Weird object or UFO as seen from a U.S. Navy F/A-18F Super Hornet’s ATFLIR (ATS referenced )

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: intrptr

Those were my thoughts as well.

But I wonder how much of a radar image there would be if the radar return was faint.

Certainly here we have the best UFO case in years.

Or a hoax. Too little corroboration.
If they 'tracked' "fleets" of these over "two weeks", they should have reams of data. Jets were sent to investigate, thats hard enough contact to justify a response. Wheres that data? How about ship board personnel, not just a pilot but radar operators, to corroborate what they were seeing, lookouts, the damn Watch, cook, etc.

I'm guessing most of y'all have never been on a US Navy ship. While most of my time was on Carriers, I spent a little time on small boys, and ships are compartmentalized.

Just because you're on the boat, doesn't mean you have access to all the spaces. Radar and Fire Control are strictly controlled, as is Intel (called CVIC on the carrier for CV intelligence Center).

The cook would have no idea what was happening in the radar rooms. The data collected is TS, along with the capabilities of the systems. They get blips and objects all the time. They track birds. Yes, they have seen birds. An anomalous contact is not new, or odd. Seeing a similar thing for weeks would bring up questions of the the system performance, then likely espionage.

You are never going to see those tapes. Those are some of the most advanced radar systems in the US inventory. We're lucky to see the HUD/FLIR footage from the Hornet, as most of it starts as TS footage and has to be declassified to be released to the public (unless you're HRC).

originally posted by: C0bzz
a reply to: intrptr

According to the TTSA report, it happened at approximately between 12:00 and 13:00 (during the day). The FighterSweep article also states they launched during the morning into a "clear blue Southern California sky".

Thanks you. Then wheres the visible imagery of "broad daylight". How come we only have FLIR? Pilot reported watching them bounce like a "ping pong ball, back and forth, up and down". That was visual enough description. Where is that zoomed imagery?

For comparison, heres an F 14 tomcat view of a Libyan Mig during the Gulf of Sidra Incident. Remember, this is a hostile engagement resulting in the splashing of two Libyan Migs. This bore sight broad daylight camera footage (close up in places) taken in 1980's, is visual spectrum, taken from trail, as Migs practice evasive maneuvering.
People can and will try and convince us this technology isn't employed today, but I donnableeb it. If they are disclosing and all, show us the damn imagery!

a reply to: cosmania

The cook would have no idea what was happening in the radar rooms.

That was sarcastic. Even cooks are allowed 'out' for smoke breaks? If 'fleets' of these were around for 'two weeks' surely someone on deck spotted something?

ETA: Now tell me 5 thousand people aboard a 'floating city' air craft carrier don't go outside at all...

a reply to: intrptr

Princeton wouldn't close with an unknown aerial contact(s) to enable the use of the good ole MK1 Eyeball.

a reply to: The one?

Mark one eyeballs, and scuttlebutt drive people outside for a look see.

ETA: The eyeball pilot recount stated he was within a "half mile" of the object(s).

a reply to: intrptr

The Tomcat had a TCS (TV Camera System) that generated the video you see. While it was cool, it had low off boresight capabilities and limited tactical usage. We used it when possible, but not all the time. It was hard to use and in order to record it, we had to stop recording the PTID or the FLIR, so you lose some of that data.

The Hornet has no such visual recording system. Never has. They have FLIR and a HUD camera. The HUD camera looks through the HUD and has limited off boresight capability and does not zoom.

Visual recordings just aren't used much. ELINT is the way the US went, so they use NCTR blade counting, IFF, Radar emissions, etc, to identify aircraft. The fact that simple clouds preclude the use of the visual camera system make it less reliable.

And the boats are not likely within 10 miles of whatever is happening in the sky. Even if the entire deck of the carrier was covered with sailors, they aren't likely to see much of what happens. A radar ship that can get info from hundreds of miles away, generally has no need to close in on anomalous targets, and instead is more concerned with staying with the Strike Group and avoiding other ships (which nowadays appears to be not so easy).

All the info I've heard on this incident is plausible, believable and seems legit.

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: C0bzz
Interview with one of the pilots. Most things have already been in the articles previously in this thread.

Start at 32m33s

Apparently a more in-depth article is coming from George Knapp about the government program today.

None of his extraordinary claims about novelistic flight characteristics appear in the actual videos.

He was less than a mile ("half a mile") from it. The imagery is captured at night apparently, not sure how he managed to see the ocean 'disturbance' either.

I wonder what these guys consider "seeing?" Naked eye or a blip on a screen.

originally posted by: gariac

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: C0bzz
Interview with one of the pilots. Most things have already been in the articles previously in this thread.

Start at 32m33s

Apparently a more in-depth article is coming from George Knapp about the government program today.

None of his extraordinary claims about novelistic flight characteristics appear in the actual videos.

He was less than a mile ("half a mile") from it. The imagery is captured at night apparently, not sure how he managed to see the ocean 'disturbance' either.

I wonder what these guys consider "seeing?" Naked eye or a blip on a screen.

The pilot who said the "watched" it bounce back and forth 'like' a Ping Pong ball, "Back and forth and top to bottom" , as close as "half a mile away" was describing visual observations, because his radar would not be able to track that so close. Besides, the screen we see in the videos is from the WO in the back seat.

Thats what really bugs me, things like g load and velocity are not reflected on the WO screen, only on the pilots. But we don't see the HUD display, or the 'fleet' of them they claim they are 'tracking', any close ups with visible light cameras, the beginning and ending of the recording... etc.

a reply to: cosmania

The Tomcat had a TCS (TV Camera System) that generated the video you see. While it was cool, it had low off boresight capabilities and limited tactical usage

It was conjoined with the radar to get a good close up, so defense contractors could analyze features that would not be visible at greater ranges to exploit weaknesses and design counter measures against newer versions of Migs. For the few seconds it showed the extreme close up it is readily apparent they can track with the telescope at extreme zoom , regardless of aircraft profile (within limits).

They only showed this footage back then because the DOD was more open about its activity, still didn't have to hide the truth as much as they do today. I was alive back then, remember the tv programs that showed this engagement, goggled it to show others what kind of tech already exists and how that reflects on the way they are BS'ing everyone showing such poor video of 'supposed' UFOs.

But thanks for towing the official DOD line, anyway.

a reply to: intrptr

The pilot who said the "watched" it bounce back and forth 'like' a Ping Pong ball, "Back and forth and top to bottom" , as close as "half a mile away" was describing visual observations, because his radar would not be able to track that so close. Besides, the screen we see in the videos is from the WO in the back seat. 

So the FLIRs doesn't work when close? There is something wrong here.

Sigh. The FLIR pod is mounted on the left nacelle. In a right hand turn, like this picture, you can't see what's to the right/upward part of the aircraft because:
A. the aircraft is blocking the field of view
B. the FLIR pod is optimized for air-to-ground, so doesn't have great look up capability.
C. Is designed to identify ground targets from far away and has a minimum of a high magnification.

So in this case, you can't see the object, because the FLIR is masked and they are pretty close (inside a mile).

originally posted by: gariac
a reply to: intrptr

The pilot who said the "watched" it bounce back and forth 'like' a Ping Pong ball, "Back and forth and top to bottom" , as close as "half a mile away" was describing visual observations, because his radar would not be able to track that so close. Besides, the screen we see in the videos is from the WO in the back seat. 

So the FLIRs doesn't work when close? There is something wrong here.

Sure it 'works' thats not the point. The FLIR sees heat, reproduces a digital image, often blurry, but for tactical purposes of engagement, works quite well.

But why use it, its daylight and at close range should give us breathtaking first time images of a close encounter with extraterrestrial craft.

But nooo....

only blurry, grainy, daylight FLIR of Blobular spots.

Here, this is what I mean. This vid keeps being taken down, I have it bookmarked several places, all gone. The real stuff they take down, the BS they let stand... is color and close up...

a reply to: cosmania

Sigh, Pics of F 18s don't reveal their optical tracking capability.

a reply to: intrptr

The video is unsourced. That could be anything.

I-team video
www.lasvegasnow.com...

originally posted by: cosmania
The cook would have no idea what was happening in the radar rooms. .

Ah ha! Thats definitely not true! I watched a documentary once on the navy. They had a cook who knew everything that was going on the ship. I think it was a battleship. Anyways terrorists took control of the ship and he single handedly stop them. They were under siege but a simple cook knew every system of the ship and was able to leverage that knowledge for a win.

NYT "The Daily"

a reply to: BASSPLYR

Oh, yeah. I saw that one. I heard his Creme Brulee was to die for too!

a reply to: cosmania

Didnt compare to the eye popping birthday cake.