The USS Jackson "Tic-tac" UAP

[Mick West]

Article:

April 8, 2025
In 2023 the U.S. Navy encountered four "TIC TAC" shaped UAPs off the coast of California. Personnel from the USS Jackson in the CIC (Combat Information Center) filmed them. One of the vehicles of unknown origin was observed exiting the water, transitioning directly into flight, demonstrating transmedium capability. No flight control surfaces or conventional propulsion signatures (heat plumes, exhaust) were detected. The UAPs executed an observed instantaneous, synchronized departure. Operator, purpose, capability, origin and intent are unknown. The craft remain unidentified.

DATE / TIME - 15 FEB 2023 / 7:15pm PST. [Mick: 16 Feb 2023, 03:15 UTC]

LOCATION - 32.888933, -117.9335 (W-291 Warning Area, Southern California Coast)

VESSLE - USS Jackson (LCS-6)

IMAGING PLATFORM - Star SAFIRE / Multi-Spectral EO/IR Imaging System

Source: https://www.weaponizedpodcast.com/news-1/uss-jackson-tic-tac-uap

This looks very like the Chilean Navy case - i.e. a distant plane.

 

[TheCholla]

Exact time and location, Az/El angles, this deserves a Sitrec to check what plane this would be.

Heading of the USS Jackson was allegedly 50° (this is from Marik/X).

 

[Mick West]

There are a few planes in that general direction.

https://www.metabunk.org/sitrec/?custom=https://sitrec.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/1/USS Jackson - looking East/20250408_204425.js

 

[Mick West]

The actual video is only 35 seconds. It's repeated in the above zoomed in. Here's the unzoomed version.

Note this is not the original, it's been stabilized by Jeremy's team from a handheld video off a computer screen. The original seems not to be available yet

 

[Mick West]

If we take all the times that the object is centered on the centerline, we can get an accurate measure of how the azimuth (heading) angle changes over time.

Source: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gHGZtFGCW4xvIrA7PkZZxBWuafnhahoCnWJrO_xoiYI/edit?usp=sharing


It gives a very consistent turn rate of 0.269°/second. (30.4-24.8)/(29.25-8.42)

 

[TheCholla]

It gives a very consistent turn rate of 0.268°/second

Assuming contribution to the Az change from the USS Jackson is negligible, this constrains potential distances for a candidate plane.
Quick trig, at 30 miles this already corresponds to a minimum speed of ~500mph, if the plane has a perfect perpendicular direction to the line of sight.

Looks more like something relatively close.

 

[Mick West]

The heading of the ship can be inferred from its motion

I get about 28.8 degrees, true. This is for a starting position of:
32° 53.333', -117° 56.012' (32.888883°, -117.933533°)

And end position of:
32 53.365, -117° 55.991 (32.889417°, -117.933183°)

https://www.movable-type.co.uk/scripts/latlong.html

This seems rather different to Marik's 50°

The longitude we can verify as it changes through the video, but the latitude is chopped off, so we only have the above two images.

But, if correct, and the camera is relative to this motion, then this gives a different general camera direction of around 28+25 = 53°.

I wonder if Marik added the Az twice

 

[Mick West]

Assuming contribution to the Az change from the USS Jackson is negligible,

That seems like a big assumption, the USS Jackson is a highly maneuverable littoral combat ship that could probably do 1° per second.

Source: https://youtu.be/tRL49JYywPA?t=330


The Az in the video is only changing at 0.269° per second

We need some (all) intermediate positions to see if there's any curve/turn.

 

[TheCholla]

Isn't this display at the top indicating heading of the ship? It stays close to 50°. That's where Marik got this heading.

 

[TheCholla]

The only two planes I see that may fit are N3001T and N6745P. Kinda aligned, flying southeast and low, one at ~28Nm, the other ~47Nm in the background. And that would be consistent with the ship heading being more 28° than 50° (but why this value at the top then?).

If this ends up being planes this is my bet.

 

[Mick West]

Isn't this display at the top indicating heading of the ship? It stays close to 50°. That's where Marik got this heading.

You'd think. But how then do we explain the position change being along a 28° heading?

I could have calculated that movement incorrectly, but I've checked it a few times.

It's possible the compass tape (at the top) is the true heading of the camera, and the Az value is relative to the platform (the ship). But that would mean the ship is turning left slightly.

If so this means the actual Az change of the camera is just ~3° over 35 seconds, so more like 0.1°/second, which expands the possible set to planes.

Getting the uncropped video would go a long way to resolving this. I've DMed Jeremy to ask, but he's not been very responsive to previous requests.

 

[Mick West]

The only two planes I see that may fit are N3001T and N6745P. Kinda aligned, flying southeast and low, one at ~28Nm, the other ~47Nm in the background. And that would be consistent with the ship heading being more 28° than 50° (but why this value at the top then?).

They do look good at the start, but by the end, N3001T has overtaken N6745P in Sitrec, but in the video they are closer, but still have a similar diagonal relative position.

 

[Mick West]

I sense this will take a little while to get close to a resolution. Best not to be hasty.

 

[jackfrostvc]

In the top right corner , is that "FAULT" that is flashing on screen ?
If so, what is that indicating?

 

[Mick West]

In the top right corner , is that "FAULT" that is flashing on screen ?
If so, what is that indicating?

It means the BIT (Built In Test) is reporting an error. Here it's "PEA WFOV" which this manual for a similar system says has limited mission impact.

Some Other things on screen:

Inrpt - Inertial Point = Manual control of the camera with a two-way switch (small joystick)
Night - Display is in "a configuration of displayed symbology at brightness levels suitable for ... nighttime ambient light conditions."

 

[flarkey]

The heading of the ship can be inferred from its motion

I get about 28.8 degrees, true. This is for a starting position of:
32° 53.333', -117° 56.012' (32.888883°, -117.933533°)
View attachment 79009

And end position of:
32 53.365, -117° 55.991 (32.889417°, -117.933183°)
View attachment 79008
https://www.movable-type.co.uk/scripts/latlong.html
View attachment 79006

This seems rather different to Marik's 50°

The longitude we can verify as it changes through the video, but the latitude is chopped off, so we only have the above two images.

But, if correct, and the camera is relative to this motion, then this gives a different general camera direction of around 28+25 = 53°.

I wonder if Marik added the Az twice

We need to be careful here with regard to North and the camera reference datums.

Firstly, @Mick West your calculations above have worked out the bearing between two points, This has calculated the ship's track - ie the direction of movement, not its heading - ie the direction it is pointing.

Secondly , I think all the headings on the camera are magnetic headings, so we need to consider magnetic declination. For that part of the Pacific in 2023 Magnetic declination was 11.33° East, so we need to add 11.33° to get True Headings which I think is what Sitrec/ADSBexchange uses.

https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomag/calculators/magcalc.shtml#ushistoric

Finally overlay on the camera uses a number of different reference points for the numbers on the screen:

• The graticules at the top are the camera magnetic heading
• The azimuth at the bottom is relative to the ship heading (where it is pointing)
• The elevation is relative to a flat plane matching the ship's deck and can change depending on the roll of the ship

So if my calculations are right then the UAP (in this frame) is on a ture bearing of approx 63°.

https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?replay=2023-02-16-03:16&lat=33.009&lon=-117.624&zoom=10.0

There's a few candidate aircraft on that heading:

But assuming the aircraft is at altitude above 10,000 ft, we can filter the others out. One aircraft N325AS is almost exactly on the 63°True heading. It is at a range of 56.5 miles from the ship at at an altitude of 15900ft and climbing.

A point to note is that N325AS would be viewed practically tail on, so looking directly at its hot jet engine exhausts.

N325AS - Embraer Phenom 300

I asked Google "If i am at sealevel and I am looking at something that is 3.2° above the horizon that is 56.5 miles away how high is it above sea level in feet?

Source:

So within the ball park for altitude too ... ?

Edit: And N325AS 's position relative to N604AW matches the view in sitrec from the ship.

https://www.metabunk.org/sitrec/?custom=https://sitrec.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/15857/USS Jackson - looking East/20250409_132706.js

 

[jdog]

Mildly annoyed that NBC News reported on this so gushingly and uncritically, like it's Drake dropping a new diss track: https://www.nbcnews.com/now/video/n...ecorded-near-california-released-236881989727

Host Gadi Schwartz describes the ocean off San Diego as a "hot spot" for this weirdness where "unidentified flying objects don't seem to care there are all kinds of Navy warships that are out there."
Though he does acknowledge that this videos "don't show much" and it's more important that Corbell had a crewmember describing odd sightings (which are not the same as in the clip.)

 

[Mick West]

Firstly, @Mick West your calculations above have worked out the bearing between two points, This has calculated the ship's track - ie the direction of movement, not its heading - ie the direction it is pointing.

Indeed, there are unknowns of wind, currents, and turning.

Edit: And N325AS 's position relative to N604AW matches the view in sitrec from the ship.

Art the start of the video yes, but then not at the end. It's not 100% clear that it's the same two objects, but it certainly seems to be.

I did a little magic to get all 150 aircraft in the area (above 2000 feet) and looked for ones that seem to match at the start and the end.

G-STBN (and 166532 (a helicopter) are a very tentative match, being approximately the right positions apart, and closing by very similar amounts. However I had to adjust the roll fromm 5° to 10° to get them to match, and that seems a bit much. Also there are other angular considerations (which I've yet to go through)

https://www.metabunk.org/sitrec/?custom=https://sitrec.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/1/Jackson end match/20250409_170241.js

There are many planes (and other aircraft) in the area. Given the uncertainty over the displayed angles and positions, I think a lot of work would need to be done before we could rule them all out (or find some that match)

 

[Mick West]

However I had to adjust the roll fromm 5° to 10° to get them to match, and that seems a bit much.

This might not be as big of an issue as it seems as right at the start of the video there's a roll of around 5 degree over the first five seconds, which kind of suggests the ship doing some kind of maneuver - i.e. starting or ending a turn. Or maybe just normal waves.

 

[Mick West]

For the WFOV or MFOV at the start there's a relative quick camera movement from 2.33 and 23.0° to 3.40 and 23.7 where both objects are lined up with the centerline.

If we assume (probably not ideal, but looks 90% accurate) that the objects don't move much relative to each other, then that gives us a horizontal separation of 0.7°at this point. Marik had 0.6°, which is close enough (it varies with time).

That gives me a reference of 0.7° over 284 pixels.
VFOV in MFOV is 1335/284*0.7 = 3.29°
virtual VFOV for sitrec (to include the full height of the video) 1670/284*0.7 = 4.11°

This is probably only accurate to within 0.5°, given the relative motion of the planes and the uncertain aspect ratio and distortion from filming a screen with a camera.

It's not clear if this applies, but the SAFIREIII manual that's online

The 20 mrad covers 597 pixels, which would give a VFOV of 1335/597*20 = 44.72 mrad, or 2.56° Hmm....

[EDIT 12:28PM April 11 2025: I'm not sure about crosshairs being square; examples vary]

Oh, the reticle (crosshairs) should be square! Well, this changes everything...

Adjusting to square. Text looks good.

Now, 20 mrad is 417 pixels, so 1335/417*20 = 64 mrad = 3.66 degrees VFOV
Sitrec VFOV for video = 1670/417*20 = 80.1 mrad = 4.6°

This ALSO means I need to scale the video for accurate matching (1437/2083 = 69% horizontal)

 

[Mick West]

Okay, here it is with the correct aspect ratio for better matching. I think the Sitrec vFOV of 4.6° (for the full vertical height of the video including black bars) is probably accurate here.

 

[Mick West]

If we are looking towards the land, why can't we see it in MFOV? The El angle is pitching from 1.8° to 4.6°. The operator is tracking the object, and they probably won't change elevation, so what's the actual el of the camera relative to the horizon? We'd need to know the actual pitch of the ship in that direction, and how it changes over time.

 

[Mick West]

So Marik has access to the full video (and probably has for some time, based on the work he's done). He said it will be released eventually, so it's probably best to wait for that.

He posted lat and lon (only lon is visible in the public video) I made a graph of them, which, on adding a 2nd degree polynomial trendline, shows about a 4° turn to the left, which would make a fixed Az move 4° to the right. Noisy data, but not inconsistent with a turn.

Source: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/176YnJegh-r8JkZJj4MvwlOXXXRYNMDCD8Vv1PiKIZWU/edit?usp=sharing

 

[Mick West]

I also repeated this using a linear trendline for the first 25% and the last 25%, and got the same result (about 4°). But again, it's rather noisy data with limited points, so there's a range of possibilities.

 

[Mick West]

Finally overlay on the camera uses a number of different reference points for the numbers on the screen:

• The graticules at the top are the camera magnetic heading
• The azimuth at the bottom is relative to the ship heading (where it is pointing)
• The elevation is relative to a flat plane matching the ship's deck and can change depending on the roll of the ship

I see Marik disagrees with this, claiming the graticule (the compass tape at the top) is the ship's heading, not the camera's heading.

Source: https://twitter.com/MvonRen/status/1910019628333686891


It's hard to find a reference for this. I can't even find examples with the same graticule. But I did find this Star SAFIRE example:

(source: YouTube)

The aircraft (likely a helicopter) is flying about 40° to the the road, which is straight. We have the helo lat/lon, and the exact truck position from the road markings and the change in the surface of the bridge. From this we can draw measure lines from the helo to the truck.

As a result, the absolute world heading is the same as the graticule heading. Hence the graticule is showing the heading of the camera.

Here it's showing the true heading (indicated by T next to the number). @flarkey suggests that the Jackson footage uses the magnetic heading. We should probably check both. Also, consider that the camera compass might be off.

 

[flarkey]

I explained that to Marik in this tweet. He still refuses to accept, or is unable to understand.


Source: https://x.com/flarkey/status/1910000401614516661

Also something to note is the heading graticules at the top appear to be annotated with T indicating TRUE heading, not magnetic. I'm not sure if that is specific to that model of the SAFIRE turret or to the whole productline.

 

[Mick West]

So if we look at a true heading of 50-52° vs a Magentic 50-52° (hence 61-63°), there does not seem to be a match for 50,

But at 61, we have the previously identified G-STBN and 166532, which I consider a tentative match.

G-STBN is actually a 777, a large plane 109 miles away. That's a long way, but consistent with the Chilean case. It's flying away, so big hot engines

166532 would be the lower of the two dots and the one they zoom in on. It's a SIKORSKY UH-60 Black Hawk about 30 miles away.

The biggest thing this pair has going for it is their relative placement, which looks pretty close to the video.

We are hampered here by the lack of comparable video from the same system.

 

[TheCholla]

Do you have a preset for this configuration? Or a video demonstrating that match?

Because when I center Sitrec on 166532 (set as Target), first it indicates a wrong distance of ~85Nm, and I can't really make the stitch work.

 

[yoshy]

I explained that to Marik in this tweet. He still refuses to accept, or is unable to understand.


Source: https://x.com/flarkey/status/1910000401614516661

View attachment 79126


Also something to note is the heading graticules at the top appear to be annotated with T indicating TRUE heading, not magnetic. I'm not sure if that is specific to that model of the SAFIRE turret or to the whole productline.

In one of his replies after you tried to correct his usage of "boresight", he says

My apologies, but I do not have the time to engage in semantics.

How frustrating! It's not merely engaging in semantics to correct usage of a word, when a mutual understanding of that term is essential to the conversation. As always, you have great patience in your replies.

 

[Mick West]

Do you have a preset for this configuration? Or a video demonstrating that match?

Because when I center Sitrec on 166532 (set as Target), first it indicates a wrong distance of ~85Nm, and I can't really make the stitch work.

Yeah, there's something odd going on that makes the camera position move after saving. Sorry. I'm looking into it now.

 

[flarkey]

In one of his replies after you tried to correct his usage of "boresight", he says

My apologies, but I do not have the time to engage in semantics.

How frustrating! It's not merely engaging in semantics to correct usage of a word, when a mutual understanding of that term is essential to the conversation. As always, you have great patience in your replies.

Indeed - if we cant agree on the most basic of terminolgy that describes where the camera is looking then there's no point continuing the debate. I'm only basing my understanding of the term 'boresight' on over 15 years working with electro-optic cameras used in defence and airborne imaging applications. As we've seen in Marik's debates with Mick - he is unwilling to admit to ever being wrong.

 

[deirdre]

Indeed - if we cant agree on the most basic of terminolgy that describes where the camera is looking then there's no point continuing the debate. I'm only basing my understanding of the term 'boresight' on over 15 years working with electro-optic cameras used in defence and airborne imaging applications.

to be fair i don't really understand your response. he is using boresight to indicate where the camera is looking. but he says its relative to the bow..which may be wrong.

 

[flarkey]

to be fair i don't really understand your response. he is using boresight to indicate where the camera is looking. but he says its relative to the bow..which may be wrong.

no - he's saying the boresight = the heading of the ship = is 50°, and that " "Az" indicates where the camera is pointing relative to the bow (boresight). "

In this case Az = +25°, so he thinks the camera is pointing 075°, when in reality it is pointing 050°. It might not seem like much but it is critical when we're taling about fields of view around 4.6°. If we go onto identfy a potential object that could be the UAP in the video then he can just counter it by saying "ah, but thats not where were looking!". If we cant agree on the symbology and terminology from the outset (ie where we are looking) there's no point in trying to identify the UAP.

edit: I've just noticed that this is illustrated in @TheCholla 's post above where he shares Marik's annotated FlightRadar24 screenshot suggesting a line of sight of 73°.

 

[deirdre]

no - he's saying the boresight = the heading of the ship = is 50°, and that " "Az" indicates where the camera is pointing relative to the bow (boresight). "

In this case Az = +25°, so he thinks the camera is pointing 075°, when in reality it is pointing 050°. It might not seem like much but it is critical when we're taling about fields of view around 4.6°. If we go onto identfy a potential object that could be the UAP in the video then he can just counter it by saying "ah, but thats not where were looking!". If we cant agree on the symbology and terminology from the outset (ie where we are looking) there's no point in trying to identify the UAP.

ah. then i dont understand what either of you are saying i'm really just waiting for you guys to do whatever you are doing and i.d the planes. sorry to interrupt.

 

[Mick West]

Yeah, there's something odd going on that makes the camera position move after saving. Sorry. I'm looking into it now.

The 80 mile bug appears to be from loading multiple KML/KMZ files (or just one) that contain duplicates (i.e. the same flight in one file, which happens sometimes with ADSBx, or same in two files).

Unfortunately, the fix is proving to be a little complex. It might be an hour or two as I'll have to restructure some things.

 

[jdog]

no - he's saying the boresight = the heading of the ship = is 50°, and that " "Az" indicates where the camera is pointing relative to the bow (boresight). "

In this case Az = +25°, so he thinks the camera is pointing 075°, when in reality it is pointing 050°. It might not seem like much but it is critical when we're taling about fields of view around 4.6°. If we go onto identfy a potential object that could be the UAP in the video then he can just counter it by saying "ah, but thats not where were looking!". If we cant agree on the symbology and terminology from the outset (ie where we are looking) there's no point in trying to identify the UAP.

Marik could have avoided the confusion if he'd had a little... foresight.

 

[Mick West]

Do you have a preset for this configuration? Or a video demonstrating that match?

Because when I center Sitrec on 166532 (set as Target), first it indicates a wrong distance of ~85Nm, and I can't really make the stitch work.

The 80 mile bug appears to be from loading multiple KML/KMZ files (or just one) that contain duplicates (i.e. the same flight in one file, which happens sometimes with ADSBx, or same in two files).

This bug should be fixed in 1.10.0

Try this one:
https://www.metabunk.org/sitrec/?cu...ws.com/1/Jackson with dots/20250410_225710.js

I'm not convinced, as it's actually at 55° now I've fixed the camera position. And the FOV needed seems too wide. Still needs more digging, but I used up most of my coding energy in fixing that bug.

 

[Calter]

ah. then i dont understand what either of you are saying i'm really just waiting for you guys to do whatever you are doing and i.d the planes. sorry to interrupt.

If I'm understanding the difference myself, this drawing shows both ways of viewing the situation

In both versions the camera is 25° from the bow of the ship, but in one the number at the top of the footage indicates where the camera is looking (Flarkey) and on the other it indicates where the bow of the ship is looking (MarikvR)

 

[Mick West]

In both versions the camera is 25° from the bow of the ship, but in one the number at the top of the footage indicates where the camera is looking (Flarkey) and on the other it indicates where the bow of the ship is looking (MarikvR)

In addition, Az in not fixed, goes from 22.3 to 32.0, whereas the heading goes from around 50 to 52.

In the Marik model, the ship is fixed 50-52, then that means the objects are moving more.

In the Flarkey model, the heading is the absolute direction to the object, it does not change much, so the ship has to be rotating to make the Az change

 

[Mick West]

Regarding headings, on the Weaponized site there are three screenshots (attached). These seem cropped from a wider video, but have some more info that the public video. #3 can be matched to the video:

Of note here is the compass North arrow in the lower right. This seems a perfect match for the graticule at the top (aspect ration is a bit stretched here).
We've seen this arrow before with Omaha Sphere case.

As I recall, everyone agreed that this showed the direction of the camera (i.e. it's showing where north is if the screen were tilted down forward so it's flat)