The USS Jackson "Tic-tac" UAP



Just another example. This on a P3 Orion.

We see the graticule and the compass arrow move in sync, and we see a swift change in angle from about 203° at 12.1 to 256° at 17.5, so a turn of 53° in 3.4 seconds. This is obviously from the camera panning, which means the graticule is the camera heading and not the plane heading.
 
The exact camera used it a bit of a puzzle. Mariki suggested a Star SAFIR III, but the OSD (On Screen Display) seems different.

Searching for similar OSD gave me that P3 Orion mounted camera above, so I looked for other videos of the MH370 search, and found this:

Source: https://youtu.be/hqDp4GsBKSM?t=57


This shows the same OSD, but also a shot of the actual camera.

P3 Orion Camera.jpg


The configuration of the windows is different to a SAFIRE III. Reverse image searching that eventually got a hit to a thermal imager (Star SAFIRE HD), on this page:
https://thaimilitaryandasianregion....easprite-anti-submarine-helicopter-australia/
safire-hd.gif

That had and expired link back to Flir, which is archived from 2015.
https://web.archive.org/web/20141104235413/http://www.flir.com/surveillance/display/?id=64195
This had the matching photo of the camera.

There are two brochures, one for the broader HD family and one just for the Star Safire HD (with no designation, maybe the original)
https://web.archive.org/web/2015090...amily/HD/flir-star-safire-hd-datasheet-a4.pdf
2025-04-11_10-38-40.jpg

Two sample images have a similar OSD, but lack the Graticule, having instead two extra lines of text info.
2025-04-11_10-40-04.jpg


I then found this collection of SAFIRE HD examples. There's quite a bit of variation in the OSD, but none show the graticule.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WxKh8GkTtI


But it DOES show up on video of the FLIR BRITE STAR

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OcCmIR545c


Quite a rabbit hole. Unfortunately, being military equipment, there not a lot to go by.
 
One thing came out of that, I'm retracting the assertion that the aspect ratio is wrong. That was based on images in the manual showing a square reticle. So my FOV calculations based on reticle size are possibly incorrect, I'll look into that again.
 
Are these camera systems installed by the ship builder (Austal) or are they installed after manufacture (I know that upgrades would happen later but unsure if the original builder retains maintenance and upgrade contracts)? I know a few people who work at the Austal site in Mobile, AL where the USS Jackson was built so I can reach out to them for information.
 
Are these camera systems installed by the ship builder (Austal) or are they installed after manufacture (I know that upgrades would happen later but unsure if the original builder retains maintenance and upgrade contracts)? I know a few people who work at the Austal site in Mobile, AL where the USS Jackson was built so I can reach out to them for information.

not sure if flir is part of outfitting...
Article:
Following the launch, the ship will undergo outfitting, and test and evaluation of its major systems at the Austal shipyard.
 
There could be hardware and software version differences, the hardware remains the same but software is upgraded etc, it's really very hard/impossible to nail down what specific hardware/software was installed on a classified US Navy warship at a specific time.

It's part of what makes military videos so compelling / hard to debunk because there's so many factors you'll never know. Not to mention the unusual nature of high performance long range MWIR stuff being so far removed from most people's experiences.
 
There could be hardware and software version differences, the hardware remains the same but software is upgraded etc, it's really very hard/impossible to nail down what specific hardware/software was installed on a classified US Navy warship at a specific time.

It's part of what makes military videos so compelling / hard to debunk because there's so many factors you'll never know. Not to mention the unusual nature of high performance long range MWIR stuff being so far removed from most people's experiences.
The difficulty in debunking a case due to insufficient, vague, or inconsistent data doesn't make it compelling. Truly compelling evidence requires extensive, unambiguous detail that leaves no possibility for a conventional explanation. In contrast, incomplete data appeals to "believers" as it fits their alternative speculative interpretations.
 
CIC, when I was on the jws, had several radars, sonars, all working in concert with other military ships, commercial, private, and other air traffic radar control systems. Why weren't more planes recorded or appeared in similar fashion whilst maneuvering in the area if there was so much traffic
 
Just to go back to the 'what do the graticules at the top of the image show' question, this video showing a newer version of the Sea SAFIRE shows that the graticules illustrate the CRAFT HEADING and are annotated above it. The Azimuth of the camera is given as 175.5°.


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8PESn16qck


1744733301631.png



Platform Heading 101.1° Mag
AZ = 175.5°.
Line of Sight = 276.7°M
 

Attachments

  • 1744732966346.png
    1744732966346.png
    659.5 KB · Views: 16
Looking back at the Omaha case, it has a compass arrow, which in all cases I've seen is the same as the graticule, including the images we have of the arrow from Jackson.
2025-04-15_11-44-35.jpg

It does not change through the video. Looks like it's very roughly 280°M (Magnetic), and the lat/lon there show a due west movement, 269°T (True)
2025-04-15_12-10-50.jpg

But with about 10°E declination in the area, 280°M would be 290°T

Ignoring currents, that would be about the true ship track/heading (269°), plus the Az 17°, or 286°
 
Last edited:
DATE / TIME - 15 FEB 2023 / 7:15pm PST
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

I listened with one ear but it's something along these lines: the operator observed radar tracks that he could not identify, went on the deck to get visual, saw a light emerging from the water at the distance near the horizon, went back to the radar tracks and asked for FLIR visual, and that's the video they released. After the video cuts the four unknown tracks disappeared from radar, going northeast almost instantly, all at the same time.
I would have liked more information on the distance to these radar tracks.
 
Something interesting that is discussed at 19'10, is that he asked the FLIR operator to slew over to an identified radar track, a plane flying by "5-6 Nm further" behind the unknown contacts, to compare the FLIR signatures. They then see a clear plane signature, unlike for the unknown contacts.

Wild guess but the more logical would be that they checked one of these two planes flying by at ~17Nm. Which would indicate the unknown radar contacts were at ~10 Nm. If there is a follow-up that would be something to clarify since he seems to still have fairly detailed memories of where the different contacts were relative to the boat.

image(1).png
 
Just for the record, Marik now says that there was an ocean current heading 300° (at unknown speed) but theoretically this could account for the ship heading being 050° and the lat long track being closer to 028°. I created the following image with my basic sailing knowledge and vector mathematics.
1744792188184.png

I've checked arth.nullschool.net/ and the ocean current was close to this heading.
1744793292756.png


https://earth.nullschool.net/#2023/...aphic=-118.62,33.21,12581/loc=-118.151,32.909

We can work out the speed of the ship from From Mick's post #7 .... distace travelled is 0.06778 km in 35 seconds, so speed = 6.97 kmh = 3.763499 knots. The speed of the current is 0.05ms which is 0.09719222 knots , which is practically zero, so its hard to understand how such a light current could affect such a large ship so much.
 
In some previous cases I recall were able to download ship tracking data and some movements of military ships were on there.
 
In some previous cases I recall were able to download ship tracking data and some movements of military ships were on there.
Looking at (free) NOAA data for feb 2023
https://coast.noaa.gov/htdata/CMSP/AISDataHandler/2023/index.html

We'd want 03:15 UTC for MMSI 369970885 (USS Jackson). However, the first data for that ship starts at 20:23 UTC on the 16th, and there's no data on the 17th.

On the 16th, it's returning to port.
2025-04-16_05-44-35.jpg


Presumably, the AIS transmitter is only operative as needed, as it's a military ship
 
the operator observed radar tracks that he could not identify, went on the deck to get visual, saw a light emerging from the water at the distance near the horizon, went back to the radar tracks and asked for FLIR visual, and that's the video they released

I guess I'll have to listen to this time permitting, but is this even a thing? If you're the radar operator isn't your job to sit in front of your radar screen? Can an operator just get up, leave his station and head out on deck for a peek? I get this is a small littoral ship, but still, wouldn't there be observers on deck already because that's their job? Maybe the ship is small enough he can just pop out the door.

After the video cuts the four unknown tracks disappeared from radar, going northeast almost instantly, all at the same time.

Of course, the really compelling part happens AFTER the video cuts. Trust me bro, it was "instantly".
 
After the video cuts the four unknown tracks disappeared from radar, going northeast almost instantly, all at the same time.
If they are looking NE and they think the lights in the sky fly off NE, then it might be just lights going out and seeming to shrink - which gets interpreted as something flying directly away.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fin
If they are looking NE and they think the lights in the sky fly off NE, then it might be just lights going out and seeming to shrink - which gets interpreted as something flying directly away.
I think the operator describes what he saw on radar here, it's not visual at this point.
 
can you summarize?
ChatGPT Summary of Transcript: USS Jackson UFO Incident

In February 2023, an infrared video captured from the USS Jackson shows what appear to be unidentified aerial phenomena (UAPs). Operations Specialist Senior Chief Alexandra Wiggins, with 23 years in the Navy, came forward to confirm and describe the incident. He recounts seeing a solid light emerge from the ocean and rise into the sky—an event he had never witnessed before. Using radar and the ship's thermal Sapphire system, he tracked four objects in total, which eventually departed simultaneously in perfect formation, showing no signs of traditional propulsion or flight characteristics (no wings, exhaust, or blinking lights). Wiggins emphasizes these were not threats but unexplainable aerial contacts, consistent with similar sightings by Navy personnel over the years. The footage was analyzed and could not be attributed to commercial or military aircraft, strengthening its anomalous nature. Independent analyst Merrick, initially skeptical, confirmed that the movement, lack of known propulsion, and tight formation rule out conventional aircraft. The event adds to a pattern of UAP activity off the California coast, echoing incidents dating back decades, including the famous 2004 Tic Tac encounter and Lockheed sightings from 1953.
 
ChatGPT Summary of Transcript: USS Jackson UFO Incident

In February 2023, an infrared video captured from the USS Jackson shows what appear to be unidentified aerial phenomena (UAPs). Operations Specialist Senior Chief Alexandra Wiggins, with 23 years in the Navy, came forward to confirm and describe the incident. He recounts seeing a solid light emerge from the ocean and rise into the sky—an event he had never witnessed before. Using radar and the ship's thermal Sapphire system, he tracked four objects in total, which eventually departed simultaneously in perfect formation, showing no signs of traditional propulsion or flight characteristics (no wings, exhaust, or blinking lights). Wiggins emphasizes these were not threats but unexplainable aerial contacts, consistent with similar sightings by Navy personnel over the years. The footage was analyzed and could not be attributed to commercial or military aircraft, strengthening its anomalous nature. Independent analyst Merrick, initially skeptical, confirmed that the movement, lack of known propulsion, and tight formation rule out conventional aircraft. The event adds to a pattern of UAP activity off the California coast, echoing incidents dating back decades, including the famous 2004 Tic Tac encounter and Lockheed sightings from 1953.

thanks for the idea to use chat gpt somehow to summarize long videos, i could see how that could come in handy!

but in this case, i just wanted a summary of the Operator's testimony, and not sure i trust chat gpt to do that fairly or accurately.
 
The witness stated that sensors were facing the northeast when first Tic Tac was seen. Witness asked the CMT to train SAFIRE system on object. Witness told superior to take a look and he dismissed it as a conventional aircraft appearing as a Tic Tac on sensors. Witness then found aircraft beyond the Tic Tac, and it could easily be seen to be a plane and looked completely different from closer Tic Tac, and he told his superior to take a look to confirm. Iirc.
 
Last edited:
Both Greenstreet and Gough are low on my personal trust index however this alleged exchange seems worthy of inclusion on the basis Greenstreet seems to value at least part of his reputation.


Source: https://x.com/MiddleOfMayhem/status/1912595988524810715


In summary - no AARO record of the alleged incident according to Gough.

Wiggins states during the interview that his superior thought it was an aircraft and given the options highlighted over the previous 2 pages- can't see any reason to disagree.
 
Both Greenstreet and Gough are low on my personal trust index however this alleged exchange seems worthy of inclusion on the basis Greenstreet seems to value at least part of his reputation.
Not sure where the snark is coming from?
Gough is not all-knowing, she's a PR person utilizing the resources at her disposal. What she can say is limited, but I trust it's generally true.
Same with Greenstreet, he's been right a lot, and I can't recall when he was last wrong.

Source: https://x.com/MiddleOfMayhem/status/1912595988524810715

In summary - no AARO record of the alleged incident according to Gough.

Mmh, I'd add that the reason for that is that whoever leaked this to Corbell did not report it to AARO.
External Quote:

Greenstreet, April 8
UFO celebrity Jeremy Corbell has released another leaked "UAP" video filmed by Navy personnel aboard the USS Jackson from within the ship's Combat Information Center. Questions:
1) Does the Department and/or Navy have a comment on this leak?
2) I assume this was not an authorized release. And, over the years, Mr. Corbell has been the recipient of many "leaked" military "UAP" images, mostly from the Navy. Is the Department and/or Navy investigating this leak?
3) Is AARO investigating the "UAP" in the leaked video?
4) What's the current assessment as to what the "UAP" in the leaked video are?

[...]

DOD spox Susan Gough, April 16
AARO has no record of this alleged UAP incident. As we have said before, the Department encourages any former or current government employee or contractor who believes they have information relevant to the congressionally directed historical review to submit a report to AARO via the secure reporting mechanism on AARO's website. Additionally, guidance went out to all the military services and combatant commands in May 2023 regarding current operational reporting of UAP incidents. You can find more information on the GENADMIN message on AARO's website.

[...]

DOD spox Susan Gough, April 16
AARO has no record of the alleged (emphasis Gough) incident. We encourage individuals who believe they have knowledge of it to come forward and submit an actual official report, either through operational reporting channels per the GENADMIN message or through the reporting mechanism on AARO's website.

Any leak investigation would be counterintelligence, I don't really expect the Pentagon to comment on that. AARO does not know whether the incident is legitimate (i.e. happened as claimed, was misrepresented, or faked).
Wiggins states during the interview that his superior thought it was an aircraft and given the options highlighted over the previous 2 pages- can't see any reason to disagree.
This explains why there was no UAP report via "operational channels".
It would also explain why AARO doubts there's anything to it.
 
Last edited:
No to what? You're talking about Corbell. When asked what is his estimate of the range, the operator says 6 to 10 Nm.
And yes it's a guess and an estimate.
 
his estimate
Estimates are not facts. And of course, even in the estimate there is a wide variation between 6 and 10 Nm.

One thing that we have seen again and again, especially in UFO reports, is that human estimations of size, of speed, or of distance are notoriously bad. Without a way to verify them, such estimates should always be taken with a large grain of salt.
 
Also a question has been asked to the CIC operator about his estimate of the distance to the objects, from the boat. He says 6-10Nm.
He also told this story:
External Quote:
And, you know, the, I believe it was the the junior officer of the deck was just saying, hey, you know, nah, that was just an aircraft. It was just an aircraft, typical, you know, 747, and I said, Sir, did you see wings? Did you see, you know, anything protruding from the craft that indicated a silhouette of a typical aircraft? And he was like, Yeah, well, it's because we're so far away from the aircraft that it seems to look like a tic tac. So I said, okay, sir, got it, I would say maybe 20 seconds pass. 20 seconds pass, and I go back to my radar, and I'm just looking around, and I tell the CSM, I said, slew over to a certain degree, and I forget the degree, and he slews over to an Air Contact that I know is an Air Contact. And I tell them, zoom in. Now, I just mentioned that there's a curtain that separates ICC one from the bridge, but the bridge has the same monitors that we have, so they can see what we're doing from the bridge, and you can change like channels so they can see certain pictures that are being displayed in ICC one. So they're already displaying the Sapphire camera on one of the multiple monitors on the bridge. So when I tell them to slew over, I say, OD. Do you see what this Air Contact looks like? This Air Contact was maybe five, six nautical miles further than what we witnessed the tic tacs, and you can clearly see the wings. You can see the propulsion. You can see the propulsion like when on a hot summer day. Being from Las Vegas. George Knapp, I'm sure you know what that is. You can see that hot propulsion, um, from the aircraft. And I told the the J, O, D, I said, like, what do you have to say? Now, you know, because it it was funny to me that I was able to disprove his skepticism, like within 20 seconds, that what we witnessed was probably an airplane. We were just zoomed in so far that it just looked like a small tic tac, but disproved like within 2030 seconds, and he didn't really say anything after that. He just kind of chuckled
That's, oddly, a more precise estimate than the UFO distance estimate. If you combine them, it puts the "clearly" plane at 11-16 miles away. There are not really any good candidates for that. Although there's two Southwest 737s at about 17NM. Which would look somethings like:
2025-04-18_12-27-55.jpg


At 10NM, the heat signature is very roughly 5M long (need to check this)

2025-04-18_12-31-13.jpg


A useful (indeed, necessary) question for Wiggins would be the altitude that the radar showed of the objects.
 
Where has Corbell and/or Marik claimed to be possession of the raw footage (or at least the "original" or "full frame" footage)? Thanks!
 
Where has Corbell and/or Marik claimed to be possession of the raw footage (or at least the "original" or "full frame" footage)? Thanks!
My understanding is that Marik's tweets reveal that there is a higher quality version that he has access too via Corbell
 
Where has Corbell and/or Marik claimed to be possession of the raw footage (or at least the "original" or "full frame" footage)? Thanks!
They have released two versions, stabilized and cropped differently. In their recent video, Corbell said that "Michael" (someone who works for them) stabilized the video on the Latitude. To stabilize the video, they would need an unstabilized version. They also posted a higher-quality screenshot showing the right side (the compass arrow and the time), which is missing from both versions they have released.
2025-04-19_10-09-15.jpg
 
Back
Top