Trailer for Jeremy Corbell live YT interview with Chad Underwood - July 28th

I know many of you don't think highly of J.C., but this sounds like an interesting interview.

It should last about 20+ minutes. I've listed below the topics to be discussed:
Trailer:


Excerpts from YouTube description:

The man who FILMED the TIC TAC UFO...
...For the first time on camera... Commander Chad Underwood clarifies and informs what happened when he filmed what is now the most famous modern UFO footage of all-time...

Certainly, this is an existential conundrum - and it’s time we face the UFO reality head on - whatever it might represent.

But let’s hear what Commander Underwood has to say about it - after all - he is the man that filmed it… and he was there.

0:00 INTRODUCTIONS
3:56 HOW DID YOU NAME THE TIC TAC UFO?
6:50 UNDERWOOD BROUGHT BACK TWO 8MM TAPES
9:41 UNDERWOOD SAW OTHER SENSOR DATA
10:17 THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY + CONTRADICTIONS
11:23 NO OTHER AIR TRAFFIC IN AREA
12:06 UFO WAS NOT BEHAVING NORMAL
13:26 UFO DID SHOOT OFF TO LEFT
13:37 NEGATIVE RADAR CONTACT
15:25 WHAT WAS WEIRD ABOUT THE ENCOUNTER?
16:27 SAW NO CHARACTERISTICS OF TRADITIONAL PROPULSIONS
16:49 THE UFO WAS NOT A U.S. BLACK PROJECT
18:09 WHAT SO YOU THINK YOU SAW?
18:44 DO YOUR KIDS ASK IF YOU SAW AN ALIEN CRAFT?
19:24 EITHER WE ARE ALONE IN THIS UNIVERSE, OR WE ARE NOT
20:15 THE IDEA THIS IS U.S. TECHNOLOGY IS A DWINDLING IDEA
21:57 WE DON’T HAVE THIS TECH
22:50 CONCLUSIONS

originally posted by: Encia22

0:00 INTRODUCTIONS
13:26 UFO DID SHOOT OFF TO LEFT

Corbell already did an audio interview with Underwood where he said that. The problem with Corbell in that interview is he asked straw man questions which didn't represent debunker arguments, like Corbell said the debunkers say the plane was banking. Debunkers don't say that, he made it up, so that's why we hate Corbell. So of course when Underwood says the plane was flying level and not banking, if you haven't paid attention to debunker arguments it sounds like he refuted the debunkers, but he really didn't, only Corbell's misrepresentation.

Another pilot with 18 years experience saw the video Underwood made and was also fooled by that illusion of shooting off to the left initially. But the pilot, Chris Lehto, admits he didn't check Mick West's math when he also said "UFO DID SHOOT OFF TO LEFT". Now, he has checked West's math and finds that the UFO was moving to the left before losing target lock and after losing target lock at about the same rate, so now he agrees with West that the UFO didn't really shoot off to the left. I don't know what it will take for Underwood to realize this, I suppose he also needs to do the math but I've never seen him do it. Lehto discusses his calculations in a new video with Mick West, where he changed his mind to agree with Mick West.

I understand that Jeremy needs to make a living by making films, but being connected to the TTSA ala Tom D Long and the Skinwalker Ranch cabal, doesn't help his credibility. There is some wild agenda being created and it isn't about disclosure.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Another pilot with 18 years experience saw the video Underwood made and was also fooled by that illusion of shooting off to the left initially. But the pilot, Chris Lehto, admits he didn't check Mick West's math when he also said "UFO DID SHOOT OFF TO LEFT". Now, he has checked West's math and finds that the UFO was moving to the left before losing target lock and after losing target lock at about the same rate, so now he agrees with West that the UFO didn't really shoot off to the left. I don't know what it will take for Underwood to realize this, I suppose he also needs to do the math but I've never seen him do it. Lehto discusses his calculations in a new video with Mick West, where he changed his mind to agree with Mick West.

The pilot had both FLIR and radar lock on with the object; the Radar tape has not been released due to classified information the radar would display.. He said when the Tic Tac went left faster than his FLIR could keep track he immediately banked left to reacquire the object. It was gone from all his sensors to include his radar. The Hawkeye radar aircraft and surface ship that had been following the engagement also said they had lost the object.

I was not there an neither were a bunch of arm chair analyzers so it is either the pilots who were there that we are to believe or a bunch of experts who were not there but still have it all figured out. Underwood is now employed as an engineer and works with other engineers on classified projects that he does not talk about. So a Naval aviator who is an engineer is not to be believed when he tells the story of what he saw and filmed. Add Fravor and Alex Dietrick into the mix who also had eye balls on the object and they must have been fooled by demons or whatever the latest debunking craze
is ?

youtu.be...

youtu.be...

Another classic callsign "Nutz".
Under Wood..... geddit?

Sexual Fravor is the best though....

Can't seem to find Dietrich's.......I bet it was a bit more PC.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Encia22

0:00 INTRODUCTIONS
13:26 UFO DID SHOOT OFF TO LEFT

Corbell already did an audio interview with Underwood where he said that. The problem with Corbell in that interview is he asked straw man questions which didn't represent debunker arguments, like Corbell said the debunkers say the plane was banking. Debunkers don't say that, he made it up, so that's why we hate Corbell. So of course when Underwood says the plane was flying level and not banking, if you haven't paid attention to debunker arguments it sounds like he refuted the debunkers, but he really didn't, only Corbell's misrepresentation.

Another pilot with 18 years experience saw the video Underwood made and was also fooled by that illusion of shooting off to the left initially. But the pilot, Chris Lehto, admits he didn't check Mick West's math when he also said "UFO DID SHOOT OFF TO LEFT". Now, he has checked West's math and finds that the UFO was moving to the left before losing target lock and after losing target lock at about the same rate, so now he agrees with West that the UFO didn't really shoot off to the left. I don't know what it will take for Underwood to realize this, I suppose he also needs to do the math but I've never seen him do it. Lehto discusses his calculations in a new video with Mick West, where he changed his mind to agree with Mick West.

Neither the clown Mickey West nor Lehto were there. That was one of the worst "interviews" I've ever endured. Little Mickey does nothing the entire time but make distorted assumption after distorted assumption on how classified optical systems work (which he does not understand) and the best part is when Little Mickey tells Lehto what Underwood didn't do once the object moved off to the left. A computer programmer who has never once sat in a fighter jet cockpit or spent 1 second of training in a fighter jet proposes to tell actual fighter jet aviators what they did and didn't do. You can't make this stuff up.

Little Mickey is the king of the strawman argument and Lehto couldn't string together a single coherent sentence.

In Chad's interview, he says that he did in fact attempt to reacquire target, and it was gone from NOT ONLY his scan volume, but also the Princeton's and the Hawkeye's much much larger scan volume.

Mick thinks this was a small and close plane (to mitigate perceived acceleration), under that assumption...how did it exit the scan volume so quickly? I understand Mick doesn't care much about anything outside of the video, but I'm hoping he at least addresses Chad's statements rather than ignoring them and con't to claim Chad "messed up" and didn't look for the tic-tac after it exited his 2x FLIR view (which I thought was a unreasonable and convenient assumption, given Chad was ORDERED to track it down)

If I were investigating a video, I would not want to ignore witness statements (directly related to said video), since they can inform your analysis. You can even do sensitivity analysis assuming Chad's is telling truth, and then run another analysis assuming he's lying or mistaken (Which is where Mick always starts from when dealing with event he hasn't seen with his own eyes).