4 ms·

That video has been convincingly explained here, without resort to secret or alien technology: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLyEO0jNt6M https://www.youtube.c

by jml7c5 7y ago

That video has been convincingly explained here, without resort to secret or alien technology: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLyEO0jNt6M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLyEO0jNt6M

lend000 7y ago
West does have a convincing explanation for "Go Fast" which certainly looks like it could be a weather balloon due to parallax (ignoring the pilot testimony at least) -- but if you look at his attempt to describe the Nimitz one, it's pretty weak. He claims it's a reflection of "a distant jet" that would have had to be in restricted airspace, and despite the pilots having a visual on the same object, and the Nimitz's passive radar detecting the object and sending the fighters to intercept it at the correct location in the first place. That would also be a tremendous design error or equipment failure on the targeting pod, which seems unlikely given that all the other data for that encounter supports the video. There were three videos disclosed, and only one has a convincing explanation (not the most famous one the parent is describing). The one present in the parent's linked video referred to the Nimitz incident, where the pilot is the commanding officer for the first squadron that went in and observed the object, whereas a second group went in and filmed the tape that was eventually released hours later. You should watch the interview and see if Fravor seems legitimate to you -- it's a great listen.
- jml7c5 7y ago
  >He claims it's a reflection of "a distant jet" that would have had to be in restricted airspace, and despite the pilots having a visual on the same object, and the Nimitz's passive radar detecting the object and sending the fighters to intercept it at the correct location in the first place. There was no visual on the object in the FLIR1 video. The video was taken hours after the visual encounter with the tic-tac. The plane that took the video was not vectored to the object in the FLIR1 video. Rather, they were flying south when their radar picked up an object 30-40nm away. They viewed it on FLIR, and saw a blob. At no point did they have a direct visual of it. As they had been told about the tic-tac encounter from other pilots, who had told them to be on the lookout and to try to record it, they were very susceptible to incorrect interpretation. It is very plausible that they recorded a distant fighter moving in same direction as them and jumped to conclusions. ----- I would argue that the "Gimbal" explanation West has is very convincing. In particular, the supposed rotation of the craft is clearly just the camera rotating.
  - lend000 7y ago
    > There was no visual on the object in the FLIR1 video. Do you have a source for this? I've heard rumors there was an interview with the radar operator but haven't seen it myself. In any case, this is almost certainly the same object that was visually observed from multiple angles hours prior, which had been jamming the previous fighters' radars and observed passively from the Nimitz, considering it had been tracked in the general vicinity of the carrier strike group for over a week prior (passively by the Nimitz). > I would argue that the "Gimbal" explanation West has is very convincing. These radar systems do not typically suffer catastrophic breakdowns (such as locking onto a false bogie) from any causes shy of physical trauma or targeted jamming techniques. These things are sent back to the contractor for repair if they fall outside of a very tight spec range during regular testing, long before any discernible error would show up. Even when jammed, the state of the art wouldn't likely be able to create a false bogie in this spectrum; a jamming signal would manifest as intolerable noise throughout the image. If glare was not only visible, but allowed a system lock, that is a catastrophic system failure and not something that would be overlooked -- it would be sent back to the contractor for repair and the entire incident would be scrapped for this reason. No malfunctions were reported on the receiver chipset, the pod, or any other component for either the Gimbal or the Nimitz recordings, to my knowledge. Mick West is a smart guy, but he clearly does not know radar and is grasping at straws here. And he doesn't even attempt to describe the extremely precise relative orientations that would be required of two distant objects to keep the "glare" in the exact center of the lens while the fighter is moving about and recording the video. I'm glad for his analysis to rule out the Go-Fast video as inconclusive at best. I have no interest in wasting time on false leads. But for the other two, we have legitimate, exotic phenomena that no one has successfully explained away, and it's increasingly seeming impossible to do so without venturing beyond the boundary of our current circle of knowledge.
    - jml7c5 7y ago
      I pulled most of my info from these two posts: http://parabunk.blogspot.com/2019/07/aatip-tic-tacs-and-more-reality-check.html http://parabunk.blogspot.com/2019/07/aatip-tic-tacs-and-more... http://parabunk.blogspot.com/2018/07/the-2004-uss-nimitz-tic-tac-ufo.html http://parabunk.blogspot.com/2018/07/the-2004-uss-nimitz-tic... >Do you have a source for this? It seems the source used is more suspect than I'd like. It's the "executive report" from the To The Stars Academy which I am loathe to put any trust in. The quote in question is "LT ______ was clear in that he couldn't confirm that it was the same object as described by the FASTEAGLE flight. He never had visual, only seeing the object via the FLIR." --- >a jamming signal would manifest as intolerable noise throughout the image What sort of jamming signal are you referring to? The video doesn't involve radar, and I was under the impression that the only effective way to disable FLIR is to shine a laser at it. >And he doesn't even attempt to describe the extremely precise relative orientations that would be required of two distant objects to keep the "glare" in the exact center of the lens while the fighter is moving about and recording the video. I'm not sure what you mean with two objects. Can you elaborate? As I understand it, the theory is that there is a single hot object (or perhaps a two-engine jet) in the distance. The glare in the FLIR image is produced in the same fashion as the glare in a regular camera pointed at a bright object; nothing needs to be precisely positioned. You mentioned restricted airspace, but AFAIK there's no info on the GIMBAL video apart from that it was taken somewhere on the East Coast.
tgflynn 7y ago
The US Navy has said that they are unable to identify the objects in those videos. Assuming they aren't lying I would be inclined to think that they would be better at identifying those objects than a retired video game developer (no disrespect to Mick intended). If he is right then it's a case of gross incompetence on the part of the military, which would be a huge concern in itself.

by jml7c5 7y ago

That video has been convincingly explained here, without resort to secret or alien technology: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLyEO0jNt6M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLyEO0jNt6M

lend000 7y ago

West does have a convincing explanation for "Go Fast" which certainly looks like it could be a weather balloon due to parallax (ignoring the pilot testimony at least) -- but if you look at his attempt to describe the Nimitz one, it's pretty weak. He claims it's a reflection of "a distant jet" that would have had to be in restricted airspace, and despite the pilots having a visual on the same object, and the Nimitz's passive radar detecting the object and sending the fighters to intercept it at the correct location in the first place. That would also be a tremendous design error or equipment failure on the targeting pod, which seems unlikely given that all the other data for that encounter supports the video. There were three videos disclosed, and only one has a convincing explanation (not the most famous one the parent is describing). The one present in the parent's linked video referred to the Nimitz incident, where the pilot is the commanding officer for the first squadron that went in and observed the object, whereas a second group went in and filmed the tape that was eventually released hours later. You should watch the interview and see if Fravor seems legitimate to you -- it's a great listen.

jml7c5 7y ago
>He claims it's a reflection of "a distant jet" that would have had to be in restricted airspace, and despite the pilots having a visual on the same object, and the Nimitz's passive radar detecting the object and sending the fighters to intercept it at the correct location in the first place. There was no visual on the object in the FLIR1 video. The video was taken hours after the visual encounter with the tic-tac. The plane that took the video was not vectored to the object in the FLIR1 video. Rather, they were flying south when their radar picked up an object 30-40nm away. They viewed it on FLIR, and saw a blob. At no point did they have a direct visual of it. As they had been told about the tic-tac encounter from other pilots, who had told them to be on the lookout and to try to record it, they were very susceptible to incorrect interpretation. It is very plausible that they recorded a distant fighter moving in same direction as them and jumped to conclusions. ----- I would argue that the "Gimbal" explanation West has is very convincing. In particular, the supposed rotation of the craft is clearly just the camera rotating.
- lend000 7y ago
  > There was no visual on the object in the FLIR1 video. Do you have a source for this? I've heard rumors there was an interview with the radar operator but haven't seen it myself. In any case, this is almost certainly the same object that was visually observed from multiple angles hours prior, which had been jamming the previous fighters' radars and observed passively from the Nimitz, considering it had been tracked in the general vicinity of the carrier strike group for over a week prior (passively by the Nimitz). > I would argue that the "Gimbal" explanation West has is very convincing. These radar systems do not typically suffer catastrophic breakdowns (such as locking onto a false bogie) from any causes shy of physical trauma or targeted jamming techniques. These things are sent back to the contractor for repair if they fall outside of a very tight spec range during regular testing, long before any discernible error would show up. Even when jammed, the state of the art wouldn't likely be able to create a false bogie in this spectrum; a jamming signal would manifest as intolerable noise throughout the image. If glare was not only visible, but allowed a system lock, that is a catastrophic system failure and not something that would be overlooked -- it would be sent back to the contractor for repair and the entire incident would be scrapped for this reason. No malfunctions were reported on the receiver chipset, the pod, or any other component for either the Gimbal or the Nimitz recordings, to my knowledge. Mick West is a smart guy, but he clearly does not know radar and is grasping at straws here. And he doesn't even attempt to describe the extremely precise relative orientations that would be required of two distant objects to keep the "glare" in the exact center of the lens while the fighter is moving about and recording the video. I'm glad for his analysis to rule out the Go-Fast video as inconclusive at best. I have no interest in wasting time on false leads. But for the other two, we have legitimate, exotic phenomena that no one has successfully explained away, and it's increasingly seeming impossible to do so without venturing beyond the boundary of our current circle of knowledge.
  - jml7c5 7y ago
    I pulled most of my info from these two posts: http://parabunk.blogspot.com/2019/07/aatip-tic-tacs-and-more-reality-check.html http://parabunk.blogspot.com/2019/07/aatip-tic-tacs-and-more... http://parabunk.blogspot.com/2018/07/the-2004-uss-nimitz-tic-tac-ufo.html http://parabunk.blogspot.com/2018/07/the-2004-uss-nimitz-tic... >Do you have a source for this? It seems the source used is more suspect than I'd like. It's the "executive report" from the To The Stars Academy which I am loathe to put any trust in. The quote in question is "LT ______ was clear in that he couldn't confirm that it was the same object as described by the FASTEAGLE flight. He never had visual, only seeing the object via the FLIR." --- >a jamming signal would manifest as intolerable noise throughout the image What sort of jamming signal are you referring to? The video doesn't involve radar, and I was under the impression that the only effective way to disable FLIR is to shine a laser at it. >And he doesn't even attempt to describe the extremely precise relative orientations that would be required of two distant objects to keep the "glare" in the exact center of the lens while the fighter is moving about and recording the video. I'm not sure what you mean with two objects. Can you elaborate? As I understand it, the theory is that there is a single hot object (or perhaps a two-engine jet) in the distance. The glare in the FLIR image is produced in the same fashion as the glare in a regular camera pointed at a bright object; nothing needs to be precisely positioned. You mentioned restricted airspace, but AFAIK there's no info on the GIMBAL video apart from that it was taken somewhere on the East Coast.

tgflynn 7y ago

The US Navy has said that they are unable to identify the objects in those videos. Assuming they aren't lying I would be inclined to think that they would be better at identifying those objects than a retired video game developer (no disrespect to Mick intended). If he is right then it's a case of gross incompetence on the part of the military, which would be a huge concern in itself.