4 ms·

Mick West's explanation of the FLIR1 video (the one from the Nimitz incident), that it was an ordinary aircraft, makes zero sense because given the quantity and

Mick West's explanation of the FLIR1 video (the one from the Nimitz incident), that it was an ordinary aircraft, makes zero sense because given the quantity and quality of situational awareness data available to the pilots who captured the video it would require an extraordinary degree of incompetence to make such a mistake. I'm no expert on naval technology but given my limited understanding of carrier strike group operations this was my intuitive belief from the first time I heard this theory. Since then a number of knowledgeable people have confirmed that this explanation makes practically no sense.

simonh 5y ago
It doesn't take incompetence to make a mistake, any of us can make mistakes even in things we're highly competent in. Optical artefacts are particularly difficult to account for. Take Go Fast for example, they're highly competent experienced aviators, but they still very clearly completely misidentified what, in hindsight, is obviously a bird. Clearly if trained operators can make a mistake like that, other mistakes are possible, so you can't just discount the possibility as absurd. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Le7Fqbsrrm8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Le7Fqbsrrm8 I can easily see someone thinking an image is of a near object when it's actually a far object, and we know for a fact that highly trained operators can make terrible mistakes using complex tracking equipment.
- stevenhuang 5y ago
  Consider for a moment that it's not a bird. Have the epistemic humility to realize that such pedestrian explanations are likely to have been proposed and ruled out during internal analysis, before public release. Also, birds don't move like that on radar.
  - simonh 5y ago
    Have you actually reviewed the analysis, using the instrument data in the video to calculate that it was a typical size and was actually moving at a typical speed and altitude for a bird? If so, what is your critique of the calculations?
    - stevenhuang 5y ago
      See David Fravor's commentary on the videos. He's one of the jet pilots from the Nimitz incident. https://youtu.be/aB8zcAttP1E?t=9711 https://youtu.be/aB8zcAttP1E?t=9711 Specifically in the Go fast video: https://youtu.be/aB8zcAttP1E?t=9829 https://youtu.be/aB8zcAttP1E?t=9829 The object is shown colder than the ocean; it can't be a bird.
- tgflynn 5y ago
  > Optical artefacts are particularly difficult to account for. We're not talking about optical artifacts. The aircraft had radar and it also had access to data from radars installed on the surface ships. The entire system is designed to make identifying friendly targets easy and to give pilots an overview of the tactical situation. IFF in aerial combat has been a solved problem almost since World War II.
  - simonh 5y ago
    I’m not sure which case you’re referring to, but in the FLIR1 incident they were tracking something optically while nothing appeared on radar. The proposed explanation is that the object was a much bigger commercial plane than they thought, much further away. Cameras are just as much, if not more susceptible to optical effects than human eyes. It’s quite plausible that a plane could be thought to be say 20km away, when actually it was 5x as far and outside radar range. IFF and radar aren’t going to help you if tye object isn’t actually where you think it is, so most of your sensors are looking in the wrong place. In the Go Fast case we actually have all the instrument data we need. From the data on the recording and some basic trigonometry we can see the object was very small only a metre or so across, was approximately half way between the plane and the surface, and was actually only travelling at modest speed commensurate with that of a bird. I can’t _prove_ to you that it was a bird, but I leave it to you to come to your own conclusions.
    - tgflynn 5y ago
      If you read my comment that you initially replied to you would see that I was talking about the FLIR1/Nimitz video. You're the one who brought up Go Fast, I have made no comments about that here. > The proposed explanation is that the object was a much bigger commercial plane than they thought, much further away. I don't know which "proposed explanation" you're referring to but in a recent debate between Mick West and Robert Powell of the SCU hosted by John Greenewald of theblackvault.com, Mick said he thinks it was an F-18. Neither explanation makes sense because the aircraft's radar has far greater range than the ATFLIR camera so if an aircraft showed up on the ATFLIR it also should have been seen on radar. In addition the Princeton's AEGIS radar system was monitoring the airspace within at least a 100 mile radius and would certainly also have detected any ordinary aircraft that could have been seen by the ATFLIR.

simonh 5y ago

It doesn't take incompetence to make a mistake, any of us can make mistakes even in things we're highly competent in. Optical artefacts are particularly difficult to account for. Take Go Fast for example, they're highly competent experienced aviators, but they still very clearly completely misidentified what, in hindsight, is obviously a bird. Clearly if trained operators can make a mistake like that, other mistakes are possible, so you can't just discount the possibility as absurd. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Le7Fqbsrrm8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Le7Fqbsrrm8 I can easily see someone thinking an image is of a near object when it's actually a far object, and we know for a fact that highly trained operators can make terrible mistakes using complex tracking equipment.

stevenhuang 5y ago
Consider for a moment that it's not a bird. Have the epistemic humility to realize that such pedestrian explanations are likely to have been proposed and ruled out during internal analysis, before public release. Also, birds don't move like that on radar.
- simonh 5y ago
  Have you actually reviewed the analysis, using the instrument data in the video to calculate that it was a typical size and was actually moving at a typical speed and altitude for a bird? If so, what is your critique of the calculations?
  - stevenhuang 5y ago
    See David Fravor's commentary on the videos. He's one of the jet pilots from the Nimitz incident. https://youtu.be/aB8zcAttP1E?t=9711 https://youtu.be/aB8zcAttP1E?t=9711 Specifically in the Go fast video: https://youtu.be/aB8zcAttP1E?t=9829 https://youtu.be/aB8zcAttP1E?t=9829 The object is shown colder than the ocean; it can't be a bird.
tgflynn 5y ago
> Optical artefacts are particularly difficult to account for. We're not talking about optical artifacts. The aircraft had radar and it also had access to data from radars installed on the surface ships. The entire system is designed to make identifying friendly targets easy and to give pilots an overview of the tactical situation. IFF in aerial combat has been a solved problem almost since World War II.
- simonh 5y ago
  I’m not sure which case you’re referring to, but in the FLIR1 incident they were tracking something optically while nothing appeared on radar. The proposed explanation is that the object was a much bigger commercial plane than they thought, much further away. Cameras are just as much, if not more susceptible to optical effects than human eyes. It’s quite plausible that a plane could be thought to be say 20km away, when actually it was 5x as far and outside radar range. IFF and radar aren’t going to help you if tye object isn’t actually where you think it is, so most of your sensors are looking in the wrong place. In the Go Fast case we actually have all the instrument data we need. From the data on the recording and some basic trigonometry we can see the object was very small only a metre or so across, was approximately half way between the plane and the surface, and was actually only travelling at modest speed commensurate with that of a bird. I can’t _prove_ to you that it was a bird, but I leave it to you to come to your own conclusions.
  - tgflynn 5y ago
    If you read my comment that you initially replied to you would see that I was talking about the FLIR1/Nimitz video. You're the one who brought up Go Fast, I have made no comments about that here. > The proposed explanation is that the object was a much bigger commercial plane than they thought, much further away. I don't know which "proposed explanation" you're referring to but in a recent debate between Mick West and Robert Powell of the SCU hosted by John Greenewald of theblackvault.com, Mick said he thinks it was an F-18. Neither explanation makes sense because the aircraft's radar has far greater range than the ATFLIR camera so if an aircraft showed up on the ATFLIR it also should have been seen on radar. In addition the Princeton's AEGIS radar system was monitoring the airspace within at least a 100 mile radius and would certainly also have detected any ordinary aircraft that could have been seen by the ATFLIR.