TFTRH #36 - Gary Voorhis: Tic-Tac UFO Witness


Source: https://youtu.be/8EbRv2xUinI


Gary Voorhis was a computer technician on the USS Princeton during the 2004 "Tic-Tac" UFO incident (commonly referred to as the "Nimitz Incident" after the aircraft carrier heading the strike group.) Gary first saw "UFOs" as slow-moving radar targets on the ship's SPY-1B radar, which he helped maintain. He also saw lights in the direction of those targets. Initially, the radar targets were thought to be radar clutter (false targets) but after a couple of days, planes were sent out to take a look. Gary saw some video from that "interrogation" and remembers a longer and more impressive video than the one that was later leaked to the public. He thinks what he saw was some kind of advanced technology, possibly alien technology.

I think a more likely explanation is some kind of series of radar glitch and unrelated visual observations of some sort – all possibly confused in memory by the passage of time. We discuss our different interpretations and try to figure out how to resolve them.

Gary is also the Vice President of UAP Expeditions, a non-profit organization set up by a group of former servicemen from the Nimitz Incident, along with other interested parties. The mission of UAP Expeditions is to provide a free public service field-testing UAP (UFO) related technologies. We chat briefly about that mission, and how they plan to return to the region of the original 2004 sighting to see if they can observe something again.

Podcast Web Page - https://www.tftrh.com/2020/01/21/episode-36-gary-voorhis-tic-tac-ufo-witness/
USS Nimitz UFO Incident (Wikipedia) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Nimitz_UFO_incident
Gary on Twitter - https://twitter.com/GaryVoorhis 2004
Nimitz Incident on Metabunk - https://www.metabunk.org/threads/2004-uss-nimitz-tic-tac-ufo-flir-footage-flir1.9190/
UAP Expeditions on Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/groups/360878674787796/
 
Just finished watching. Thanks for the revealing interview.

Am I getting this right: Voorhis says in the original tic-tac video that he saw the object was white in TV mode, but that in the video we've all seen on the internet the object is dark in TV mode, so he suggests this change is due to successive copying of the video and/or video compression?

Hm…

Would love to next see a conversation with Fravor.
 
Just finished watching. Thanks for the revealing interview.

Am I getting this right: Voorhis says in the original tic-tac video that he saw the object was white in TV mode, but that in the video we've all seen on the internet the object is dark in TV mode, so he suggests this change is due to successive copying of the video and/or video compression?

Hm…

Would love to next see a conversation with Fravor.

Compression can mute the colors, but it wouldn't invert them. More likely, he confused the IR and the TV mode.
 
Compression can mute the colors, but it wouldn't invert them. More likely, he confused the IR and the TV mode.
I think that's very possible. He also talked about phosphorescence, which kind of sounds like the "aura" (sharpening artifact). He thinks he saw them with binoculars at night, as points of light.

It's a shame it's been so long. Very hard to get accurate recollections from 16 years ago.
 
Very hard to get accurate recollections from 16 years ago.

I don't want to come down on the guy too hard as I absolutely appreciate him sharing his information, but there are some pretty mundane things I can recall from 2004 with absolute clarity.

It would be nice if the Navy, or whoever, would just go ahead and release the original video!

Sure, it's fantasy and it'd likely be seen as some sort of affirmation that leaks are acceptable, but one can dream…however, the Navy did admittedly choose not to pursue the 2007 leaker despite the relatively small number of military personal who were potential leakers.

Speaking of which, what exactly on this video would be classified or secret or whichever?

The UI info, the placement, the capability details, the chosen font, etc?

None of it seems to be anything an adversary wouldn't already know and employ.
 
there are some pretty mundane things I can recall from 2004 with absolute clarity.
Or so you think...

Speaking of which, what exactly on this video would be classified or secret or whichever?

The UI info, the placement, the capability details, the chosen font, etc?

None of it seems to be anything an adversary wouldn't already know and employ.

They have said it's the same length as the on that's in the wild. Meaning it's the same video, maybe in the original resolution. There would be nothing new in terms of the on-screen display. And I doubt there's anything more visible of the "object" that would be top secret. It's probably just some procedurally default classification.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: div
He answered the question of what happened after the object left the screen when the tracker broke lock at the end of the leaked video. Exactly what I expected: the sensor operator zoomed out and slewed the camera to reacquire the object, similar to the beginning of the Go Fast video.

However, Chad Underwood, who captured the Flir1 video, didn't mention this in his interview.
External Quote:
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/12/tic-tac-ufo-video-q-and-a-with-navy-pilot-chad-underwood.html
Were you approaching the Tic Tac head-on? Some people have suggested that the Tic Tac's rapid leftward movement toward the end of the video was actually the result of your F/A-18 banking to the right and dragging the camera along with it.
We were pointed nose-on to it. Maybe 10 to 20 degrees of azimuth either left or right.

Ergo, when the object kind of darts away to the left—
I was not aggressively maneuvering the aircraft in the manner that would make the FLIR pod would do that. But look: At that point, I did not actually see the object aggressively accelerate to the left, as the video shows, to actually prove that.

Because you were at a distance where you couldn't make visual contact with your own eyes—
Right.

And so what's happening in the video is a little ambiguous as a result.
Right. Yeah. And that part kind of sucks, because I can't confirm that the object aggressively accelerated that way. But I have my feelings, based off of my experience with my equipment — and also just logic, when it comes to, you know, physics.
That interview also cites engineers who worked on ATFLIR
External Quote:
Jim Gillingham, an engineering consultant who worked on ATFLIR for Raytheon, suggested in an interview with Intelligencer that "if there were several things in the sky to look at, but none were quite where the pilot was trying to look," it might produce erratic results, a glitch he'd experienced using the ATFLIR to track planes from the ground during development testing. "We ran into this when trying to get a lock and there were two aircraft climbing out. (LAX has four parallel runways). Sometimes the image would switch back and forth vigorously until we took steps to bias the lock some way."
 
Back
Top