Group set to hunt USS Nimitz 'Tic Tac' UFOs

[stereologist]

3 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

Stereo, dude, you’re getting kind desperate. 

Actually for those not clueless that is what the Navy stated.

Clueless people would not know that the armed forces has taken reports about UFOs since before Grudge.

Clueless people would not know that the military has recently simplified the reporting of UFOs.

[stereologist]

While some people want to continue to report the nonsense from the TTSA, with attribution or reason, let's go ask the experts about the videos.

http://midnightinthedesert.com/new-york-times-gimbal-ufo-footage-explained/

Quote

Two recent videos posted to YouTube by independent researcher Ian Goddard give further reason to be cautious of at least one of these UFO videos. In the first video, posted in January 2018, Goddard explains that the so-called ‘Gimbal UFO’ footage that was posted to the New York Times website (often confused with the more widely reported ‘Nimitz’ sighting provided by pilot David Fravor) appears to be easily explainable as a (human-made) jet.

He points out that imagery matches infrared footage of figher jets, and also that the gimbal system is known to produce rotating lens flares that match the strange movement of the UFO. Goddard also reveals that the ‘glowing aura’ the NYT story reports the UFO as having – described by DeLonge’s organisation as a “possible energy or resonance field of unknown nature” – is actually a standard artefact of infrared imagery.

So people familiar with these systems see a prosaic explanation for what is in the videos.

Maybe the TTSA should hire some experts so they don't continue with their foolishness. Then again it probably would hurt their bottom line.

 

[stereologist]

I see that people are rather proud of themselves being clueless and inept.

Let's continue to show what is really happening in these videos. May the clueless learn something.

https://parabunk.blogspot.com/2018/04/the-2004-uss-nimitz-tic-tac-ufo_22.html

Quote

The ATFLIR needs to physically switch mirrors to do that, which causes artifacts while it happens.

The target seems to move extremely rapidly within a few frames towards the lower left corner. That is probably caused by the movement of the mirror change mechanism.

After the change has been done, the display temporarily loses the target and shows other artifacts.

Then the object is visible again in the new mode, and the target indicators close in on it again as the system regains target track.

After which the object is again tracked as usual, centered between those indicator.

Soon after, another mode change back to NAR is initiated, with all sorts of strange temporary artifacts again.

At this point the object is seen to be somewhat above the target indicator bars, so not anymore in the right position.

Clearly the sensor didn't lose track because of acceleration, it lost it already at this point because of that mode change.

There we have it the system was changing setting for zoom as I stated. The mechanism of zoom change was more complex than I thought. It required a change in a mirror.

Quote

The video doesn't really seem to provide reliable evidence for any of the key claims TTSA has made about it. The displayed information doesn't seem to be consistent with hovering but instead with an object that was moving for most of the time and losing altitude. The supposed fast acceleration near the end seems more consistent with apparent movement caused by the camera that stopped rotating when it lost the target it was tracking due to zoom mode changes. The object doesn't seem to display any extreme maneuvers. Since the movement could be even consistent with coasting without power, the clip hardly supports any claims regarding the means of propulsion, and might actually show signatures of hot air flows as well.

 

[Golden Duck]

48 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

It’s in the link I’ve provided. 

The one in this thread? Can you actually cite the message?

[preacherman76]

5 hours ago, stereologist said:

The wonderful part of all of this is that Captain Risky was well aware that the Navy uses the term UAP for unauthorized as well as unknown since they gave me the same confused like when I posted it in other other threads. I guess the confused "like" is how Captain Risky reacts to being told the facts of the case. Now we all know.

It's just that some people learn in other ways. 

Glad you know the answer now Captain Risky. 

The US Navy has for the first time confirmed that a set of eerie, grainy videos that appear to show UFOs flying through the sky are indeed real – and contain phenomena the military still cannot identify.

https://www.sciencealert.com/us-navy-finally-confirms-ufo-footage-is-real-says-we-were-never-meant-to-see-it

In this case UAP means unknown.

 

[stereologist]

49 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

The US Navy has for the first time confirmed that a set of eerie, grainy videos that appear to show UFOs flying through the sky are indeed real – and contain phenomena the military still cannot identify.

https://www.sciencealert.com/us-navy-finally-confirms-ufo-footage-is-real-says-we-were-never-meant-to-see-it

In this case UAP means unknown.

 

Actually that is wrong. Another try and another error. You are third in line for getting it wrong.

Let's go check what YOUR link has to say about this.

Quote

"The Navy designates the objects contained in these videos as unidentified aerial phenomena," Joseph Gradisher, the official spokesperson for the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Information Warfare, reportedly told John Greenewald at The Black Vault.

"The 'Unidentified Aerial Phenomena' terminology is used because it provides the basic descriptor for the sightings / observations of unauthorised / unidentified aircraft / objects that have been observed entering / operating in the airspace of various military-controlled training ranges."

Bolding mine.

[Saru]

Thread cleaned

Enough with the derogatory personal remarks please.

[preacherman76]

1 hour ago, stereologist said:

Actually that is wrong. Another try and another error. You are third in line for getting it wrong.

Let's go check what YOUR link has to say about this.

Bolding mine.

No one is saying that the word unauthorized, at times, isn’t used to describe certain situations that are also labeled UAP’s. 

What we are saying, no what they are saying, is that they haven’t been able to identify them in THIS case. That in this case the relevant word is unidentified. 

Edited October 30, 2019 by preacherman76

[stereologist]

1 hour ago, preacherman76 said:

No one is saying that the word unauthorized, at times, isn’t used to describe certain situations that are also labeled UAP’s. 

What we are saying, no what they are saying, is that they haven’t been able to identify them in THIS case. That in this case the relevant word is unidentified. 

Actually, that is not the case here. The objects have been identified as distant planes and probably a weather balloon.

The TTSA and this new group would love to have them be unidentified, but that is not the case. They can't make money off of this situation without them being unidentified.

Several people have been adamant that unauthorized is NOT even a possibility in the UAP definition. I have had to quote the Navy spokesman many times to show how the Navy uses the term UAP. 

The Navy used the term and the Navy defined the term. I don't see how anyone can pretend that there is another meaning to the term used by the Navy.

[preacherman76]

1 hour ago, stereologist said:

Actually, that is not the case here. The objects have been identified as distant planes and probably a weather balloon.

 

The Navy never said that. You are making that up. 

[ChrLzs]

1 minute ago, preacherman76 said:

The Navy never said that. You are making that up. 

He didn't say the Navy said it (and they won't (and likely *can't*) fully identify it, as with LOTs of similar footage) - but many technically trained persons have 'identified' the footage as mundane - for heaven's sake, pm, just google up FLIR imagery - there is nothing there that is out of the ordinary.  If they (or you) can't point to some piece of that footage that shows non-terrestrial behaviour, then it is effectively identified (as not being alien/unexplainable).  You are making up strawmen.

[Timothy]

People want it so bad that they’re willing to blindly believe without even understanding or learning about what they’re looking it. 

The reason the IR footage appears as a ‘blob’, the reason it looks like something moving at great speed over water, the zoom ratios, the changes in camera settings, the reason an apparent sudden change in velocity of the object is simply due to the yaw/roll of the sensor unit and unrelated to the actual movement and momentum of the distant object. Etc.......

[Unusual Tournament]

1 hour ago, Timothy said:

People want it so bad that they’re willing to blindly believe without even understanding or learning about what they’re looking it. 

The reason the IR footage appears as a ‘blob’, the reason it looks like something moving at great speed over water, the zoom ratios, the changes in camera settings, the reason an apparent sudden change in velocity of the object is simply due to the yaw/roll of the sensor unit and unrelated to the actual movement and momentum of the distant object. Etc.......

The military doesn't brief the President and Congress with zoom ratios and camera settings. 

[the13bats]

36 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

The military doesn't brief the President and Congress with zoom ratios and camera settings. 

Then please do tell us what exactly the prez and Congress was told during the briefing.

[stereologist]

12 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

The Navy never said that. You are making that up. 

The Navy never said they were unidentified. You made that up.

The Navy is never going to state what is in those unclassified videos. But they have the original high def versions and they know the equipment and they know what is in those videos. These low quality videos are in good enough resolution to allow various people to all come to the same conclusions: distant planes and probably a weather balloon. 

It's not too hard for people with the appropriate backgrounds and the willingness to plot out the data to determine the contents of the videos. 

To conclude, I have never stated or suggested that the Navy provided any analysis of the videos. I have repeatedly and firmly pointed out what the Navy has stated as you, and several others, have tried to misrepresent what the Navy has stated.

[stereologist]

1 hour ago, Captain Risky said:

The military doesn't brief the President and Congress with zoom ratios and camera settings. 

You are probably right.

They probably brief the elected officials with information on why training to use new equipment has led to confusion.

The number 1 job of any military should be to make sure that the warrior comes home - is safe. A warrior that cannot identify their target is a warrior in potential peril and may allow peril to reach other warriors.

[Timothy]

10 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

The military doesn't brief the President and Congress with zoom ratios and camera settings. 

They probably wouldn’t have time to. It takes time to understand. So they would be briefed on the important points: 
Yes UAP, probably distant aircraft, sea bird against water, etc. It is IR footage sir. Etc. Not obviously exhibiting any unexplainable flight characteristics. 
Probably: IGNORE DAY, he is a fool. I REPEAT: Do not listen to Day. 

And don’t get sucked in by the sea level to 40,000 feet or whatever thing that @Earl.Of.Trumps always tries to claim. Or the raining UFO’s. They were quotes by an individual which are not supported in any other way and with no verifying evidence of. 

Time which the believers here spend arguing should be spent learning and understanding.

The videos look cool but are quite mundane once understood. And cannot be used as proof of ET or advanced flight systems. The data just isn’t there to support it.

[Timothy]

@Captain Risky still in meeting: Any further questions? ‘No’ 

Meeting adjourned at time XXXX ZULU.

Can someone please send out the minutes?

No further action required. 

[Trelane]

13 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

The military doesn't brief the President and Congress with zoom ratios and camera settings. 

Actually, to the members of Congress on certain committees we do. It helps translate the images and footage for them. Usually we provide a read ahead with the data as well. Never briefed a president though, so I can't say there.

[Unusual Tournament]

4 hours ago, Timothy said:

They probably wouldn’t have time to. It takes time to understand. So they would be briefed on the important points: 
Yes UAP, probably distant aircraft, sea bird against water, etc. It is IR footage sir. Etc. Not obviously exhibiting any unexplainable flight characteristics. 
Probably: IGNORE DAY, he is a fool. I REPEAT: Do not listen to Day. 

And don’t get sucked in by the sea level to 40,000 feet or whatever thing that @Earl.Of.Trumps always tries to claim. Or the raining UFO’s. They were quotes by an individual which are not supported in any other way and with no verifying evidence of. 

Time which the believers here spend arguing should be spent learning and understanding.

The videos look cool but are quite mundane once understood. And cannot be used as proof of ET or advanced flight systems. The data just isn’t there to support it.

BEST CHICKEN ENCHILADAS EVER!

https://www.gimmesomeoven.com/best-chicken-enchiladas-ever/

[Timothy]

1 hour ago, Captain Risky said:

BEST CHICKEN ENCHILADAS EVER!

https://www.gimmesomeoven.com/best-chicken-enchiladas-ever/

Lol, that’s what I do when I cook something new: Google: ‘Perfect xxxxxxxx’ or ‘Best ever xxxxxxxx’. 

I’m not sure what it has to do with the discussion, but now you’re speaking my language mate!

[Unusual Tournament]

4 hours ago, Trelane said:

Actually, to the members of Congress on certain committees we do. It helps translate the images and footage for them. Usually we provide a read ahead with the data as well. Never briefed a president though, so I can't say there.

 You’re just twisting words, now. No one says “ Mr President here we have a UFO that isn’t because... “ I provided an excellent article link that specifically mentions improvements to radar technologies has made tracking and recording UFO’s that much more accurate. somehow I doubt the military would be using faulty intelligence to make an appointment to see the president. 

Edited November 1, 2019 by Captain Risky

[Timothy]

3 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

 You’re just twisting words, now. No one says “ Mr President here we have a UFO that isn’t because... “ I provided an excellent article link that specifically mentions improvements to radar technologies has made tracking and recording UFO’s that much more accurate. somehow I doubt the military would be using faulty intelligence to make an appointment to see the president. 

When someone makes such public waves about what is regular footage, of course you would expect the president to be briefed. 

We’re talking about Trump here. He needs to be hand fed this info. He’s a businessman but a dumbass otherwise. 

It’s got nothing to do with the technology, there’s nothing exceptional in the data. Get over it. 

What happened to the chicken enchiladas?

[stereologist]

5 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

 You’re just twisting words, now. No one says “ Mr President here we have a UFO that isn’t because... “ I provided an excellent article link that specifically mentions improvements to radar technologies has made tracking and recording UFO’s that much more accurate. somehow I doubt the military would be using faulty intelligence to make an appointment to see the president. 

That is not what the article stated. The training mission after the upgrade turned up reports of UAPs. After that the number of UAP reports ended. This suggests that once the crew were familiar with their new gear they realized what they were seeing.