3 ms·

This whole thing has a very boring, very likely answer described in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Le7Fqbsrrm8&t=1300s https://www.youtube.com/watc

This whole thing has a very boring, very likely answer described in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Le7Fqbsrrm8&t=1300s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Le7Fqbsrrm8&t=1300s Essentially, there are a few different perspective/camera quirks coming together in these videos which can (apparently) trick even well trained pilots.

miles 6y ago
> there are a few different perspective/camera quirks coming together in these videos which can (apparently) trick even well trained pilots. How does that explain the radar readings? "The tic tac – so-called because of its rounded shape and white colour – was caught on video as the US Navy attempted to identify a series of objects spotted on radar flying off America’s west coast in November 2004. ... The sighting came during a fortnight in which the USS Princeton had noted unknown aircraft intermittently passing across its radar systems off the US west coast. The contact was considered so inexplicable that the system was shut down and restarted to check for bugs — but operators continued to track the mysterious object afterwards."[1] "Witnesses included highly trained military personnel—among them several deeply experienced radar operators and fighter pilots—who at the time of the sightings were at the controls of arguably the most advanced flight technology ever created. And yet none can explain what they saw."[2] Does Mick West, a "science writer, skeptical investigator, and retired video game programmer"[3], know more about the issue than "highly trained military personnel—among them several deeply experienced radar operators and fighter pilots"? [1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/ufo-tic-tac-flying-saucer-chad-underwoord-dave-fravor-a9254671.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/ufo-tic-tac-flyin... [2] https://www.history.com/news/uss-nimitz-2004-tic-tac-ufo-encounter https://www.history.com/news/uss-nimitz-2004-tic-tac-ufo-enc... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mick_West https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mick_West
- Barrin92 6y ago
  Mick Wests breakdown is sufficient to explain all of the actual footage we have, and you can verify it yourself by doing trigonometry with the data on the screen. It's completely unnecessary to appeal to the credentials of fighter pilots, following this logic I'd have to believe in Mermaids given how many sailors have allegedly spotted one over the centuries. It's truly astonishing that a man who provides a basic, mundane and evidence based explanation that someone can follow along at home is routinely downvoted while people upvoted UFO alien conspiracy garbage.
  - saul_goodman 6y ago
    You are absolutely right. On the other hand, why not just add mermaids to the equation: https://www.reddit.com/r/ufo/comments/kushry/cross_post_i_know_someone_that_works_for_noaa_the/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ufo/comments/kushry/cross_post_i_kn...
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- mcswell 6y ago
  "deeply experienced radar operators": what does that mean? They're not looking at raw radar signals, like some WWII operator with an O-scope. They're looking at a computer-generated signal. And lots can go wrong between the radar signal and the computer screen. Likewise, "the most advanced flight technology ever created" has absolutely nothing to do with it. They could have been in a hot air balloon and seen the same thing (which I suspect was an illusion).
  - doctor_eval 6y ago
    "deeply experienced software engineers": what does that mean? They're not looking at raw binary code, like some WWII operator with a bank of lights and switches. They're looking at computer-parsed code. And lots can go wrong between the code and the bits. I am not a deeply experienced radar operator but I suspect there is a lot more to it than just looking at blips on a screen.
  - rapjr9 6y ago
    Military radar systems have modes and methods for detecting or removing jamming: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_jamming_and_deception#Countermeasures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_jamming_and_deception#Co... "The most important method to counter radar jammers is operator training. Any system can be fooled with a jamming signal but a properly trained operator pays attention to the raw video signal and can detect abnormal patterns on the radar screen." So they do have the ability to look at the raw signal, and other methods as well to try to tell if something is real or not. Also there may have been multiple types of radar systems (different aircraft, ground vs air, different software revisions, different approach angles); it would be very difficult to fool all of them at the same time. For example if there were three aircraft, each at a different approach angle, the false signal would have to adapt to that approach angle individually for each aircraft's radar (or the supposed software glitch would have produce coherent results that are adapted to each aircraft's approach vector so that they all "see" the same thing in the same place). The same is true for false signals from natural sources. Which is not very likely unless you're dealing with a sophisticated human attack on the radar. To fake signals for multiple sensors on multiple approaching aircraft at the same time would require an even more sophisticated attack. Who knows if that is possible, but it does not seem very likely, especially in a peacetime operation during which there would be little reason to reveal such a capability.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- jml7c5 6y ago
  >How does that explain the radar readings? How do radar readings matter to what's in the video? The video doesn't show radar readings. That would only be a valid criticism if the object seen in the video was directly associated with strange radar readings, but it wasn't.
user3939382 6y ago
The original observer of the tic tac defeats Mick West's ideas based on his expert knowledge of the equipment https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aB8zcAttP1E&t=9001s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aB8zcAttP1E&t=9001s
- mr_woozy 6y ago
  I still have no idea why Lex Fridman is an interviewer of any sort. His grasp of grammar and superb lack of vocabulary paired with a constant stoner monotone make him unwatchable for me. How does he keep managing to snag such illustrious guests?
  - mr_woozy 6y ago
    https://youtu.be/aB8zcAttP1E?t=4439 https://youtu.be/aB8zcAttP1E?t=4439 How the fuck do you honestly utter a sentence like this and expect not to appear like a 15 year old stoner still in High School? I don't even dislike him as a person, I'm just concerned for his mental health at this point. He seems to be really struggling to out sentences together in a coherent fashion.
    - omega3 6y ago
      That's harsh. English is not his first language, he's not the subject matter expert and he's having a free flowing discussion/interview that was going on for perhaps 2 hours by the time you've hand picked a random subpar sentence.

miles 6y ago

> there are a few different perspective/camera quirks coming together in these videos which can (apparently) trick even well trained pilots. How does that explain the radar readings? "The tic tac – so-called because of its rounded shape and white colour – was caught on video as the US Navy attempted to identify a series of objects spotted on radar flying off America’s west coast in November 2004. ... The sighting came during a fortnight in which the USS Princeton had noted unknown aircraft intermittently passing across its radar systems off the US west coast. The contact was considered so inexplicable that the system was shut down and restarted to check for bugs — but operators continued to track the mysterious object afterwards."[1] "Witnesses included highly trained military personnel—among them several deeply experienced radar operators and fighter pilots—who at the time of the sightings were at the controls of arguably the most advanced flight technology ever created. And yet none can explain what they saw."[2] Does Mick West, a "science writer, skeptical investigator, and retired video game programmer"[3], know more about the issue than "highly trained military personnel—among them several deeply experienced radar operators and fighter pilots"? [1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/ufo-tic-tac-flying-saucer-chad-underwoord-dave-fravor-a9254671.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/ufo-tic-tac-flyin... [2] https://www.history.com/news/uss-nimitz-2004-tic-tac-ufo-encounter https://www.history.com/news/uss-nimitz-2004-tic-tac-ufo-enc... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mick_West https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mick_West

Barrin92 6y ago
Mick Wests breakdown is sufficient to explain all of the actual footage we have, and you can verify it yourself by doing trigonometry with the data on the screen. It's completely unnecessary to appeal to the credentials of fighter pilots, following this logic I'd have to believe in Mermaids given how many sailors have allegedly spotted one over the centuries. It's truly astonishing that a man who provides a basic, mundane and evidence based explanation that someone can follow along at home is routinely downvoted while people upvoted UFO alien conspiracy garbage.
- saul_goodman 6y ago
  You are absolutely right. On the other hand, why not just add mermaids to the equation: https://www.reddit.com/r/ufo/comments/kushry/cross_post_i_know_someone_that_works_for_noaa_the/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ufo/comments/kushry/cross_post_i_kn...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
mcswell 6y ago
"deeply experienced radar operators": what does that mean? They're not looking at raw radar signals, like some WWII operator with an O-scope. They're looking at a computer-generated signal. And lots can go wrong between the radar signal and the computer screen. Likewise, "the most advanced flight technology ever created" has absolutely nothing to do with it. They could have been in a hot air balloon and seen the same thing (which I suspect was an illusion).
- doctor_eval 6y ago
  "deeply experienced software engineers": what does that mean? They're not looking at raw binary code, like some WWII operator with a bank of lights and switches. They're looking at computer-parsed code. And lots can go wrong between the code and the bits. I am not a deeply experienced radar operator but I suspect there is a lot more to it than just looking at blips on a screen.
- rapjr9 6y ago
  Military radar systems have modes and methods for detecting or removing jamming: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_jamming_and_deception#Countermeasures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_jamming_and_deception#Co... "The most important method to counter radar jammers is operator training. Any system can be fooled with a jamming signal but a properly trained operator pays attention to the raw video signal and can detect abnormal patterns on the radar screen." So they do have the ability to look at the raw signal, and other methods as well to try to tell if something is real or not. Also there may have been multiple types of radar systems (different aircraft, ground vs air, different software revisions, different approach angles); it would be very difficult to fool all of them at the same time. For example if there were three aircraft, each at a different approach angle, the false signal would have to adapt to that approach angle individually for each aircraft's radar (or the supposed software glitch would have produce coherent results that are adapted to each aircraft's approach vector so that they all "see" the same thing in the same place). The same is true for false signals from natural sources. Which is not very likely unless you're dealing with a sophisticated human attack on the radar. To fake signals for multiple sensors on multiple approaching aircraft at the same time would require an even more sophisticated attack. Who knows if that is possible, but it does not seem very likely, especially in a peacetime operation during which there would be little reason to reveal such a capability.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
jml7c5 6y ago
>How does that explain the radar readings? How do radar readings matter to what's in the video? The video doesn't show radar readings. That would only be a valid criticism if the object seen in the video was directly associated with strange radar readings, but it wasn't.

user3939382 6y ago

The original observer of the tic tac defeats Mick West's ideas based on his expert knowledge of the equipment https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aB8zcAttP1E&t=9001s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aB8zcAttP1E&t=9001s

mr_woozy 6y ago
I still have no idea why Lex Fridman is an interviewer of any sort. His grasp of grammar and superb lack of vocabulary paired with a constant stoner monotone make him unwatchable for me. How does he keep managing to snag such illustrious guests?
- mr_woozy 6y ago
  https://youtu.be/aB8zcAttP1E?t=4439 https://youtu.be/aB8zcAttP1E?t=4439 How the fuck do you honestly utter a sentence like this and expect not to appear like a 15 year old stoner still in High School? I don't even dislike him as a person, I'm just concerned for his mental health at this point. He seems to be really struggling to out sentences together in a coherent fashion.
  - omega3 6y ago
    That's harsh. English is not his first language, he's not the subject matter expert and he's having a free flowing discussion/interview that was going on for perhaps 2 hours by the time you've hand picked a random subpar sentence.