What are your thoughts on this comment from AskPhysics that sheds light on the Nimitz incident, the GOFAST video, and Cmdr. David Fravor’s experience? I’ve been somewhat undecided about these events, so I’m really interested in hearing others’ perspectives on what this anonymous commenter (who has since deleted their account) had to say about them. I was initially captivated by Cmdr. Fravor’s tic-tac account, but since then, he has made appearances on platforms like Joe Rogan and UFO conventions, turning into a bit of a celebrity. Still, we haven’t seen any other reports of tic-tac-shaped objects in the sky or ocean. Here’s a summary of the comment that caught my eye (I won’t link it since I’m unsure if that’s allowed):
-
The FLIR footage from the Nimitz incident (2004) shows a distant shape, likely a far-off aircraft, appearing to move left. The surprise comes when the pilot switches from a 2x zoom to a 1x zoom, losing the tracking at the same time, which creates the illusion that the object “jumps.” In reality, the object was moving steadily to the left; it just looked different due to the camera switch.
-
For the GIMBAL video (Roosevelt 2014), the apparent rotation is due to the gimbal mechanism of the plane’s camera trying to keep the object steady while the plane itself is moving. Although the lens rotates with the camera, the object remains stable; an IR lens flare also adds to the confusion.
-
Regarding GOFAST (Roosevelt 2015), it’s estimated to be moving at around 30 mph, as calculated from the on-screen info. Its speed seems much greater due to parallax effects based on the viewer’s assumptions about its distance from the water. Essentially, it was just an inert object being carried along by the wind.
-
As for the 2004 Nimitz radar objects, they acted similarly to balloons moving with the wind. Many believe that the erratic elevation changes were due to glitches in a new radar system or radar spoofing.
-
In the case of Cmdr. Fravor’s claims from 2004, it appears he may have experienced parallax caused by his excitement while investigating a “UFO.” He observed a disturbance in the water from a height of 20,000 feet and mistakenly assumed it was near the surface. This led to an optical illusion where he believed the object was mimicking his movements while diving toward it. Other pilots did not report seeing the object mirror Fravor’s actions but rather observed it as rising to meet him, further indicating that Fravor’s initial distance judgment was skewed. His high-speed pass may have also contributed to the impression that the object vanished instantly when it likely just went out of view.
-
Lastly, the object positioned 60 miles away appears to be entirely distinct with no connection to Fravor’s sighting. There’s no evidence to suggest they were the same; they were merely disparate incidents involving different ships and crews over a long span of time.
While it seems complicated and coincidental when viewed all together, these events can be understood as isolated incidents involving potential radar glitches and the occasional misinterpretation by excited pilots struggling to gauge distance for unknown objects in the vast sky.
The comment you’ve shared presents a skeptical perspective on the Nimitz and Roosevelt incidents, highlighting potential explanations that rely on camera mechanics, parallax effects, and radar anomalies. Here are some thoughts on the argument:
Skeptical Examination: The points raised demonstrate an important scientific approach to unexplained phenomena: seeking rational explanations before attributing experiences to extraordinary circumstances. The commenter makes valid observations about how camera systems and human perception can lead to misinterpretations of what is seen.
Camera Mechanics: The explanations about the FLIR and GIMBAL footage involve understanding advanced technology and its limitations. The idea that camera switching could create an illusion of movement is plausible; however, it’s essential to consider multiple factors, including how these technologies were designed to function and the contexts in which they were used.
Pilot Testimony and Experience: Cmdr. David Fravor’s account is compelling due to his extensive training and experience as a fighter pilot. While it’s crucial to analyze his testimony critically, dismissing his observations as merely the consequence of excitement and misjudgment of distance may overlook the complexity of the experience itself. Human perception can be flawed, but trained professionals often have insights born from years of study and experience.
Parallax and Misjudgment: The explanation about parallax effects is interesting, as it highlights how our brains interpret distances based on familiar cues. However, the assertion that the object was effectively “just a balloon” or an inert object based solely on estimated wind speeds needs to be evaluated against all available data, including corroborating radar readings and multiple pilot observations.
Different Incidents: The comment also segments the incidents as unrelated, which aligns with a critical perspective that seeks to tie each account only to the specific circumstances described. However, it can be valuable to consider these incidents as part of a broader narrative or series of encounters that may have various explanations but still contribute to the discussion around unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP).
The Broader Context: It’s worth noting that skepticism is an essential part of understanding such phenomena, and while one can argue for intervening factors, we should also remain open to the possibility that not all events can be explained away. Science seeks understanding, and often, the lack of definitive proof does not negate the validity of the experiences described by those involved.
In conclusion, while the comment provides a rational perspective and several plausible hypotheses for the perceived UAP, it’s equally important to be aware of the limits of our understanding. Engaging with the testimonies, scientific analyses, and a diverse range of opinions enriches the conversation about these intriguing and complex incidents.