USS Omaha "Transmedium" Sphere Descending To the Sea

Festivus

New Member
I find this video very interesting because it contains more camera data then usual, that you can use to conduct rudimentary target motion analysis. First, I wanted to determine the camera system used, and it appears to be the SAFIRE system as described in the release. You can find a video here of older SAFIRE systems that looks pretty much bang on to what the video has:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eh06nCegv5g


Based off that, I found a manual for the older Star SAFIRE III system and looked up some of the HUD data to see if I could get some more insight. The LCS uses the "Sea Star SAFIRE" on its main mast for fire control, but I obviously couldn't find a manual for that one. This older manual covers enough though. First item of note, at 0:04 in the video you can see the FOV change, and later at 0:30 you can see "UNFOV" in the top left corner. Apparently this stands for "Ultra-Narrow FOV" and (based off the older manual) is a 2 x electronic zoom of the Super Narrow FOV, and is the highest zoom possible for the system. Second, the manual doesn't mention this but based off quick analysis of the previously linked video, the arrow in the bottom right is a north seeking arrow and points towards where north should be. The box at the top right is for the Laser Range Finder, and indicates it is armed but not receiving any return, so no range data. Finally, the bottom of the screen has what I think is the most interesting data. The lat/long display is for the ships location. The "Az" display indicates the relative azimuth to the target from the *centerline* of the camera system, with positive numbers going up from 0 to 180 being on the right side of the centerline, and negative numbers from 0 to -180 being the left side of the centerline. You can confirm this with the video I posted. I imagine that "0" for this camera system is towards the bow of the ship, as it is used to control the gun system, and anything else would probably be terribly confusing to the fire control crews. "El" is also displayed, which is the elevation of the camera above or below the horizontal centerline. Like previously mentioned, the SAFIRE camera is mounted on the LCS mast, and I imagine it is fairly high up there to allow for a farther view. If we can calculate the height of the LCS mast and pinpoint the camera location, you could actually come up with a pretty good estimate of how far the horizon is in the video.

So, based off the display data we had and using time stamps from the video, I plotted the ship's locations in Google Earth over the entirety of the video, time stamped them, and noted the azimuth to target that was indicated. Once I plotted the locations, I determined the ships heading (as previously mentioned, roughly due west), added the relative indicated bearing that the "Az" display shows, and came up with a TRUE bearing from the indicated Lat/Long position to the target. This can then be plotted in Google Earth. For example: At 05:52:52, the ship is roughly on heading 268, and the "Az" display shows a "15", or 15 degrees off the bow, to the starboard side; 15 degrees plus 268 degrees give you a true bearing to target of 283 degrees.

I broke the video down into two parts: before and after the cut. During the time between cuts, the ship moves west almost 1900 meters. I plotted the ships location 5 times for each segment. The first segment was roughly 27 seconds long, and the ship covered 131 meters in that period (ship speed about 9.5 knots). The second segment was also 27 seconds long, covering 123 meters (ship speed about 8.8 knots). Below is a snip from Google Earth showing the first segment. The pins are the ship's location, and the bright red line from each pin is the true bearing to the target, based off the camera data. The dark red line is an estimated course based of the plotted locations of each pin. For reference, the point where the last 3 lines intersect is 180m from the last pin.



This second snip is from after the cut. Same deal as above, but with green lines.



And here is a wider shot from Google Earth... the numbered pins in the top left indicate the sequential order of azimuth bearings. The lines all go out to 30KM from the ship location. I'm not entirely sure what to make of it. Clearly what ever this phenomenon was, it reversed course and moved west during the time between cuts, or there was a second target, or maybe there is a glitch in the camera's tracking system. The target might also be 10,20 or 30km out, moving on north track during the first cut and on a southerly track during the second cut. I've included an attachment of the KMZ I'm using, so please feel free to double check my data



Also, not trying to over explain anything here with the in-depth descriptions of true vs. relative bearing or anything else, just trying to show my work so others can double check me... Maybe I'm really off base here on how these camera systems work. I also didn't really analyze the elevation data of the camera system, since it seemed to bounce all over the place. I attribute this to camera stablization and the ship bobbing in the high swells the crew mentioned in the video. Could be wrong though.
 

Attachments

  • Omaha.kmz
    4.2 KB · Views: 66
For example: At 05:52:52, the ship is roughly on heading 268, and the "Az" display shows a "15", or 15 degrees off the bow, to the starboard side; 15 degrees plus 268 degrees give you a true bearing to target of 283 degrees.
Nice work but are you sure about the azimuth angles? I get the impression these are accurate to one decimal place, so where for example you assume it's 15 degrees off the bow, it's really only 1.5 deg and so on.
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
Nice work on identifying the camera system that's going to be really useful, I mentioned the az numbers seeming to go backwards after the cut in a previous post but didn't have enough data to plot stuff like you did. I did find that the range of other military laser range finders did seen to be quite short at around 7km which would explain the lack of range.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I also didn't really analyze the elevation data of the camera system, since it seemed to bounce all over the place.
I'd discounted the azimuth data as it seems very unreliable.

In the last segment you can see the angle most of the time. it seems to go 21,20,19,20,21,20,19,20,21,22,21,20,19, 20 - which to me seems to indicate a pretty constant heading of about 20°, with a degree of noise.

In the first locked segment 18 seconds in, it's 33,34,35,36,37,38,39, (blur) 33?,34?, 35,36,37,38,39,40, 41, 42

So rather a jump there too.
 
Last edited:

DavidB66

Active Member
In the SAFIRE video (at #81 above) the section from about 4:03 to 4:09 is interesting. I don't know what it is, but if white is 'hot' in this section, there seems to be a strong fluctuating heat source - maybe a brazier or a blazing torch. Its IR image is roughly circular, but it expands and contracts several times. It seems unlikely that the physical heat source is as large as it appears. This could be a useful indication of how a heat source may appear in this system when viewed from a distance with a zoom lens. The data display at the top of the screen has 'SNFOV', which from Festivus's comments probably means 'Super Narrow Field of View'.
I have assumed that white is 'hot'. The data display has 'Wht', which presumably means 'white'. If on the other hand white is 'cold', I have no idea what the fluctuating blob could be, as it would have to be colder than its surroundings.
 

Ravi

Active Member
What is with this laser range finder data I wonder, why is it not finding any return? Could that be because it was out of range?

EDIT/Add

The specification of the maximum distance the laser range finder of the SAFIREII can measure is 20 km.
lrf.png
Source http://alacron.com/clientuploads/directory/Cameras/FLIR/StarQ.pdf


So if the LRF could not measure it, would that fit the theory of a distant flare of a plane over the horizon? Quite possibly yes.
 
Last edited:

jackfrostvc

Active Member
The sphere sighting from the USS Omaha happened in the same rough timeframe and location the USS Russel encountered the Bokeh (triangle UFO)
This was also the same time and area that theDrive.com reported drones had buzzed the ships as per the article below

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...us-drones-off-california-over-numerous-nights

What I didn't know is that the NCIS and the FBI had investigated it

1621172747560.png
Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...ps-are-still-unidentified-navy-chief-n1263115
 

Max Phalange

Active Member
I noticed a difference between your example of glare shrinking and growing and what we see in the Navy video. In your example, as you begin to obscure the light source, the maximum height of the glare with respect to "sea level" is achieved when the least amount of the light source is obscured. As you continue to obscure the light source, the glare shrinks and never reaches the same height above "sea level". However, this is in contrast to what we see from the Navy footage. After the object reappears it reaches a height above sea level that was previously achieved but this time with a much smaller diameter.
Is there zero vertical camera movement? I looks to me like the horizon is higher on the right hand image, but that could be an optical illusion. Could you re-upload that example without the pink line, and with the columns switched around?
 
The sphere sighting from the USS Omaha happened in the same rough timeframe and location the USS Russel encountered the Bokeh (triangle UFO)
This was also the same time and area that theDrive.com reported drones had buzzed the ships as per the article below

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...us-drones-off-california-over-numerous-nights

What I didn't know is that the NCIS and the FBI had investigated it

1621172747560.png
Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...ps-are-still-unidentified-navy-chief-n1263115

Is this referring to the "official" maximum seen by any ship, in the NBC article you quote it states :

"As many as six drones flew around the warships at a time in often low-visibility conditions over a number of days, with the drones flashing lights and prompting security precautions onboard."

yet Corbell cites a minimum of 14 on his post.

Omaha isn't mentioned in the drive article here: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...us-drones-off-california-over-numerous-nights ( which may be explainable ).

Given this seems to be the same exercise, why the difference in number ?

( Am absolutely unfamiliar with military exercises so excuse me if I'm missing something blatantly obvious ).
 

jackfrostvc

Active Member
@Jayne Miller I honestly don't think they know how many drones were out there.
I guess the NCIS and FBI have more details though. But I doubt anyone knows the exact numbers

It's odd the Naval Criminal Investigative Services would look into it. I thought they would only investigate if a crime had been comitted. Their scope must be larger than their name suggests
 
Fair enough, but where did Corbell get his much greater number from. I would ask him, but I don't use twitter.
From a quick google the NCIS seems to have quite a broad mandate tbh.
 

Festivus

New Member
Nice work but are you sure about the azimuth angles? I get the impression these are accurate to one decimal place, so where for example you assume it's 15 degrees off the bow, it's really only 1.5 deg and so on.
This is a good point and I think you are correct. The way the camera is angled you can't see any of the decimal points. I re-examined the video and noticed the barely visible caret just above and to the right of the "0" on the number line across the bottom, and it seems from the other videos to be an indicator for the azimuth you are facing. It basically doesn't move from where it is during the entire clip, which leads me to believe that the azimuth range we see is from 1.5 degrees to 4.2 degrees for the first clip, and 1.9 to 3.0 for the second clip. Here is an image of what the corrected azimuth lines would look like, extended out to 30+ KM. Good catch, definitely changes possible interpretations.

corrected.JPG
I'd discounted the azimuth data as it seems very unreliable.

In the last segment you can see the angle most of the time. it seems to go 21,20,19,20,21,20,19,20,21,22,21,20,19, 20 - which to me seems to indicate a pretty constant heading of about 20°, with a degree of noise.

In the first locked segment 18 seconds in, it's 33,34,35,36,37,38,39, (blur) 33?,34?, 35,36,37,38,39,40, 41, 42

So rather a jump there too.
I wouldn't think it is unreliable, as the FLIR SAFIRE systems are used by the military for targeting and would heavily rely on accurate azimuth and elevation to help determine an accurate target location. The FLIR data sheet for the SAFIRE III states it can generate a Category 1 target location, which means it would be accurate within 6 meters. Barring any technical problems, it should be fairly accurate. I do have a possible explanation for the jumps: Since the camera is supposedly located on the LCS's mast, the side-to-side rocking of the ship in the sea might cause an exaggerated lateral displacement of the camera mast that causes the azimuth to appear to go backwards and forwards as the camera attempts to stay on target. This would also cause the fluctuations in the elevation display.

I have assumed that white is 'hot'. The data display has 'Wht', which presumably means 'white'. If on the other hand white is 'cold', I have no idea what the fluctuating blob could be, as it would have to be colder than its surroundings.
This is correct, "Wht" is white hot and "Blk" is black hot according to the manual.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
If the heading (West) and Azimuth (close to 0°, ie straight ahead) are correct, then why does the ocean surface seem to be moving left (South)

Is the apparent motion of the ocean just wind-driven waves?
 

WhistlingWinds

New Member
Fair enough, but where did Corbell get his much greater number from. I would ask him, but I don't use twitter.
From a quick google the NCIS seems to have quite a broad mandate tbh.
@Jayne Miller I honestly don't think they know how many drones were out there.
I guess the NCIS and FBI have more details though. But I doubt anyone knows the exact numbers

It's odd the Naval Criminal Investigative Services would look into it. I thought they would only investigate if a crime had been comitted. Their scope must be larger than their name suggests
NCIS hosts a decent portion of the Department of Navy's Counterintelligence Staff. Unidentified objects operating in/around designated military areas or equipment such as ships would entirely be an issue with a large counterintelligence angle.

"Within the Department of the Navy, NCIS serves as the coordinating authority of all DON CI activities, and is the only Department of Navy (DON) Component authorized to conduct investigations into actual, potential or suspected acts of espionage, sabotage, and intelligence activities conducted on behalf of foreign powers. NCIS is also DON lead agency for the conduct of offensive CI operations, which seek to penetrate and neutralize adversary intelligence services.

NCIS works to neutralize foreign intelligence services and foreign commercial activities seeking information about critical naval programs and research, development, test and evaluation facilities. The Research and Technology Protection (RTP) program works to safeguard the nation's vital defense technology through engagement and partnering with security and intelligence agencies."

https://www.ncis.navy.mil/About-NCI...ational terrorist organizations or activities.

https://fas.org/irp/doddir/navy/secnavinst/3850_2e.pdf (SECNAV instruction 3850_2e)
 

Robert Sheaffer

New Member
The speed at which it descends almost makes me think of a planet setting. Seems silly, but let's add it to the list.
Mick, I checked. There were no bright planets setting at this time (10:53 PM Jul 15 2019). No bright stars, either. Nothing even close.

I'm thinking it's either a flare, or else a distant jet going beyond the horizon (would have to be VERY distant because of the planes' elevation).
 
I re-examined the video and noticed the barely visible caret just above and to the right of the "0" on the number line across the bottom, and it seems from the other videos to be an indicator for the azimuth you are facing. It basically doesn't move from where it is during the entire clip, which leads me to believe that the azimuth range we see is from 1.5 degrees to 4.2 degrees for the first clip, and 1.9 to 3.0 for the second clip.
That's what I gathered too. I think that a couple of pixel rows are missing from the very bottom, either because the camera didn't catch them or because they are physically hidden behind the frame of the monitor, like in this screenshot from the Youtube video linked above:
a.jpg

Also I don't know the exact FOV, but when you watch that video, there's a part starting at 2:20 where they step through a couple of settings, from UNFOV to WFOV, where you can tell just how narrow the ultra-narrow view is. If the azimuth really changed by ~ 30 degrees, I'd expect the panning to be much more pronounced than what we're seeing. Even assuming the UNFOV to be 1° (it's probably less), the camera operator would have to sweep across the equivalent of 30 screen widths to cover the azimuth range.

If the heading (West) and Azimuth (close to 0°, ie straight ahead) are correct, then why does the ocean surface seem to be moving left (South)

Is the apparent motion of the ocean just wind-driven waves?
The nearby buoy measured waves coming from 315° at 0540 ('MWD: Mean Wave Direction. The direction from which the waves at the dominant period (DPD) are coming.'), which would indicate a southerly motion. Although of course at 0640 it recorded them coming almost opposite, from 183, so make of that what you will.
 

DavidB66

Active Member
If the heading (West) and Azimuth (close to 0°, ie straight ahead) are correct, then why does the ocean surface seem to be moving left (South)

Is the apparent motion of the ocean just wind-driven waves?

I don't know about this case, but waves are often the residual effect of prevailing winds or storms many miles away. They may go against the local direction of winds.
 

Robert Sheaffer

New Member
If the object is at the far horizon, and the aircraft is at 10 km altitude (about 33,000 feet), then the horizon is approximately 357 km (221 miles) distant (ignoring atmospheric refraction). That is pretty far. If the object is a plane that is also at 33,000 feet, and skirting our horizon, then its distance is twice that.

https://pwg.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Shorizon.htm
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
If the object is at the far horizon, and the aircraft is at 10 km altitude (about 33,000 feet), then the horizon is approximately 357 km (221 miles) distant (ignoring atmospheric refraction). That is pretty far. If the object is a plane that is also at 33,000 feet, and skirting our horizon, then its distance is twice that.

https://pwg.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Shorizon.htm
The video is taken from the USS Omaha, a ship, not a plane, using a SAFIRE system, Like this.flir-seaflirjpg-3be6ff2e3a42622d.jpg

The USS Omaha is an Independence class Littoral (close to shore) Combat Ship, like:

G67VhwjjE975V03Vb36ddf3Iy9WhUuaz0BGoepBJYLU.jpg

2021-05-16_13-34-00.jpg

Not sure how high that is, maybe 100 feet. That would put the horizon at 12-13 miles.
 

Festivus

New Member
Did some pixel math in Photoshop using a side shot / diagram of the Independence class and the known length of the ship, and it looks like the SAFIRE mount is about 147 feet from the waterline, which would put the horizon at about 14.9 miles / 24km away.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Did some pixel math in Photoshop using a side shot / diagram of the Independence class and the known length of the ship, and it looks like the SAFIRE mount is about 147 feet from the waterline, which would put the horizon at about 14.9 miles / 24km away.
I did the same and got about 75 feet!

Let me try again:
Length is 418 feet, Beam is 104 feet, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Omaha_(LCS-12)

In this diagram, 606 pixels length for 418 feet
100 pixels waterline to SAFIRE, so 100*481/606 = 79
2021-05-16_13-48-13.jpg
 

DavidB66

Active Member
If the object is at the far horizon, and the aircraft is at 10 km altitude (about 33,000 feet), then the horizon is approximately 357 km (221 miles) distant (ignoring atmospheric refraction). That is pretty far. If the object is a plane that is also at 33,000 feet, and skirting our horizon, then its distance is twice that.
I see that while I was typing Mick West just pointed out that the images are taken from a ship, not a plane, but I think you are right that even from the ship a plane at 33,000 feet would have to be over 200 miles away before it went below the horizon. That's a lot further than the plane in the well-known Chilean case. I don't know if it is possible for the IR scope to see the exhaust of a plane at that distance. If the plane were descending towards an airport it might of course be much closer, but if it is flying out over the Pacific that seems unlikely - nowhere to land closer than Hawaii!
 

commedieu

New Member
Long time lurker, second time poster, trying again.

From Op:

" July 15th 2019 in the warning area off the coast of San Diego. The UAP event series reached a crescendo, with one of the numerous unknown targets entering the water at 11pm (PST)"

Thats where I got the time.

"
At one point, one of the objects matched the speed and bearing of one destroyer for 90 minutes, details from the ships’ logs previously showed.

The unidentified crafts, described in the logs as "Unmanned Aerial Vehicles," buzzed three destroyers for several days, records obtained by the news site The Drive show.

As many as six of the objects swarmed around the USS Kidd, USS Rafael Peralta and USS John Finn over several days in July 2019, at times performing "brazen" maneuvers, the report said."

https://www.foxnews.com/science/us-navy-ships-personnel-capture-video-of-mysterious-flying-object

The Drive actually has the logs.



This is where i got the light hovering over the flight deck.





It goes into depth as to what the SNOOPIE team is. https://www.navy.mil/DesktopModules/ArticleCS/Print.aspx?PortalId=1&ModuleId=523&Article=2250056 "SNOOPIE is a team comprised of Sailors who are charged with collecting information on surface and air contacts that come in close proximity to a U.S. Navy vessel. ... Photography and Videography are the two types of information gathered when the SNOOPIE team is called away."

I'm sure the Navy has HD quality of everything we are seeing leaked, as well as the foia information illustrating that these clearly are not weather balloons and are being considered drones/uavs if anything.

So how do we come anywhere near weather balloon for this one? You'd have to ignore, well, everything.
 

commedieu

New Member
Here is a question, if the FBI and NCIS looked into the 2019 July drone incident. Why is the UAPTF looking into it?
Are we meant to believe the UAPTF who George Knapp hyperbolicly described once as having one guy who worked on the program in his spare time, better equiped to look into this over the FBI and NCIS?

1621236582334.png
Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...ps-are-still-unidentified-navy-chief-n1263115

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...us-drones-off-california-over-numerous-nights

The FBI/NCS were investigating nearby ships. Seeing what drones they had on board. It appears, at least, based on the article you posted (Which is the same story in the drive article ) that a FBI agent was CC'd, along with a NCIS person on an email chain. It doesn't appear to be some full fledged/all hands on deck FBI investigation. The article you quoted even says single agents. It all wrapped up with it not being the drones on a suspected ship. So then the navy goes on to investigate whether its one of their own.




"Emails reflect that Navy intelligence began to take a more active role in the investigation by July 19th, with the director of the Maritime Intelligence Operations Center (MIOC) within 3rd Fleet, identified by the acronym C3F, "looping in" the rest of the command's intelligence office, or N2."



After FBI agent/NCIS agent --> then the Navy picked up the investigation to see if it was one of their own. -- Then the FOIA's were then denied following this email chain due to classification. That seems to be the extent of the "looking into" that we have data on.
 

Oklahomeless

New Member
From Op:

" July 15th 2019 in the warning area off the coast of San Diego. The UAP event series reached a crescendo, with one of the numerous unknown targets entering the water at 11pm (PST)"

Thats where I got the time.

"
At one point, one of the objects matched the speed and bearing of one destroyer for 90 minutes, details from the ships’ logs previously showed.

The unidentified crafts, described in the logs as "Unmanned Aerial Vehicles," buzzed three destroyers for several days, records obtained by the news site The Drive show.

As many as six of the objects swarmed around the USS Kidd, USS Rafael Peralta and USS John Finn over several days in July 2019, at times performing "brazen" maneuvers, the report said."

https://www.foxnews.com/science/us-navy-ships-personnel-capture-video-of-mysterious-flying-object

The Drive actually has the logs.



This is where i got the light hovering over the flight deck.





It goes into depth as to what the SNOOPIE team is. https://www.navy.mil/DesktopModules/ArticleCS/Print.aspx?PortalId=1&ModuleId=523&Article=2250056 "SNOOPIE is a team comprised of Sailors who are charged with collecting information on surface and air contacts that come in close proximity to a U.S. Navy vessel. ... Photography and Videography are the two types of information gathered when the SNOOPIE team is called away."

I'm sure the Navy has HD quality of everything we are seeing leaked, as well as the foia information illustrating that these clearly are not weather balloons and are being considered drones/uavs if anything.

So how do we come anywhere near weather balloon for this one? You'd have to ignore, well, everything.

Is there really any clear correlation between this video and the UAV buzzing the ships? The ‘pyramid’ video was also suggested as being one of these drones but it’s pretty apparent that’s not necessarily the case. That could have been any number of things and so can this one. I know the media is implying this, but is there any primary source claiming the objects are all from the same source?
There doesn’t seem to be much doubt that there were mystery drones harassing the ships. I’m sure this caused the fleet to be alert to, and take a close look at, anything in the vicinity over this period. There’s all kinds of stuff in the skies these days and not all of it is immediately identifiable. This one may not be a weather balloon but the reason for that isn’t going to be because there are also drones.
Its prudent to consider all options according to the information available. Though, like you said, there’s likely a lot more existing information not available to us. I’m honestly not yet even convinced the Navy doesn’t have a decent guess what these videos are, even if they’re genuinely stumped on the origin of the drones. The only thing that suggests they might not are vague canned responses from Public Relations saying ‘yeah, we took this video and it’s included in ongoing examinations’.
Not everything sent to the UAPTF is going to be something incredible. I’m aware of what people like Elizondo and Mellon are saying but they’re not acting in an official government capacity, that we know of.
 

jackfrostvc

Active Member
@Oklahomeless

All we know is that at that same general location (around San Clemente Island) and timeframe, the following has been reported

1) Drones buzzing the ships
2) A triangle object was videoed through an IR goggle from the USS Russell- which seems to be Bokeh of some object. Whether that object is a jet , drone or something else remains unknown
3) The object that appears roundish in IR view was recorded from the CIC on the USS Omaha. What the object is, is unknown.

TBH, the Triangle video raises a lot of questions. An 18 second video that shows bokeh, and ends just at the time you would expect the operator to adjust the focus. And that video was given to Corbell who shouted it to the world as an Alien Pyramid craft. It was released 2 weeks after the drive article talking about the fleet encountering drones.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure how much thought was put into the Fox News article, which apparently can't even decide what it is it's talking about. The narrative changes from
a small round object
to
the craft, which was very large
over the span of a couple of sentences. It'd be quite funny if it weren't so manipulative.
 

Ravi

Active Member
I am getting confused by mixing in of other stuff. Can we please remain to the topic (video of 'ball entering water') in this sub?
 

LorentzHall

Member
Corbell's context post claims:

  • Minimum 6ft in diameter - solid mass.

  • It is noted in intelligence reports that the “spherical” craft could not be found upon entry to the water - that a submarine was used in the search - and recovered nothing.

If this were truly a solid spherical object of 6ft, submerging at the surface <20km away, it would be easily detectable by sonar - there are torpedoes smaller than that which can be detected from longer ranges.

But we don't know whether the submarine was nearby at the time, or arrived later for the search. Independence class LCSs don't have a sonar by default.

1621249999154.png

I think that's why they can be heard requesting a helicopter after the splash. They likely want an SH-60 Seahawk to fly over the splash point & dip its LAMPS sonar system. My question again would be: did that happen, and if so how long after the splash?
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
H CLAIM: USS Omaha videos were taken on the ship's "Combat Information Center" by "VIPER team" UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 5
A USS Omaha UFO / UAP Radar Video UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 257
LorentzHall 'Transmedium Sphere' Photos (Jeremy Corbell) UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 7
Mick West 'Fast Movers' and 'Transmedium' Vehicles UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 10
Mick West Sphere, Acorn, Metallic Blimp - Three iPhone Photos From an F-18 via Mystery Wire UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 170
Mick West San Diego Silver Sphere Videoed By Rick Ybarra, 2014 [Probably a Ballon Model] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 24
S Helioviewer-Sphere near sun: moves towards sun unlike Coronal prominence cavity UFOs and Aliens 4
Mick West Cube in a Sphere UFO's Seen by Navy pilots. Radar Targets? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 17
Mick West "Golden Orb" Daytime Reflective Sphere UFOs in Photos UFOs and Aliens 42
Rory Calculator for viewing angles Tools for Investigating and Debunking 13
Z.W. Wolf Claim: The Moon's Shadow During The Solar Eclipse Disproves Sphere Earth Flat Earth 97
Mick West How to Verify that the Sun is a Distant Sphere, with Binoculars & Sunspots Flat Earth 24
N Please help me to debunk this topic: stranges sphere outside of the ISS. General Discussion 18
DarkStar Earth curvature: Differences with Sphere/Ellipsoid/Geoid models for Visibility etc Flat Earth 8
Bass In Your Face Curvature Experiment showing relation between x-axis and z-axis Flat Earth 15
Mick West Explained: Giant Black Sphere Hovering Near the Sun [Coronal Prominence Cavity] UFOs and Aliens 69

Related Articles

Top