance an object of 40 feet long would look small but not tiny: about 1 degree, or twice the apparent diameter of the sun or moon.

 

[JMartJr]

Let's pass the hat and purchase Mr. West a box of Tic-tacs...

 

[Mendel]

Let's pass the hat and purchase Mr. West a box of Tic-tacs...

He was referring to the kind with legs.

 

[Scaramanga]

That (your last point) depends in part on how close Fravor got to it. In his prepared statement to the Congressional Committee he implied that he got to about half-a-mile from it. I don't know if he has ever claimed anything closer than that. At that distance an object of 40 feet long would look small but not tiny: about 1 degree, or twice the apparent diameter of the sun or moon.

But according to his story it was by that stage at 90 degrees to him, outside his right hand canopy.....and at around 10,000 feet with him descending. Given that he had to fly the craft and both stop it descending into the sea and also arc round to keep the tic tac 'opposite' him.....I do wonder just how much time Fravor actually had to look at the object at that point.

Fravor never actually says how long it took to descend from 20,000 feet to 10,000 feet. His wingman on the plane said the whole incident lasted seconds, yet I'd find it hard to believe he descended 10,000 feet in seconds in the first place.

 

[Scaramanga]

Many folks way over-estimate how big the moon appears in the sky.

Indeed my entire point. I think people need to actually place a football at 434 feet ( that's 100 feet more than the length of a football field ) to see the size of the tic tac when Fravor first saw it.

 

[DavidB66]

But according to his story it was by that stage at 90 degrees to him, outside his right hand canopy.....and at around 10,000 feet with him descending. Given that he had to fly the craft and both stop it descending into the sea and also arc round to keep the tic tac 'opposite' him.....I do wonder just how much time Fravor actually had to look at the object at that point.

Fravor never actually says how long it took to descend from 20,000 feet to 10,000 feet. His wingman on the plane said the whole incident lasted seconds, yet I'd find it hard to believe he descended 10,000 feet in seconds in the first place.

In his prepared statement Fravor says:

As we started a clockwise turn to observe the object, My WSO and I decided to go down to get closer and the other Aircraft stayed in High cover to observe both us and the Tic Tac. We proceeded around the circle about 90 degrees from the start of our descent and the object suddenly shifted it longitudinal axis, aligned it with my aircraft and began to climb in a clockwise climbing turn. We continued down for another 270 degrees when we made a nose low move to head to where the Tic Tac would be when we pulled nose onto the object. Our altitude at this point was approximately 15,000ft with the Tic Tac at about 12,000ft. As we pulled nose onto the object at approximately ½ of a mile with the object just left of our nose, it rapidly accelerated and disappeared right in front of our aircraft.

It's interesting that he describes a clockwise turn. Somewhere in his interview Brian Burke says it would be standard procedure to make a left-hand turn, which I took to mean counter-clockwise. Have I misunderstood this?

In his statement Fravor doesn't say how fast he was flying, and I don't recall him saying it elsewhere either. If we knew the speed, we could work out the time of descent for various assumptions about the angle of descent. I don't think it has been suggested that it was an aerobatic dive - just a fastish normal descent. Suppose the angle of descent was 4 degrees*, then a vertical descent of 10,000 feet would require a horizontal movement (in a circle) of (10,000/tan4degrees) feet. Tan 4 degrees is about 0.07, so the horizontal movement would be about 10,000/0.07 = 142,857 feet, or 27.06 miles. At a speed of 300 mph (reasonable?) this would take about 5.5 minutes. This is much closer to Fravor's estimate of the time taken than to Dietrich's, which I don't think is possible for any plausible rate of descent, if Fravor did descend through 10,000 feet. (I should emphasise that I wasn't consciously trying to match Fravor's '5 minutes' estimate: it just popped out of the calculation.)

*for comparison, the angle of descent for an airliner coming in to land is usually given as 3 degrees. A jet fighter in a hurry would presumably descend somewhat faster.

 

[cptreynolds]

In his prepared statement Fravor says:



It's interesting that he describes a clockwise turn. Somewhere in his interview Brian Burke says it would be standard procedure to make a left-hand turn, which I took to mean counter-clockwise. Have I misunderstood this?

In his statement Fravor doesn't say how fast he was flying, and I don't recall him saying it elsewhere either. If we knew the speed, we could work out the time of descent for various assumptions about the angle of descent. I don't think it has been suggested that it was an aerobatic dive - just a fastish normal descent. Suppose the angle of descent was 4 degrees*, then a vertical descent of 10,000 feet would require a horizontal movement (in a circle) of (10,000/tan4degrees) feet. Tan 4 degrees is about 0.07, so the horizontal movement would be about 10,000/0.07 = 142,857 feet, or 27.06 miles. At a speed of 300 mph (reasonable?) this would take about 5.5 minutes. This is much closer to Fravor's estimate of the time taken than to Dietrich's, which I don't think is possible for any plausible rate of descent, if Fravor did descend through 10,000 feet. (I should emphasise that I wasn't consciously trying to match Fravor's '5 minutes' estimate: it just popped out of the calculation.)

*for comparison, the angle of descent for an airliner coming in to land is usually given as 3 degrees. A jet fighter in a hurry would presumably descend somewhat faster.

Assuming your 27 miles for a full circle gives a radius of 4.3 miles. If the tic tac stays in the center, that's as close as they were. If the tic tac mirrors on the other side of the circle, they're just shy of 9 miles apart.

Obviously, lower speeds give smaller radii. Bur it's definitely not like they can be super close in that maneuver.

 

[Mendel]

In his statement Fravor doesn't say how fast he was flying, and I don't recall him saying it elsewhere either. If we knew the speed, we could work out the time of descent for various assumptions about the angle of descent. I don't think it has been suggested that it was an aerobatic dive - just a fastish normal descent. Suppose the angle of descent was 4 degrees*, then a vertical descent of 10,000 feet would require a horizontal movement (in a circle) of (10,000/tan4degrees) feet. Tan 4 degrees is about 0.07, so the horizontal movement would be about 10,000/0.07 = 142,857 feet, or 27.06 miles. At a speed of 300 mph (reasonable?) this would take about 5.5 minutes. This is much closer to Fravor's estimate of the time taken than to Dietrich's, which I don't think is possible for any plausible rate of descent, if Fravor did descend through 10,000 feet. (I should emphasise that I wasn't consciously trying to match Fravor's '5 minutes' estimate: it just popped out of the calculation.)

Article:

This means you should begin your descent 105 nautical miles from your destination, maintaining a speed of 300 KIAS and a descent rate of 1,500 to 2,000 feet per minute, with thrust set at idle.

Source: https://krepelka.com/fsweb/learningcenter/aircraft/flightnotesboeingfa18hornet.htm

2000 fpm for 10000 ft means 5 minutes.
Any faster, and the pilot has to think really hard about where to put that excess energy, it's not like she can just put on the brakes to prevent overspeeding.

 

[DavidB66]

Assuming your 27 miles for a full circle gives a radius of 4.3 miles. If the tic tac stays in the center, that's as close as they were. If the tic tac mirrors on the other side of the circle, they're just shy of 9 miles apart.

I wasn't assuming a full circle for the purpose of my crude calculation, but Fravor's figures (90 plus 270 degrees) do add up to a circle! However, his statement implies that the object did not stay at the center of the circle. Incidentally, his statement also implies a descent (by him) of about 5,000 feet rather than 10,000. I don't know if/when/where he has actually given a figure of 10,000 previously. Obviously, other things being equal, a descent of half the distance would imply half the duration, though it would still give a duration of a lot longer than 8 seconds.

It is frustrating that Fravor's various accounts tend to be vague about such crucial details as speeds, times, and distances. No-one ever seems to have pressed him to clarify. I have no idea how he estimated a distance of half-a-mile for his closest distance from the object. The ideal person to cast some light on all this would be his WSO, who is keeping schtum. I can't say I blame him.

 

[cptreynolds]

I wasn't assuming a full circle for the purpose of my crude calculation, but Fravor's figures (90 plus 270 degrees) do add up to a circle! However, his statement implies that the object did not stay at the center of the circle. Incidentally, his statement also implies a descent (by him) of about 5,000 feet rather than 10,000. I don't know if/when/where he has actually given a figure of 10,000 previously. Obviously, other things being equal, a descent of half the distance would imply half the duration, though it would still give a duration of a lot longer than 8 seconds.

It is frustrating that Fravor's various accounts tend to be vague about such crucial details as speeds, times, and distances. No-one ever seems to have pressed him to clarify. I have no idea how he estimated a distance of half-a-mile for his closest distance from the object. The ideal person to cast some light on all this would be his WSO, who is keeping schtum. I can't say I blame him.

Well, my understanding was

1) coming in at 25kft [tic tac ping pongs, idly awaiting customers]

2) 90-then-270 (so 360) turn to 15kft, losing 10kft in the process [tic tac awakes and countercircles while rising to 12kft or so]

3) tight turn and dive [tic tac gone]

 

[Agent K]

An obvious question about the balloon theory is what happened to the balloon after Fravor zoomed past it. The simplest answer is that it was torn apart.

Article:

Commander Fravor began a circular descent to get a closer look, but as he got nearer the object began ascending toward him. It was almost as if it were coming to meet him halfway, he said.

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/us/politics/unidentified-flying-object-navy.html

Or was it halfway of Fravor's range estimate the whole time?

Article:

Commander Fravor abandoned his slow circular descent and headed straight for the object.
But then the object peeled away. "It accelerated like nothing I've ever seen," he said in the interview.

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/us/politics/unidentified-flying-object-navy.html

Or Fravor flew past it.

Did the Princeton's radar track it to the cap point, detecting returns in between, or did it just detect something at the cap point?

Article:

The two fighter jets then conferred with the operations officer on the Princeton and were told to head to a rendezvous point 60 miles away, called the cap point, in aviation parlance.
They were en route and closing in when the Princeton radioed again. Radar had again picked up the strange aircraft.
"Sir, you won't believe it," the radio operator said, "but that thing is at your cap point."
"We were at least 40 miles away, and in less than a minute this thing was already at our cap point," Commander Fravor, who has since retired from the Navy, said in the interview.
By the time the two fighter jets arrived at the rendezvous point, the object had disappeared.

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/us/politics/unidentified-flying-object-navy.html

Sounds like the radar didn't track it. Something just appeared on radar and disappeared.

 

[DavidB66]

Well, my understanding was

1) coming in at 25kft [tic tac ping pongs, idly awaiting customers]

Fravor's prepared statement to the Committee says they came in at 20,000 feet. So his most authoritative (?) account implies a descent from 20,000 to 15,000 feet.

 

[Eburacum]

I've mentioned before that the perceived or remembered 'ping-pong' motion of the 'tic-tac' may have been conflation. Since both Fravor and Deitrich (and presumably any other witnesses not yet named ) will have seen Underwood's film, which shows some curious fluctuations and movements, they may have mixed this memory up with their memories of the first incident and 'projected' a similar movement onto their own recollections. At a distance it may not have been possible for either witness to accurately observe the detailed motions of this unknown object, (which may have been flying relatively smoothly).

I may be guilty of 'pelicanism' here, but if the object they could see was a large bird then the movement which they could see may have included some minor irregularities; and other apparent movements may have occurred due to the vibrations and changes in attitude of their own jets. However these insignificant, irregular movements might have been ignored or forgotten by the witnesses if they were not reinforced by the very noticeable irregular movements of the object in Underwood's movie.

 

[JMartJr]

So his most authoritative (?) account implies a descent from 20,000 to 15,000 feet.

But that's also the memory that has had the most time to marinate, distort and morph. As memories do.

 

[Scaramanga]

In his statement Fravor doesn't say how fast he was flying, and I don't recall him saying it elsewhere either. If we knew the speed, we could work out the time of descent for various assumptions about the angle of descent. I don't think it has been suggested that it was an aerobatic dive - just a fastish normal descent. Suppose the angle of descent was 4 degrees*, then a vertical descent of 10,000 feet would require a horizontal movement (in a circle) of (10,000/tan4degrees) feet. Tan 4 degrees is about 0.07, so the horizontal movement would be about 10,000/0.07 = 142,857 feet, or 27.06 miles. At a speed of 300 mph (reasonable?) this would take about 5.5 minutes. This is much closer to Fravor's estimate of the time taken than to Dietrich's, which I don't think is possible for any plausible rate of descent, if Fravor did descend through 10,000 feet. (I should emphasise that I wasn't consciously trying to match Fravor's '5 minutes' estimate: it just popped out of the calculation.)

Actually....he does give figures that allow it to be worked out. One can interpret from his first mentioning doing 90 degrees and then mentioning doing another 270 degrees...which all adds up to 360 degrees....that he descended from 20,000 feet to 15,000 feet ( the altitude he says he was at after the 270 degrees ) in one circle.

That also means that the tic tac would have had to ascend 12,000 feet in the time interval between Fravor being at 90 degrees ( when he said the tic tac started to rise ) and him doing the remaining 270 degrees ( when he says he was at 15,000 feet and the tic tac at 12,000 )

So in fact....that means if we know how fast Fravor was doing the full circle, we can also work out the ( alleged ) tic tac ascent speed. I don't think anyone has actually done this !

 

[taurusclover21]

Has anyone got any theory for the 'heat wave' effect that Jim Slaight reported seeing "around the entire surfaces" of the object?

An F-18 or other aircraft pulling Gs creates a mist cloud. That explains three things: the color (white), the tic-tac shape, and the "heat wave" effect.

 

[Domzh]

I've mentioned before that the perceived or remembered 'ping-pong' motion of the 'tic-tac' may have been conflation. Since both Fravor and Deitrich (and presumably any other witnesses not yet named ) will have seen Underwood's film, which shows some curious fluctuations and movements, they may have mixed this memory up with their memories of the first incident and 'projected' a similar movement onto their own recollections. At a distance it may not have been possible for either witness to accurately observe the detailed motions of this unknown object, (which may have been flying relatively smoothly).

the talking and everything for sure will have skewed their memories BUT we have an after action report from the pilots where they already talk about the movement.

they dont call it a tic tac though, this term originated from underwood after his atflir film, which was taken after they landed.

 

[Eburacum]

the talking and everything for sure will have skewed their memories BUT we have an after action report from the pilots where they already talk about the movement.

I think I read that, but it would be nice to see it again. Do you have a link?
I remember reading Fravor's account many years ago, maybe around 2007, when it was first published, and I was completely puzzled by it. Nowadays I'm still puzzled, but a little less so.

 

[DavidB66]

I think I read that, but it would be nice to see it again. Do you have a link?

You might be thinking of the so-called Executive Summary, where Fravor describes the object as appearing to recognise them, turning to face them, then ascending quickly before it 'pulled lift vector on and aft of them at supersonic speed' - whatever all that means. Note what it doesn't say: it doesn't describe the object chasing him round in a circle, and it doesn't refer to any 'ping pong' or tumbling manouvers of the kind he has referred to in later interviews ('doing the funky chicken').

The Executive Summary is available from many sources, e.g. here:

https://embed.documentcloud.org/documents/20743466-nimitz-unredacted/?embed=1&responsive=1&title=1

However, I think the Executive Summary is a relatively late document, and you may be thinking of a much shorter 'debriefing' log compiled soon after the aircraft returned to the Nimitz. I have seen it but unfortunately I can't remember the title or where to find it. From my very fallible memory I think Fravor's description of the incident was even less sensational than in his ES version.

 

[Eburacum]

you may be thinking of a much shorter 'debriefing' log compiled soon after the aircraft returned to the Nimitz. I have seen it but unfortunately I can't remember the title or where to find it. From my very fallible memory I think Fravor's description of the incident was even less sensational than in his ES version.

Yes, I think that is it. The document is probably here on Metabunk somewhere but I can't think of a tag to search for it with.

 

[DavidB66]

Yes, I think that is it. The document is probably here on Metabunk somewhere but I can't think of a tag to search for it with.

I think I found it. The relevant text is here:

FAST EAGLES 110/100 UPON TAKE OFF WERE VECTORED BY PRINCETON AND BANGER (1410L) TO INTERCEPT UNID CONTACT AT 160@40NM (N3050.8 W11746.9) (NIMITZ N3129.3 W11752.8). PRINCETON INFORMED FAST EAGLES THAT THE CONTACT WAS MOVING AT 100 KTS @ 25KFT ASL.

FAST EAGLES (110/100) COULD NOT FIND UNID AIRBORNE CONTACT AT LOCATION GIVEN BY PRINCETON. WHILE SEARCHING FOR UNID AIR CONTACT, FAST EAGLES SPOTTED LARGE UNID OBJECT IN WATER AT 1430L. PILOTS SAW STEAM/ SMOKE/CHURNING AROUND OBJECT. PILOT DESCRIBES OBJECT INITIALLY AS RESEMBLING A DOWNED AIRLINER, ALSO STATED THAT IT WAS MUCH LARGER THAN A SUBMARINE.

WHILE DESCENDING FROM 24K FT TO GAIN A BETTER VIEW OF THE UNID CONTACT IN THE WATER, FAST EAGLE 110 SIGHTED AN AIRBORNE CONTACT WHICH APPEARED TO BE CAPSULE SHAPED (WINGLESS, MOBILE, WHITE, OBLONG PILL SHAPED, 25-30 FEET IN LENGTH, NO VISIBLE MARKINGS AND NO GLASS) 5NM WEST FROM POSITION OF UNID OBJECT IN WATER.

CAPSULE (ALT 4K FT AT COURSE 300) PASSED UNDER FAST EAGLE 110 (ALT 16KFT). FAST EAGLE 110 BEGAN TURN TO ACQUIRE CAPSULE. WHILE 110 WAS DESCENDING AND TURNING, CAPSULE BEGAN CLIMBING AND TURNED INSIDE OF FAST EAGLE’S TURN RADIUS. PILOT ESTIMATED THAT CAPSULE ACHIEVED 600-700 KTS. FAST EAGLE 110 COULD NOT KEEP UP WITH THE RATE OF TURN AND THE GAIN OF ALTITUDE BY THE CAPSULE. 110 LOST VISUAL ID OF CAPSULE IN HAZE.
LAST VISUAL CONTACT HAD CAPSULE AT 14KFT HEADING DUE EAST.

NEITHER FAST EAGLES 110 OR 100 COULD ACHIEVE RADAR LOCK OR ANY OTHER MEANS OF POSITIVE ID. FAST EAGLE 100 WAS FLYING HIGH COVER AND SAW THE ENGAGEMENT BY FAST EAGLE 110. FAST EAGLE 100 CONFIRMS 110 VISUAL ID; 100 LOST CONTACT IN HAZE AS WELL.

There are probably many sources for this, but I used this one:

http://www.astrosurf.com/luxorion/Media/uap-vfa-41-fast-eagle-log-14nov2004.tx

I'm pretty sure someone here on MB originally posted the link! The source isn't clear, but it has been generally accepted as genuine.

Note that the speed of 600-700 kt is only borderline supersonic.

 

[Eburacum]

No ping-pong movement there that I can see.

If this is the earliest account, it seems fairly consistent with a parallax error. Of course you need to take Deitrich's account as well, which describes a much shorter encounter and was presumably recorded much later.

 

[Domzh]

No ping-pong movement there that I can see.

If this is the earliest account, it seems fairly consistent with a parallax error. Of course you need to take Deitrich's account as well, which describes a much shorter encounter and was presumably recorded much later.

this is the text from the official after action review iirc

what always puzzled me was that it was described as 5nm west of the object in the water and that they particularly named smoke.

im leaning heavily to a cruise missile and a submarine (in the aatip report they mentioned that the louisville submarine was in this area conducting live fire drills but that they didnt had a weapon that fits the description of 18 ft sized tic tac thingy. a cruise missile if half the size but then it would explain the parallax of the perceived movement perfectly).

 

[DavidB66]

what always puzzled me was that it was described as 5nm west of the object in the water and that they particularly named smoke.

Good point about the distance. It seems flatly inconsistent with the version in the Executive Summary, where Fravor said the disturbance on the water was localised underneath the object (i.e. the tic-tac). Dare I even say it - could there have been two objects?? Maybe one of them Kurth's F-18 and the other a missile?

 

[jackfrostvc]

That event description was provided by the user TheFinalTheory on the forum AboveTopSecret back in 2007. He leaked the Tic Tac video there and that event description also. He mentioned a powerpoint as well, but I dont think that ever saw the light of day

 

[ideamug]

The balloon theory squares with Fravor's account but doesn't quite square with the larger sequence.

Some surface difficulties:

First, where does the radar data fit into the picture?

What's the probability that a radar glitch or clouds would coincidentally lead to a merge plot where a balloon was above the ocean surface 40 miles away? Are there enough balloons over the ocean for this to be probable? Seems like a stretch on its own.

If it were a balloon twenty feet across, what are the odds that it would evade Fravor's radar?

In this scenario, are the Nimitz radar returns independent of the balloon? Or are they somehow related?


Second, what about the nature of the ballon itself?

What type of balloon would be over the ocean at this location, and why would it begin to rise?

If the object was moving slowly and only appeared to be moving quickly to Fravor, why would Dietrich, from her vantage point, also lose visual contact with the tic-tac at the same time as him?

It doesn't follow that a perspectival explanation of the tic-tac's speed would also be observed from Dietrich's considerably different perspective (14k feet above?).

I tend to think that the accounts are generally true. The tic-tacs could have been high-altitude tech deployed from submarines. Drones capable of rising and falling at a few hundred miles an hour.

That would account for 90 percent of what was reported. The missing 10 percent being the speed.

 

[Mendel]

First, where does the radar data fit into the picture?

What's the probability that a radar glitch or clouds would coincidentally lead to a merge plot where a balloon was above the ocean surface 40 miles away? Are there enough balloons over the ocean for this to be probable? Seems like a stretch on its own.

If it were a balloon twenty feet across, what are the odds that it would evade Fravor's radar?

In this scenario, are the Nimitz radar returns independent of the balloon? Or are they somehow related?

Hypothesis:
We know there was a submarine in the area.
We know that submarines sometimes release balloons.
Such a balloon, being released underwater/near the waves, might initially be wet and thus reflect radar.
As it dried, its radar reflection would get lost.

 

[ideamug]

Hypothesis:
We know there was a submarine in the area.
We know that submarines sometimes release balloons.
Such a balloon, being released underwater/near the waves, might initially be wet and thus reflect radar.
As it dried, its radar reflection would get lost.

That's interesting.

Hypothesis:
We know there was a submarine in the area.
We know that submarines sometimes release balloons.
Such a balloon, being released underwater/near the waves, might initially be wet and thus reflect radar.
As it dried, its radar reflection would get lost.

A follow up difficulty would be how these momentary visible balloons would then lead Underwood to a misidentified jet.

After he lost the object on his radar, he asked the Princeton, who directed him to the object, where it went. They said they lost it.

What's the story here?

That the Princeton lead Underwood towards a radar glitch that happened to be in the direction of a jet that they couldn't see on their radar?

Each theory answers a complication but doesn't paint a cohesive explanation.

 

[Mendel]

That the Princeton lead Underwood towards a radar glitch that happened to be in the direction of a jet that they couldn't see on their radar?

Keep in mind that, based on the video data, we think the jet was 30 nm away, so "in the direction of the jet" is very approximate to begin with; and that this is a self-selected report, in that we don't hear about the many times when the military is investigating a spurious radar return that amounts to nothing.

With the new systems AARO is deploying, maybe there'll be a report on that in the future.

See also https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-radar-waves-affect-clouds.11217/

 

[FatPhil]

Hypothesis:
We know there was a submarine in the area.
We know that submarines sometimes release balloons.
Such a balloon, being released underwater/near the waves, might initially be wet and thus reflect radar.
As it dried, its radar reflection would get lost.

Can it even see "wetness". I can see it not penetrating bodies of water (which are wavelengths deep), but it can penetrate clouds and rain, which would have water droplets of a similar size (from a wavelength of radar perspective) as a wettened surface.

 

[Mendel]

Can it even see "wetness". I can see it not penetrating bodies of water (which are wavelengths deep), but it can penetrate clouds and rain, which would have water droplets of a similar size (from a wavelength of radar perspective) as a wettened surface.

Yes, but I was thinking that precipitation radar works precisely because water drops/droplets generate radar returns.

 

[FatPhil]

Yes, but I was thinking that precipitation radar works precisely because water drops/droplets generate radar returns.

I presumed (which, according to the old adage, should make a Pres. of U and me) those weather radars are a shorter wavelength, specifically so that the droplets do interact with them - that's their feature. A military radar (not that there's just one type, some want to see well over the horizon, for example, and much longer wavelengths are required for that) should have as a feature the ability to see past rain and clouds, otherwise I see quite a fatal weakness.

 

[Eburacum]

In 2004? That seems unlikely.
There have been many conflicts since then; such high performance drones would have been very useful in that time, but do not seem to have been used in any real combat situations.

 

[SinStar]

I presumed (which, according to the old adage, should make a Pres. of U and me) those weather radars are a shorter wavelength, specifically so that the droplets do interact with them - that's their feature. A military radar (not that there's just one type, some want to see well over the horizon, for example, and much longer wavelengths are required for that) should have as a feature the ability to see past rain and clouds, otherwise I see quite a fatal weakness.

Generally, the radar on jets are going to be either X-band (usually) or C-band (sometimes), shorter wavelengths than S-band weather radars. Longer wavelengths need bigger arrays so it's harder to fit them on jets. Those higher RFs are better for tracking and stuff too.

There's ways of mitigating the effects of weather, but it's still an issue. And it's better to think of it in terms of probability. Rain and clouds make it less likely for the radar to see through them (more likely to see precipitation/nothing instead), not that they can't, and they take steps to increase that probability. But AWACS-types exist anyway, so it's all good.

Wetness could make an object more reflective to their radar, but it just depends. Object detection is complex.

 

[Greene]

Generally, the radar on jets are going to be either X-band (usually) or C-band (sometimes), shorter wavelengths than S-band weather radars. Longer wavelengths need bigger arrays so it's harder to fit them on jets. Those higher RFs are better for tracking and stuff too.

There's ways of mitigating the effects of weather, but it's still an issue. And it's better to think of it in terms of probability. Rain and clouds make it less likely for the radar to see through them (more likely to see precipitation/nothing instead), not that they can't, and they take steps to increase that probability. But AWACS-types exist anyway, so it's all good.

Wetness could make an object more reflective to their radar, but it just depends. Object detection is complex.

FWIE the radar in question is the AN/SPY-1B (S Band) on the USS Princeton not those of the Superhornets.