Extraordinary Until Proven Otherwise

originally posted by: Guest101
There may be a difference between what he saw on both radar and ATFLIR, and the contents of the FLIR1 video fragment. He even admits that the most compelling movement in the FLIR1 video is ambiguous:

Maybe in the heat of battle, or training, anything can be ambiguous because lots of information is coming at the pilot fast and it's a lot to sort out. So if he couldn't tell at the moment it happened whether the movement on FLIR was some form of acceleration, that's understandable.

But for him to say it's ambiguous 15 years later, proves ChiefD wrong when he says we can believe what pilots tell us, because if Underwood looked at the video under more calm conditions anytime in the 15 years since, if he really understood what the display was showing him, he wouldn't say there was ambiguity. There's not any ambiguity in a careful analysis of the video; it clearly does NOT accelerate.

So when the pilot says: "I did not actually see the object aggressively accelerate to the left, as the video shows, to actually prove that.", he's just plain wrong in saying the video shows acceleration when it does NOT, which makes ChiefD's post "trust the pilot, they are trained" especially nauseating. The video does not show an object accelerating to the left at all, it shows a break in target lock and a zoom change. If the pilot understood what he was looking at as ChiefD claims, that's what he would say, not the wrong statement you quoted about "acceleration" the video shows. It doesn't show any acceleration, as demonstrated in this short video.

Errors in Nimitz UFO g-force Analyses

We cannot trust Underwood when he says the video shows the object aggressively accelerating to the left, he's completely wrong, the video does not show any significant acceleration. This video demonstrates that even after having 15 years to study the video, the pilot still does not understand that it absolutely does NOT show an object accelerating at the end, and he is still saying it shows acceleration, which it does NOT! What this FLIR video shows and what the Gimbal video show is that the technology pilots are using can confuse them, and they don't completely understand the technology, so they come to false conclusions about what the technology is showing them.

In the FLIR video, the pilots get a false impression of acceleration from an object that doesn't accelerate.
In the Gimbal video, the pilots get a false sense of rotation from an object that doesn't actually rotate.

I'm not saying pilots are idiots, but they are obviously not smart enough and not well-trained enough to figure those things out. In the case of Chad Underwood, even after having 15 years to figure it out, he still hasn't. I don't know if the pilots who said the Gimbal UFO was rotating ever figured out it wasn't rotating, they never came forward later to talk about it, like Fravor and Underwood did.

Chad Underwood also says other things that he could prove wrong himself if he watched his own video. He says that at the end of the FLIR video, you can see the bars around the target get wider as the target lock is lost and it tries to re-acquire the target. That is true.

Then at 9:35 in this video, you can hear Underwood say "I go through all the zoom features, and it's not dropping it's track."

Did the FLIR1 UFO actually make sudden moves? (No)


Underwood is wrong and his own description of losing track, seen by the bars widening can be seen several times in that same FLIR video. The difference between those events and when the track is lost at the end, is that the lock is not re-acquired near the end, but at the earlier points in the video when the target lock is lost, the widening bars are successful in re-acquiring the lock. So many analysts get this wrong that it's really annoying when you can simply watch the video yourself and see it's wrong.

Mick West references another video he made where he goes through the losses in target lock one by one, which he tacked on to the end of that video, so you can see more examples of where Underwood is wrong, wrong, and wrong, and so are other analysts who say the same thing as Underwood. This is not even complicated, how can Underwood and so many people not understand when target lock is lost, applying Underwood's own stated criteria for loss of target lock?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I didn’t comment on this thread to argue back and forth. I stand by what I say. What those pilots saw on their live radar was probably a much higher resolution than what was released to the public. And just because someone makes an offhand comment about something being a drone doesn’t mean that it was conclusive on that. They both sounded pretty amazed at what they were seeing on their radar.

We will have to agree to disagree on this. I’m not responding to any more posts on this.

a reply to: ChiefD

What those pilots saw on their live radar was probably a much higher resolution than what was released to the public.

No radar data has been released to the public.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder



There are hundreds of UFO videos on youtube. A lot of them are fake. A good method to hide the the truth.
I believe Jaime Mausson is honnest ... Although he too has to guess. See video www.evawaseerst.be...

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
So when the pilot says: "I did not actually see the object aggressively accelerate to the left, as the video shows, to actually prove that.", he's just plain wrong in saying the video shows acceleration when it does NOT, which makes ChiefD's post "trust the pilot, they are trained" especially nauseating.

Yes, the tic-tac does not make any sudden movements in the FLIR1 video. But this conclusion isn’t obvious without some analysis.
And I fully agree that it’s frustrating how people, including the witnesses, do not seem to take the time to study Mick’s analysis.

But the point I was trying to make did not come across very well amid all this frustration: Chad Underwood is not jumping to conclusions just from the input of one single sensor:

”I would say if I captured this object on my sensors independently, like I was the only one that saw it or tracked it, I might have blown it off as something like a weather event.”

As a consequence, he does not jump to the conclusion of rapid acceleration from just the ATFLIR input either:

”I did not actually see the object aggressively accelerate to the left, as the video shows, to actually prove that.”
“I can’t confirm that the object aggressively accelerated that way.”

Which shows he is not as careless as you might believe – he seeks confirmation either visually or from a different sensor before drawing final conclusions. The fact that he did not study Mick’s videos does not change that.

The other point I was trying to make is that the erratic behavior Chad is referring to was probably seen on radar, before the ATFLIR could get a lock.

When he approached the tic-tac, Chad had some trouble getting the radar locked on it.

”The thing that stood out to me the most was how erratic it was behaving. And what I mean by “erratic” is that its changes in altitude, air speed, and aspect were just unlike things that I’ve ever encountered before flying against other air targets.”

The ATFLIR does not give any data on air speed. These is data you will typically get from radar.

In the FLIR 1 video, the ATFLIR is slaved to the L&S (Launch and Steer) target. The L&S target is one of the targets seen by the radar.

The ATFLIR is essentially looking through a straw and would not be able to track such an erratic moving target. Only when the tic-tac took on a relatively stable trajectory the ATFLIR was able to track it.

If this is true, it may be logical that we do not see much happening in the FLIR1 video since this was the only episode where the tic-tac was stable enough to be tracked by the ATFLIR slaved to the radar.

originally posted by: Guest101
Which shows he is not as careless as you might believe – he seeks confirmation either visually or from a different sensor before drawing final conclusions.

You haven't listened to his interview with Jeremy Corbell, have you? That's worse than I could have possibly imagined and not as reserved as that article you're quoting. He completely blows that quote away with a firm and extremely careless and WRONG conclusion that the object is definitely accelerating. And he's wrong that the object's acceleration broke his target lock, he seems completely incompetent to not realize that his changing the camera breaks his target lock again and again throughout the recording, as it does at the end.



12:17
Underwood: "It broke my lock by zooming off to the left"

No, it didn't, I can't believe his level of incompetence to not realize when every time he changes cameras it breaks the lock and he changed the camera again. He knows he's changing cameras and he even gives the criteria for breaking the lock but how can he not put 2+2 together to realize that when he changes cameras, he sees the target lock break and usually re-acquired? He's either not that bright if he doesn't realize his own actions are breaking the target lock, or else he's been asked to lie for some patriotic mission to spread lies. I prefer to think he's lying and not as incompetent as he sounds, though I don't really know for sure he's intentionally lying. I do know for sure that what he says is not true.

12:35
Corbell: The Tic-Tac shot off to your left.
Underwood: Yeah, yeah with instantaneous acceleration. If it were to veer off to the left, the FLIR would be able to track that with no problem.

It didn't shoot off to the left with instantaneous acceleration. It didn't even veer off to the left. It maintained a steady appearance of relative leftward motion through out the entire video, including at the end. He's not saying he's looking for confirmation from another sensor here, he's stating this complete BULL Fecal Matter as if it's a fact!



He's giving us the defying physics BS based on the video after that:

13:26
Underwood: The Tic-tac...it's in motion. It's moving in some sort of velocity and a vector. To go from whatever its airspeed was at the time, to something that's just impossible, by any physical standard, it's something that I can't describe from a physics based perspective.

Again this is not referring to any other sensors, he's saying it's not following the laws of physics the way it zooms off to the left, but it doesn't zoom off to the left, it moved steadily to the left during the entire video. Again I hope he's lying because some spooks asked him to or something because I'm saddened he's this completely incompetent if he's not lying. It not only doesn't defy the laws of physics, it doesn't even stretch them the tiniest little bit. Underwood is the one causing the target lock to break by his own actions of changing cameras. How many times can he change cameras and see the target lock break and not realize he's the one doing it? If he's not lying he's kind of stupid or something to not realize that. So he broke the target lock with his own action, not the UFO. Not just once, but again and again, except the last time the lock was not re-acquired.

The BULL Fecal Matter continues to peg the meter:

13:45
Underwood: Things just don't instantaneously accelerate like that...That's the thing that blew me away both in real time and after the fact, I'm like "what just happened?"....instantaneous acceleration that would crush a pilot, and just from a structural engineering standpoint, it would just rip wings right off the aircraft.

As I said, real time, anybody could misinterpret, so I don't hold that against him. But 15, and now 16 years after the fact he still is completely clueless about what the video shows, or else, hopefully, he's lying about it and knows he's lying. He's talking about acceleration that would kill a pilot and rip wings off the aircraft, and there's no evidence of any acceleration, not even a little bit, so the BULL Fecal Matter just keeps going and going and going...



14:50
Underwood: That's the part I took away from the whole experience, was that moment where it zipped off, that was my kind of weirded out moment. I was trying to find it and re-acquire it and asking "hey where did that thing go?" and there was negative radar contact so their radar scope is clean as well."

Then he goes on to explain that he couldn't re-acquire it, which is strange because if he had it on radar when he was 30-40 miles out, and he closed to within 10 miles as some have guessed, the radar return should have been 9-16 times as strong at 10 miles as it was at 30-40 miles.

So the bottom line is I don't buy your "other sensors" argument after listening to his interview with Corbell, he's very clear that what's seen on the video is what he considered defying the laws of physics when he thinks it instantly accelerates, but it doesn't even accelerate a little bit.

Even though the pilot Underwood is lying or incompetent in his claims about instantaneous acceleration, there will be gullible and naive people who think pilots know more about their equipment than a guy who has never flown a jet like Mick West, but that's really irrelevant. Anybody with the requisite skills can figure out how to analyze that video, and Mick West has such skills. I suspect maybe Underwood does too, but this whole episode is a little off to me so that's why I'm leaning more toward Underwood lying at the request of some spooks, instead of being as incompetent as he sounds when he concludes physics-defying instantaneous acceleration from an object that any competent analysis shows didn't accelerate at all.

By the way, Mick West said he tagged Chad Underwood on social media, apparently meaning he's trying to set up his own interview with Underwood to see if he can clear up the misconceptions in Corbell's interview where Corbell misrepresented West's explanation. I will be very surprised if Chad Underwood agrees to do an interview with Mick West though.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
You haven't listened to his interview with Jeremy Corbell, have you? That's worse than I could have possibly imagined and not as reserved as that article you're quoting. He completely blows that quote away with a firm and extremely careless and WRONG conclusion that the object is definitely accelerating. And he's wrong that the object's acceleration broke his target lock, he seems completely incompetent to not realize that his changing the camera breaks his target lock again and again throughout the recording, as it does at the end.

[...]

By the way, Mick West said he tagged Chad Underwood on social media, apparently meaning he's trying to set up his own interview with Underwood to see if he can clear up the misconceptions in Corbell's interview where Corbell misrepresented West's explanation. I will be very surprised if Chad Underwood agrees to do an interview with Mick West though.

No I did not listen to that one and it is pretty careless, indeed much worse than the written interview.

Jeremy first seems to upset Chad with the false claim that debunkers tell he banked his jet, making him angry enough to defend the non-existing but apparent sudden acceleration through thick and thin.

I really hope Chad will take the opportunity to have a chat with Mick to set things straight. Unlike most debunkers, Mick will not settle for a half fitting explanation and he is willing to have an open-minded discussion with the witnesses.

I can’t imagine the ATFLIR was so fragile that it will permanently lose such a slow moving target just by fiddling with its zoom and FOV settings. That would be bad PR for Raytheon indeed. In that respect I tend to agree with Chad: It should have been able to re-acquire the lock, like it did in the other occurrences in the video, if the movement of the object stayed the same.

Whether or not the ATFLIR `broke lock’ several times during the FLIR1 video is a bit of an academic discussion to me. What exactly is meant by `breaking lock’? Do you regard a situation where the target temporarily crosses the ATLIR lines and is re-acquired almost immediately as `breaking lock’, or only a situation where the ATFLIR (plus the radar it is slaved to) permanently loses its target?

While Chad thinks this permanent loss was caused by a sudden acceleration, I suspect it was because the radar lost its target in the end, making the ATFLIR (which was slaved to the radar) go idle. Another possibility is that the tic-tac was no longer appointed to be the L&S target, which would stop the ATFLIR from tracking it in L&S slave mode.

The interview does confirm my hypothesis that the erratic movements were first seen on radar. Apparently the radar had a lot of trouble to lock on to the object.

All in all it was a strange looking object without any transponders flying in a military training zone with the ability to avoid or at least severely hinder radar detection from a jet. That alone is reason enough to raise an eyebrow, but not yet reason enough to immediately conclude it broke our current laws of physics.