The USS Jackson "Tic-tac" UAP

[Mick West]

Marik sent me this

 

[sgreenstreet]

Marik sent me this
View attachment 79560

A screenshot? Or the video?

 

[Mick West]

A screenshot? Or the video?

A screenshot of the original video on his phone, zoomed in a bit.

 

[Abbott287]

Were there any other aircraft in the general vicinity that reported any UAPS or anything odd?
If there were 4 and flying in formation, it seems others in the general area would have picked it up and reported something. Civilian jets or helicopters?

 

[Mick West]

A screenshot of the original video on his phone, zoomed in a bit.

I'd asked him for a frame that showed the right side, so I could see what was cropped off and also to see what the differences in pixel quality was. But this is just a small jpg from a phone screenshot via Twitter, so not useful for the latter.

 

[TheCholla]

He also told this story:

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:
View attachment 79518

Flight1822 is a good candidate because it's the closest to them when mentioned, and they mention "22,000 ft" which is also its altitude at that time.

Lehto thinks 22,000 ft is the slant range to the object, but it's most likely the altitude of that Southwest flight.


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83Ff6LPZuq8

 

[TheCholla]

Such as shame that we don't get the part when they slew the FLIR to the airliner, it'd have provided great comparison of the object vs an airliner IR signature, plus indications on where the object was. If SWA1822, they had to slew the FLIR up to get that airliner on screen, it would have been at higher elevation angle than the one in the vid (~12° if my quick trig is correct). And that would have helped to confirm the Az of the line of sight for the object.

 

[Mick West]

Here, Lehto says, "That is not blurry".

I'm a little confused as to what he would consider blurry. He seems to be saying this is a clear video of a Tic-Tac, but I'm really not seeing it. Here is the largest image, slowed down to 1/4 speed, so you can see the shape changes (ignore the times when the white cursor appears over it).

 

[Mick West]

Lehto thinks 22,000 ft is the slant range to the object, but it's most likely the altitude of that Southwest flight.

I agree, and I'm somewhat surprised Lehto (a pilot) thinks otherwise. Altitude is usually given in hundreds (FL220) or thousands (22,000) of feet.

And we also have Wiggins saying it was 6-10 NM, 6 NM is 36,457 feet. It's odd he didn't know this more precisely, if he was following it on radar.

 

[Mick West]

Lehto says this white cross is a radar indicator.

I wonder if it might be a thermal cue

4.8.2.11 Thermal Cue
Indicates an area that has a different thermal signature than the area surrounding it.

This OSD is different, but still uses a small cross for the thermal cue.

 

[Mick West]

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.
View attachment 79412
I've checked arth.nullschool.net/ and the ocean current was close to this heading.
View attachment 79414

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.

It can't. 0.1 knots isn't going to put a dent in 3.7 knots. Here's the vector diagram of what is needed to turn 28° at 3.7 knots (the true track direction and ground speed) into 51° (the ship's heading)

I had to put the current at 1.6 knots.

If we put it at 0.1 knots (the actual recorded current), we get:

Basically no change, 28 to 29.9 instead of 51 (or really, 62°T, if that's a magnetic heading)

In addition, there wind in the opposite direction FROM 300, at around 10 knots. If only a small percentage of that pushes the ship to the SE then you'll end with a ship heading of even more to the north (as it has to power more north to counteract the SE drift)

https://www.geogebra.org/calculator/srsjjpq3

 

[Mick West]

I'm working on a more detailed sitrec. Needs a bit of work.

 

[jarlrmai]

With the date on this one, do we have the KMLs for every possible airliner in the area at the time? At some point they may not be available.

 

[Mick West]

With the date on this one, do we have the KMLs for every possible airliner in the area at the time? At some point they may not be available.

Attached. Just covering a short period of time. I'll write. a post elsewhere explaining how to do this. ADSBx gives three years, so we have until Feb, 2026

 

[Mick West]

Just experimenting. Here's a sitch where the ship turns 10°
https://www.metabunk.org/sitrec/?cu...ws.com/1/JACKSON LLA CURVE/20250528_235854.js

And another where it goes straight
https://www.metabunk.org/sitrec/?cu...KSON LLS STRAIGHT REALTIVE/20250529_000003.js

The deviation of the ship's track (white line) from the recorded path (green line) is basically the same in both cases. So the coordinates of the ship can't be used to demonstrate it's going in a straight line.

In the straight line case, it would have to be something closer to the camera. In the curved case, possibly something more distant (like a plane)

There are still a few kinks to work out here. Work in progress!

 

[Mick West]

The differences above are just in the Physics menu. Just adjusted Total Turn and Jet Heading.

Viewed from above we see the 10° turn of the ship really does fit the green line (the recorded lat/long) just as well has the straight line