There's no way an albino haggis strung up and waved around on string over a swimming pool would not sqeal so loud that the fence would take off in fright. Case closed. Ipso facto calypso quiesco sarcinas, as they used to say.
It seemed like the object and the camera were moving in both videos, it's really hard to tell and I was clearly wrong on both counts. This is a fantastic demonstration of how easy it is to fool the eye.
I know. I hate that so many people make it into an ego thing. I watched Fravor's entire interview with Fridman; Fravor's a very brilliant guy. And when the Mick West part came up I wanted to hear some crazy shit that could sway me toward the alien hypothesis, but I was surprised that it appeared to be more of a defence of credibility than a response to Lex's questions about Mick's comments.
After hearing David talk about the Pheonix lights, I'm convinced he is just another kooky UFO guy. His eyewitness account is no stronger than any other persons, eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable, eg the Morristown UFO hoax, ruclips.net/video/YfijQ6vtRlg/видео.html People claimed they saw giant solid crafts when infact they were looking at flares attached to helium balloons via fishing line, several Vetaran pilots and police officers gave this account. It's easier to fool someone than it is to convince them they have been fooled.
Mick, there is a trigger warning missing at the start of this; _"Caution! If you are a devout UFO believer with a tiny bit of critical thinking left watching this video may ruin your day."_
@@UngrievableI agree.... The crazy Moon hoax, 9/11, Flat earth, UFO wacko's or Conspraricists" as they like to be called . Insist" bats aren't real either". "Owls aren't birds"."The sky's really not blue" LOL These people are nuts...
@@Ungrievable Scientific literacy is around 28 percent of the adult population in American. 😮 Few people would be able to answer the most basic questions regarding the science of Apollo,9/11, bigfoot, WW2 Holocaust, Alien life, Flat Earth, Sandy Hook etc, Yet these people swear they know the 9 missions to the Moon were faked.🤣
@@thomaslewis7883 hi. I realize that’s a big ask... How about just your honest take on the “science of Alien life” but and let’s throw bigfeet in there as well. 🙃 All things that go bump in the night and keep us humans up at night? 😱👻 Why the sudden interest in “Alien life” by certain militaries around our planet? Is there a threat to anyone or something? What’s your take on that? 🙏 thanks!
@@Ungrievable People lie, science doesn't...The only one worth talking about is the question "Are we alone "The James Webb telescope will be the start of a serious look for alien worlds. The JWST may be able to look for signs of alien life/detecting whether atmospheres of planets orbiting nearby stars are being modified by that life. Over time our detection abilities will improve with each and every telescope, remote sensing, etc. The telescopes sensitive equipment will look for "biosignatures" The chemical make-up of the atmosphere of a planet orbiting another star can be measured in light by carefully measuring the minuscule dip in starlight as the planet passes between us and the star during the planet's orbit. The gases in the planet's atmosphere cause the light reduction to vary with the wavelength /or color - of light, revealing information about how much of each chemical is present. If life is or was present we may be able to detect it. Someday we might have a branch of science called interstellar archeology.
@@thomaslewis7883 hey! True. All humans are capable of lying. Especially those with billion dollar agendas. Space is fast becoming the new playground for humans. A new Gold Rush, of sorts. Spooky. ⛏... 😫 As equipment and methods become increasingly sophisticated, we humans shall continue to make new discoveries, as you suggest right? This raises so many interesting q’s tho. Is it all worth it? ... if you were ...to encounter other civilizations or heck, even one citizen from such a civilization... What would become of that citizen? then it’s not merely a question of “finding life” elsewhere... but of finding life That is on par with, or has far surpassed human life on earth. Intelligent life. What then? Would they be prodded, probed and dissected and misunderstood by humans? Abused? Eaten? Similar to what happens to lab animals at facilities like (and similar to) NIH? What about military applications? These various agendas are intertwined, aren’t they? 😶🤕 medical? military? Civilian? Etc. Where would the consequences of those actions lead you? Would their technology by pilfered? Would you know what to do with it? What cockamamie schemes will be hatched around those technologies? Remember...humans were pondering nuking our moon 🌝 for bragging rights... 🤦♂️ Like children in a forest with matches, no? Heard someone say that. Actually a good observation!! 👏 But what’s up with that!? Lol! Why so much aggression (aside from the desire to survive and thrive)? Would you be able to cope with other highly intelligent forms of life? What about “hostile” alien life? Or those perceived as hostile? Why the eagerness to meet other civilizations...while our own cities burn with tribal warfare on scales both large and small and in various ways? Why seek other civilizations before your own affairs are in order? Seems like an outcome fraught with peril. Let’s hope the life we find is microbial. I wonder which kingdom of life we’ll encounter? 🤔 What do you think? Soon enough, us humans will be able to find these things, but should we? What are the benefits? The drawbacks? ☺️🙏🌌🐬 Sometimes science is driven by ego, insecurity hubris and shortsightedness. Not just curiosity and a quest for “progress” Hope it all works out tho. 🖖👊👍
Damn, I could have sworn the second video was camera moving along with the object (but staying relatively same to each other, like carrot on a stick). Great explanation!
I want Mick West, Fravor, Lex Fridman, Bob Lazar and Sean Carroll all on Joe Rogan for a 5 hour podcast. Lazar wouldn't do it because he would crumble and be exposed as a fraud in front of CALTECH/MIT scientists
Milhouse VanHouten I’d say Mick West, Michael Shermer and/or Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Lex Fridman - vs Dave Fravor, Luis Elizondo, and Chris Mellon. Talk about an all-star debate :)
Mark Johnson why - he’s a professional skeptical analyst. If you don’t have skeptical input in a hypothesis, you’re preaching to the choir. A hypothesis is only good when it can withstand stringent analysis from multiple angles, especially from people with a keen eye for bias and bs.
I find this fascinating. The military community who see these “Tic Tacs” won’t have this but me who thought the Tic Tacs was some objects defying the laws of physics as we know it now may just be misinterpreted by those that observed them.
@@MrRecklessryan The problem is few people are scientifically literate. Only about 28 percent in American. Mick understands object-level motion detection from moving cameras A NASA physicist, pilot may not even consider object level motion detection. Hence the stories." NASA physicist and pilot says he saw multiple UFOs as a pilot in the airforce".The Navy incident reports hint at the DOD being concerned about accidents, collisions, knowing pilots see things while flying Detecting object-level motion from moving cameras is a difficult problem to solve for collision-free navigation due to the dual motion introduced by the mixture of the camera motion and the motion of the object. Future aircraft maybe be equipped with sensors, software that quickly tell the pilot the size, speed, and motion relative to the aircraft and camera movement.
That was very well done! At one point I thought I saw a wake and ripples from the object moving across the pool. Funny how the brain fills in all the missing bits that aren't even there. I knew it wasn't "on" the water yet - that's all I could imagine it to be. Can you get your tracking camera to somehow "lose lock"? Then it would appear to rapidly move out of view.
It wouldn't move out of view the same as FLIR1, because there it isn't moving, but looks like it is. FLIR1 IS moving, but looks like it isn't (except for the "sudden moves" which look like it's moving, but actually isn't!
Mick West ok . I think I got that. But if the camera is tracking , and the view point is changing ( causing the apparent motion) If you stop tracking ( lose lock) then the still object will rapidly break frame as you pan ,or appear to move off screen "at incredible speed" No? Maybe the background pool needs to be shot in IR so you lose some definition. Break out the FLIR.! Really good video . Thanks for taking the time to set up the demo. I really enjoyed it.
The second one fooled me. I would love if you could simply just have an interview with Cmdr. Fravor. I think it would be very productive. Have you reached out to him?
Mick has a background in a video game, etc so he has a good understanding of perspective. Cmdr. Fravor.would likely say this is what I perceived the object to be. He never really talked about the fact he was flying at 250 plus knots and might not have understood how that played into his observation. The turbulence in the water could have been a school of fish, submarine, whale. He might have witnessed a sub-launched drone, balloon, aircraft, etc. The amount of time his eyes were on the subject would have been a few blinks at best. I'm not saying he didn't see an object, but without video and tracking coordinates nobody should be talking about UFOs, aliens. That would be the greatest discovery in human history and would require vast amounts of scientific data,video, radar, etc,.None of which we have on the so-called TicTac Cmdr. Fravor witnessed.
The second one has the shifting water surface as an additional component, that makes it harder to check whether camera motion and parallaxe alone are sufficient.
I'd love to know what special training Fravor received that allowed him to figure out size and distance of an object of unknown size at an unknown distance.
Trained observers have to pass The School of Special Military Looking, where in a final test a box of Tic Tacs is scattered across a beach in the shore break and students have to find all the Tic Tacs. No sleep, no food (instant fail if they eat a Tic Tac) for days until all the tic tacs are found. Navy PEEPERS were the ones who finally found and killed Wally in a raid on his secrect compound a few years ago.
The first one fooled me. With the second one I quickly had the impression it was somehow fixed (with rotation) in the center of the camera field of vision. Both times I guessed the size to be like the yellow plastic inside a children's surprise chocolate egg. Very interesting! Thank you very much!
Two monks were arguing while watching a flag flapping in the wind. "The flag is moving," argued one monk. "No, it's the wind that is moving!" insisted the other monk. Huineng was passing by, and remarked, "It's your minds that are moving."
Granted I do get that feeling that the object is moving. Unfortunately I feel the strings give it away. I think if the object changed directions that quickly there would be not way for the strings to stay vertical the way they do. So I override what my eyes see and go with object stationary.
Good point,though I doubt it would have changed anyone's answer as the object appears to be moving slowly when it is not... A balloon, bird, or drone hovering or moving at 20 knots and an F -18 flying by at 325 knots with a camera panning it, transforms the object into a high-speed UFO."DODs "Go Fast"video .. I'm betting the DOD scientists understand object-level motion from a freely moving camera. Most of the DOD data is left out. Did the Aegis see anything unusual,I doubt it. They seemed uninterested in the so-called mystery objects. The media, RUclipsrs, history channel capitalized on the interest in aliens and UFOs and left out the actual science, radar data. Of course, offer a retired Navy radar tech a few bucks and they'll twist the story to make it sound as if the entire fleet was chasing and tracking aliens.
Futu Pilots are no better than you or I at establishing what an object might be..If anything its more difficult, being that their flying at 250 plus knots while trying to observe another moving object. I've talked to commercial pilots, most recall these incidents as happening in the blink of an eye. Most suggest balloons, other aircraft, military,etc.
@@futu9017 Sorry, I missed the sarcasm. But thanks for pushing back. I wish more people would push back at all the ignorance in the world. If you haven't seen Mark Robers video on NASA.I recommend taking a look, its a wakeup call for those who insist scientific research and exploration is a waste of money..ruclips.net/video/lARpY0nIQx0/видео.html
I'd imagine being in a fighter jet messes even more with our perception of size, movement, and speed. Our brains and senses are built for orientating in an almost stationary environment. It cannot be easy to accuracy identify something while moving close to, or above, the speed of sound.
I know I'm 3 years late but I think the camera is stationary, the object if moving, and you're using the thing where you can zoom in and keep an object in the center of the screen while it's moving around after filming.
Excellent vid - glad someone is taking the time to do this sort of thing. I truly believe the better (not faster, without proper reasoning) we can debunk the mundane, what remains will be scientifically fascinating, if not planet-changing. The truth is out there, but may well be behind the shed or just past the pub ! Found you due to Isaac Arthur - instantly subscribed due to this vid. I am especially impressed because you seem to have found an albino haggis willing to be strung up and waved around on strings for over three minutes without it squealing (as albinos haggis are prone to do when excited). Extra points for the "Look Around You" presentation style - brings back great memories. Special request for your next experiment: Bowel Motion Perception with specific regard to Unexplained Anal Phenomena :)
The object never moves in either. Only the camera is moving. If you use a zoom lens with a narrow field of view, it would increase the speed even more.
Great ex-plainer, but why would a tic-tac shaped thing be out there in the first place? maybe it was a stray balloon? And how would you explain how they describe it (as seen by their eyes) physically jumping distances...or the radar evidence also of it jumping around, coming and going... demonstrably research like this is a MUST and so important in solving the mystery but there are still questions that need to be answered IMO.
The answer to the final question is, you rely on independent confirmation from sensor data, such as Kevin Day simultaneously tracking it on radar. This is actually really good, as is most of Mick's work, so long as people don't lose the plot. To suggest that there were simultaneous radar anomalies, and visual illusions experienced by several pilots (and possibly other witnesses ), and that this was all coincidence, I think that's a stretch. There is no mundane explanation that fits all the facts.
People have a really naive conception of how humans estimate distances. The impression that we perceive directly distance thanks to the difference between images coming from both eyes is oversimplistic. Yes, that's a part of how we estimate distance, but it is a tool among others. Others tools are as following : 1. Accomodation : the muscle contracting the crystallin lens is a proxy to the distance. 2. Known height of the object vs perceived height. When we know the height of the object, we estimate the distance depending on how much it looks smaller. 3. Height on the horizon. Normally, things on the ground and in the sky (birds, clouds) move in parallel with the horizon. Thus, the height the object appear to us is an indication of its distance. Objects on the ground that are more distant seems to go up while it's the opposite with objects that are in the sky. 4. Parallax. When we move from left to right, objects that are closer seems to move more thant objects that are further. 5. Texture appearance : objects that are further are less detailed. 6. Occultation : objects that mask other objects are closer. I might forget a tool or two, but these are the main tools our brain use to guess the distance of objects. It is easy to understand that a pilot in an aircraft will loose a lot of tools (3 and 6 for instance) and other tools are used outside normal human circumstances (the parallax does'nt work the same in the air, you can't move from right to left and stop as you want, plus the speed is not human speed). And as Mick West always repeat, if the identifed object is wrongly associated to the size of a plane, tool number 2 is totally inaccurate. All I want to say : pilot perception can easily be wrong.
Another is, even though the camera is moving to track the object, the object always stays in the center of the frame. If you were to move the object it would move from the center of the frame, but once you move your camera not tracking the object, then it will no longer appear to be moving, but stationary. The Nimitz object in the gimble video clearly accelerates (as you have stated), but if the object was moving slowly as you climb, than the tracking should have easily been able to keep up with that object, the fact that it couldn't meant the object was moving faster than the gimble.
I'm not sure which video you are referring to. Nimitz (FLIR1) and Gimbal are very different videos, a decade apart. If the camera is tracking an object then it's not going to move from the middle of the screen unless the camera loses the track.
@@MickWest Actually, I just watched your video a fourth time and took everything. I see what you're saying now entirely. My bad I straw-manned you a bit
That explains why the other jet positioned above the both of them saw the exact same same thing, how the object was jamming their radar, how it changed direction and disappeared when they got too close, and showed back up for another pilot to see and record, also why a balloon was detected on radar for weeks by the commanding ship and they deemed it appropriate to go and look at it to find what is. Seems like a very effective way to confuse radar. Just release balloons
1. yes, an optical illusion can work from different angles. Also, aside from the video, everything else is undocumented and I take it with a rather large grain of salt. 2. someone *claimed* it actively jammed radar. See above. 3. we don't know if anything changed direction or disappeared. There's blurry footage and little else.
First one was evident because the object did not had inercia. The lines holding it were not reacting to its movement. The second one had the lines harder to be seen
You need to take to account the direction the jet was flying, I couldnt find this info in the videos, nor can I understand the FLIR hud, but if it matches that kind of aparent "counter" movement created by the camera perspective + movement, we can say that the object wasnt actually flying fastly foward. But, this video isn't the only "phenomena" observed
Great experiment, nowadays we totally believe what we see on cameras, we think they are so advanced that they dont have limitations or funny characterics that can fool us into thinking what we see on our expensive digital cameras cant be a trick of the eye as there too advanced, Mick does a great job at showing us these new unkown limitations by flir,gimble, heat/IR ect ect and the thousands of settings they come with nowadays that can drasticley change everything you do with it, just messing with the contrast on a IR camera that shows heat gives it a glow around the heat feature, it looks ghostly or like an alien shield, most people dont even know what setting there contrast is on in the first place! Something i learnt from Mick by watching his experiments! Without Mick doing these experiments on these new technology cameras that change year after year no body would really know about them especially mr average joe! 95% of these sightings can be explained better, we need to know these things so that when the real thing comes along we already have the right knoledge to confirm its the genuine thing, otherwise you get people jumping in with 2 feet running about saying its real and its nothing but a camera limitation!!!! Mick isnt trying to kill everyones dreams of seeing the first ever alien craft hes just showing us that these are thing things associated with camera technology, and have a look at these experiments first before you start wrapping tin foil around your head or loading your shot gun and heading for the hills with a baby moniter and 2 months of freezr dried pasta!! This work is essential, your cant answer or work out mysteries if you dont have ALL the knoledge and information from ALL possible angles! Great job again Mick!
In this video the camera is moving up and down and side to side. With the “tic tac” being used as an example is the implication that David Fravor’s fighter plane moved up and down and side to side sporadically giving the illusion that the tic tac was moving in this way? I don’t know of any airplane that performs that way.
Not exactly. The movement will mirror whatever the jet does. Me up my ladder is rather limited in terms of what I can do moving the camera, so I repeat the same movements.
Why are you the only person who's consistently made convincing and clearly stated valid criticisms of the Pentagon UAP videos? Does anyone else know anyone that comes close to Mick's professionalism, non-combative tone, technical prowess and general logic?
@@geoffsmith6373 Adequate summary of thunderfoot, his videos would be so much better if he lost all the sarcasm and made his videos less rambly and more to the point
Before going on, in the first video I see the object moving (relative to fence, up and side to side) I also see the camera moving as we have a white board and a plant come in and leave the frame of camera. Both move. In the second video it’s harder to tell, but I see an object move from pool side to side and I suspect the camera is also moving, though I’m less sure. Great video, I was sure that the tic-taco was moving in the first video, to find it’s not then that was really surprising and comes back to the point that moving observers on unknown objects can create real illusions.
But if it was only a big mistake done by the pilots and by the instruments aboard of the F-18...why we have more precise pics showing two little pipes protruding from a tic tac? Also your model is so detailed...
Also keep in mind the perception they had of closing distance to the object. It's not like they thought they were only watching an object near the surface of the water 20,000ft away for 5min but they also percieved a distance closure to 2,500ft away during the interrogation, I think that's worth considering.
@@MickWest Yes and I think you demonstrate that well here but only in the context of a single camera/video screen. It's not as strong of an argument when you're talking about 8 eyeballs from two different perspectives. Well let's iron that out. Let's say the object was at 10,000 feet the entire time. From 20,000 feet the object appeared to be bouncing around like a pingpong ball. At equal elevation during interrogation the object appeared to be mirroring. We have 2 aircraft in the air. She is still at 20,000 ft. So She at 20,000 feet should still visualize pingpong ball while Fravor is visualizing mirroring? There are a lot of leaps that have to be made for this to work. False perception of size with distance closure. 4 people from two different perspectives falsely agreeing on the same story. False perception of craft rapidly departing. False perception of a craft rapidly ascending to meet at same elevation. False perception of craft immediately halting ping pong maneuver and turning to focused attention. I would love to see you continue on this and present a complete theory. You have no doubt opened my eyes with a few other of your experiments.
In the first clip, one can discern from the parallax of the background behind the fence, which one can see moving in relation to the fence, that the camera is indeed moving. One could assume that since the object is not "swinging" from the suspending line, that it is not moving, but one can't be 100% sure of that from the first clip. I would say I am almost certain that the object is not moving in the first clip, but not 100%. In the second clip, I don't think there's enough information to deduce whether the object is moving, the camera is moving, or both. Just going off what it looks like to me, it looks like the object is moving, but I very unsure of that conclusion. Let's see how I did.
How dare you confirm my biases that my senses and perceptions can mislead me into thinking I'm seeing one thing in a video, when I'm seeing something else? Who is paying you, Mick?!?
@@MickWestThanks! Speaking of backgrounds, here's another observation for you...apparently we share a couple of shipped titles. I didn't realize that until I looked up your mobygames just now. Small dev world.
I had the right answer on both videos and I'm far from a professional jet fighter's observational and spatial skills. Your video was interesting and gives me a new perspective on how the video itself can be confusing but unless this is a big hoax set up by the government to deceive other superpowers I still think it's an impressive video. I wouldn't be surprised if Fravor is just enjoying his newfound fame and money from this and knows it's all bollocks but there are people out there who don't stand to get a dime from believing this is a ufo and still do. My position is : it could be a balloon or a bird but at the moment those were caught by professional fighters, all of them seemed to be genuinely impressed by what they were seeing both with their own eyes and from their instruments. And we're talking decades before any one of these pilots would get any sort of $$ from their scam. You'd also think these professional pilots know the difference between a bird and a plane. They see a lot of birds and a lot of planes I'd assume.
image quality is a bit low, same for the frame rate tbh and is that lens deliberately out of focus? how rude. :p an excellent demo of the vagaries of cameras in motion.
Both the Navy and Raytheon could easily debunk these frauds by stating explicitly (instead of implicitly) that the objects represent nothing alien or even all that unusual. and giving fuller explanations as to provenance and what they actually are. It's their information that is being exploited by the scammers, they have a duty to correct them.
I believe Astrophysics run into this same problem when dealing with objects outside our galaxy. I think we can ask Mr. Tic-Tac to help teach these Astrophysics on how to "go with their guts"
A valid representation to illustrate the illusions of an ATFLIR recording. Not for a pilot looking outward, though. To mimic a pilot looking out from his cockpit you would have to make some changes: 1. Give the speeds, directions, and traveled distances of the camera - a pilot knows how his jet is moving. 2. Give the distance of the camera to the background - a pilot knows his altitude and hence his distance to the ocean surface. 3. Make way bigger sweeps with the camera - a jet does not stay in one position and just moves back and forth a bit, it covers huge distances. It would be interesting to create a video like that, and see what is left of the illusion. Essentially, a video like that would give sufficient data for triangulation, and I think triangulation is what humans do intuitively when they move around while watching an object.
Say there's an object (A) hovering 2000 feet below you, and 5000 feet away horizontally. You are circling that object. There's another object (B) that's traveling on the same circle, but even lower. It's 4000 feet below you, 10,000 feet away horizontall, and it's mirroring your movement. If you draw a line from you to A to B, it will be a straight line, and remain a straight line as you and B circle around object A. Object B is twice the size of object A. How can you tell them apart during this movement?
@@MickWest Thanks for responding, Mick. My remark was just that your video does not represent the situation of a pilot looking out from his cockpit. The chance that a pilot can give fairly accurate ball-park estimates of speed, distance, and size is much higher than your video suggests. And Fravor did more than just circle the object (if he circled it at all - memory cannot be trusted). According to the Nimitz event log, the capsule initially passed under Fravor’s jet an an altitude of 4000 feet at course 300, which is almost West. It began its turn and climb while Fravor was descending and turning to acquire it. He could not keep up and the capsule was heading due East when they lost sight of it. I tend to trust this data more than human recollection years after the fact.
Curiosity SavedMankind A pilot, unlike stabilised footage, would have a frame of reference - namely the cockpit's window-frame. Most pilots looking out of window on a clear day would have an accurate sense of what was their own aircraft movement. Pilot brains tend only to get confused when not looking, vision blocked / obscured (eg by blindfold in training) or being immersed in featureless cloud. I have some limited experience of this.
@@crawlinginfilm9683 But if they don't know how big it is and how fast it is moving, then how does being framed in the window help? Something static 1 mile away and something twice as big 2 miles, but moving, away will have the same movement relative to the window frame.
A static object will always create the illusion of motion if you are moving yourself. It’s much less likely for an object in motion to create the illusion of being static, since that takes a very specific speed and direction. According to his recollections, Fravor initially judged the object to be *static* (with small jittery N-S and E-W movements) and just above the ocean surface. So, the probability of this being an illusion is very low. These pilots approach and land on carriers all the time, with aircraft parked on them. If this object was really “holding like a harrier” just above the ocean surface, Fravor’s experience in approaching and landing on a carrier alone would enable him to give an accurate estimate of its size. So, if his recollections are accurate, his size estimate probably is as well. And he would be able to see if the object started to move from its static position. I his recollections are not accurate, what is the point of trying to explain them?
Hey @mickwest I enjoyed this video. Would it be possible to get another camera filming you film the object? And also make it look as though the object is moving? From what I understand there were 4 trained pilots observing the ticktac, 2 observing commander fravor and his interaction with the tictac at a higher altitude, and commander fravor and his co-pilots view.
Sure, there were two planes. Each plane would have had a different perspective, but the same kind of illusion. So If I had someone else balance on the top of the ladder filming me from above, and moved, and everything was removed apart from my camera, then you might be able to duplicate it. I think thought such a recreation would be best done in CGI.
@@MickWest great! I hope it can be done. Also from what I understand the object was bouncing around like a "ping pong" and making strange movements, would this mean that fravors head or his aircraft was moving like crazy to observe the objects illusion? Because I can see you moving the camera vigorously to make the object appear to move and I am interested as Fravors explained it was clear flying conditions and didn't specify if the air was choppy or not. Would it also mean the higher altitude observers aircraft/head movements were as erratic as the camera movements?
I haven't seen the answer so I could be completely off but it apereas like you attached a tick tac to a string and are dangling it on a stick in front of the lens while you tilt and pan the camera with a tripod.
Interesting in the general sense of explaining this optical illusion, but by including the "tic tac" instead of any other object I can't help feel that this is a cheap "gotcha" debunking attempt that leaves out crucial information to people unfamiliar with the Nimitz case. A skeptical understanding of parallax is important for critical thinking in not falling into pure belief the moment you hear new information, but this explanation alone cannot explain the erratic movements seen from multiple pilots from multiple angles, not "in a plane from that position with two pilots [so] both pilots [see] the same illusion." All four pilots, who saw this object for about 5 minutes from multiple angles, were highly trained to identify crafts of all types, and were sent by command to investigate after the object popped up on radar, so it's not like they looked down and just got confused via parallax, as this video suggests. This video also leaves out how your (Mick West's) debunking claim of the Gimbal incident being due to faulty FLIR equipment was also debunked by certified FLIR technicians. I have to say, I was quite convinced from your online forum debunking explanation until hearing from those experts, and am just fine with returning to the realm of open to the possibility of it being something unexplainable. Perhaps you've put out a response to those technicians; again, would be happy to entertain that. I called this video 'cheap', as not only is it not providing all the details, thereby creating the potential for a 'skeptically biased' (rather than critically open) standpoint in people unfamiliar with this incident, but also because it's not explicit in being a debunking video, despite including a "tic tac" and reference to the recordings of the declassified Pentagon UAP incidents. In your defense, you could simply say that this is just a motion perception experiment and explanation of parallax. Because I've seen your work I don't doubt your explanatory skills as a skeptic, but this video alone comes across as either clickbait for views, or cheap in the sense of a half-hearted pseudo-argument.
@@MickWest Precisely. It also seems to me that the point of including the Tic Tac is to call into question and provide a rational explanation for the unconventional movement of the object. If so, you ought to have included the described unconventional maneuvers and witness viewpoints. Again, great explanation of parallax, but not of the Tic Tac incident.
The first object has strings to keep it steady, but judging from the distance you are holding your camera, the object must be much bigger than 2 inches. How wrong or right am I? When you circle the second object and film it from the very left, it turns above the water, but when I look at the object at a distance, it does not turn, as far as I can see. How does that happen?
Stubborn as I am, I watched the clip at least 5 times. Confusion reigns, but I still want to know, is the object really only 2 inches wide? Yes, it's turning. But what about 2:32? I pause the clip and the object 'seems' to be at the right and at the same level as the tiled wall. How can that be, even at an extreme angle of the camera?? Btw, I watched the tic-tac and
I might be wrong but a camera and what it perceives is different from what a pair of eyes perceives. As we have depth perception. If the pilot was looking through a camera at the object then yes, you could argue that this illusion is what the pilots were fooled by. But from what I've heard, they all looked directly at the object with their eyes and not through a camera. As I said...I could be wrong about that.
There's no stereo perception from two eyes beyond around 200 feet. They are too close together and so get essentially the same image after some distance.
@@MickWest True but your camera is alot closer to your object than the pilots were to their supposed object. Cameras can distort, manipulate and create illusions to a level at which our eyes cannot. Im sure there are some film directors out there that would know more on that topic. Plus theres loads of different types of cameras or I should lens that perceive depth, colour and distance differently. The illusion you created may work on your camera but not on others for instance. I understand what you're trying to achieve but I'm not sure a camera's eye can be equated to human eyes.
Nice experiment but in the actual case, the disturbance on the water gives reference to the position of the object. With the aircraft in 2 different positions in space it’s not possible for the object to appear over the disturbance to both aircraft, unless it is very close to the water. 😉
@@barthardie7683 That's Fravor's WSO (Jim Slaight) who was in the same plane as Fravor, but ALSO reports something different (straight-line motion). I'm talking about the female pilot in the other plane. thevault.tothestarsacademy.com/nimitz-report/ Lots of different reports. Hard to know now what is accurate.
Mick West I wouldn’t expect all of them to be the same especially considering the report was written five years after the event. If all the accounts were the same after that period of time then you could almost say that it was a complete lie and they were making it all up. The only thing for certain is that left a strong impression with all of them. And considering that’s 4 individuals from two different positions I find it highly unlikely that they saw a balloon or a bird or a reflection from something inside their cockpits. Outside of that there is nothing to extrapolate from their story. It’s just that, an interesting story from a group of people who are tasked with the defense of your country. What would be more interesting is the original video and the radar data neither of which anyone outside of the US military has seen. And sadly we probably never will.
Yeah but why would the jet planes in the Nimitz encounter move so erratically to cause the object to appear moving in such away. I though jet planes move in a smooth way without constantly changing trajectory as you do with the camera here. Indeed an interesting experiment in perception, but leaves a lot to be be desired. Does not explain why the object moved so erratically in that Nimitz encounter report when the perceiver (jet) was not.
I got this wrong but, this raises more questions of the video to me does that mean something could have been just in one place as the gimble moved ? The glare seemed more plausible but this seems more odd.
So the suggestion is basically was it a 40ft object 20kft away or a 10ft object 5kft away. I think it's a interesting concept but the problem here is context. Looking at a screen limits context and makes that and parallax a more plausible deception. I would argue these issues are less plausible with 2 eyeballs. Maybe a more elaborate experiment is needed and maybe the opinion of a vision expert wouldn't hurt.
@@isodoublet That's one part, again context, peripheral vision, the horizon, the F18 they are sitting in (the edges) (the wings), possibly the wingmans F18, I'm sure I'm missing a ton of other factors that aid in the context that a single camera/screen lacks in.
@@ntme9 Look up the FAA material on spatial disorientation, particularly the black hole effect, but also other runway related illusions. Even on approach, when the plane is flying low, slow, and close, pilots can sometimes confuse width and slope and misjudge their own altitude, causing accidents. This with a runway, arguably the most familiar sight for any pilot. How much more likely are these illusions with an object of unknown size at an unknown distance?
@@isodoublet Ok thanks I'll check it out. My suspicion is not likely given the details of the encounter but I will look it up. Here is my copied comment of why I find that difficult. '@Mick West Yes and I think you demonstrate that well here but only in the context of a single camera/video screen. It's not as strong of an argument when you're talking about 8 eyeballs from two different perspectives. Well let's iron that out. Let's say the object was at 10,000 feet the entire time. From 20,000 feet the object appeared to be bouncing around like a pingpong ball. At equal elevation during interrogation the object appeared to be mirroring. We have 2 aircraft in the air. She is still at 20,000 ft. So She at 20,000 feet should still visualize pingpong ball while Fravor is visualizing mirroring? There are a lot of leaps that have to be made for this to work. False perception of size with distance closure. 4 people from two different perspectives falsely agreeing on the same story. False perception of craft rapidly departing. False perception of a craft rapidly ascending to meet at same elevation. False perception of craft immediately halting ping pong maneuver and turning to focused attention. I would love to see you continue on this and present a complete theory. You have no doubt opened my eyes with a few other of your experiments.'
@@ntme9 The trouble is we don't have access to the pilot's memories, so we can't really know how consistent their perceptions really were. All we know is they described it in similar terms, allegedly (I have personally never seen this incident described by anyone else other than Fravor. If you know of a description provided by someone in the other plane (and not recounted by Fravor), let me know).
"If you don't know where it is, how do you know how big it is? If you don't know how big it is, then how do you know how far away it is? And if you don't know where it is or how big it is.... etc.. With regards to Fravor, these are answered simply: In flying around the object he was essentially able to roughly "triangulate" it. Since afterall, this was an extended encounter, not just a single brief glimpse. And of course he wasn't the only one with eyes on it. Also, your examples are much more convincing illusions in 2D, to people sat watching a screen. In Fravor's case its 3D and he's flying around it, G-forces included, changes in perspective included, changes in eye focus and head rotation included, among other factors. Yes, for the videos, this experiment/demo is valid and useful. For the eyewitness testimony? Not so much. If the videos existed in the vacuum, this would have even more merit. But they don't.
" In Fravor's case its 3D and he's flying around it," Stereoscopic vision is not very useful in aviation. Do a search on the "black hole effect". That's an illusion that causes accidents on approach, when one is flying low, slow, and close to the runway. There's no real way to avoid these illusions (see for example the FAA's instruction document on spatial disorientation). All you can do is know the area or rely on instruments, neither of which apply to this case.
How do you account for two aircraft seeing the object move both at different heights and speed. If you had a second camera looking down in the video you. Would see the object as stationary. The tic tac reported by Cmdr favor was viewed from two perspectives, his and the accompanying aircraft above him. Both reported the tic tac moving.
Yes, like I say in the video, they would see different version of the same illusion. Both assume the object is much closer to the water. If you read the accounts, the higher pilot reported the object initially moving in a straight line before Fravor descended, whereas Fravor reported it moving north-south and east-west. So two different accounts, perhaps reflecting (literally) the motions of the different planes (i.e. Fravor did some turns to keep it in sight, so it looked like moved, top plane flew straight during that portion, so it looked like it was moving straight).
@@MickWest So the purpose of your video is to prove that the object is stationary and its movements are a consequence of the video tracking system giving the impression of movement from the non-fixed viewing position of the aircraft? Are you also saying that the same illusion is seen by cmdr favor and his wiso along with his accompanying wingman and wiso due to the objects position over water?
But does Parallax and other optical illusions explain how the instrumentation is picking up speeds of an object? I'm pretty sure multi-million dollar equipment would cancel out your own vehicles speed and heading to give an accurate speed of an object you're tracking, right? And some of these objects have been seen to accelerate from 5,000-10,000ft in a matter of seconds. Parallax might give an illusion like that to the human eye if you suddenly lowered your altitude in relation to the object, but parallax doesn't fool radar echoes and other instrumentation feedbacks which both corroborate each other. Illusions are one thing but multiple systems erroneously displaying incorrect data at the same time is extremely unlikely.
@@crowd3r862 Sure, but nobody has actually demonstrated, or even really claimed, a simultaneous visual observation and the same movement on radar. I'm proposing an explaination for some reported visual observations (and the GOFAST and GIMBAL videos). The seperate radar observations would require a different explanation.
@@MickWest Yeah you're right. I was watching Joe Rogan's podcast where they were mocking your analyses of those events you mentioned. It rubbed me up the wrong way so I decided to check it out. I wanted to see the explanations of GOFAST and GIMBAL for myself and I too believe they are unextraordinary and don't really show anything remotely noteworthy. Just light sources. Imagination seems to be running away with them. But as for my comment specifically - I was just referring to the radar reports of the USS Nimitz which corroborated their sighting. The chief radar technician who monitored the events later claimed the radar logs and recordings were removed/deleted - which prior to the event he claimed would never happen. That doesn't really mean much I guess, but it is interesting that the corroborating evidence has been deleted or classified. I can't help but wonder why, but again it doesn't mean the object that was tracked was a UFO.
Yes, optical illusions are real. But how do you explain this object appearing on radar with merge plot, moving towards the plane of Fravor and then vanishing into thin air, appearing instantly several miles away?
@@xponen I'm not an expert in radar technology, so I have to rely on the eye witness reports, which have been made public. Both Fravor and Dietrich are very honest I think. Which doesn't mean they saw an alien spacecraft of course :-). But the tic tac report is probably the most intriguing case thus far.
This little demonstration is flawed because this particular parallex effect doesn't work when the camera and object in question is far away from each other. Your kind of poisoning the well here by giving a false impression that this "illusion" works by simply having a moving camera aimed at a stationary object, but it actually only works if both camera and object are very close to each other. In order for this to be a viable explanation to the UFO video the object would needed to have been less than a few hundred feet away from the plane. That doesn't seem likely at all given how fast these F18s move being able to fly hundreds of feet in a split second. The object had to have been much further away which doesn't indicate a balloon or a bird.
Parallax works at a long distance, but not for moving your head around. The point here is more about parallax due to the velocity of your jet, which, as you noted, is high.
@@MickWest For the type of parallax that you're implying the object in question has to be relatively close to the camera. Let's not be intellectually dishonest here. Compare videos of planes tracking stationary objects to this, doesn't look remotely the same. Do you want to try to get to the truth via investigative research or is your aim simply to debunk because the notion of technology way more advanced than the public perception doesn't sit well with you? By the way you can watch the interview of Kevin Day on RUclips, he's another witness to the tic tac event. Should interest you.
@@03chrisv The type of parallax I'm implying is something appearing to move when it does not move much, and the main movement is from the camera (i.e. the motion of the jet with the camera). This is the type seen in the GOFAST video, where the object is around four MILES away. Check it out.
@@MickWest If we know the distance of the object (4 miles), the altitude of the plane, the speed of the plane, camera's/screen resolution, and zoom factor can we not figure out the object's size? I'm 100% certain we can. I think you're coming at this with faulty assumptions and that you're not being as objective and impartial as possible. You're assuming the parallax effect works from 4 miles away without even knowing the size of the object or how high it is above sea level, details that you don't seem interested in figuring out but have actually enough data to do so. You're poisoning your own investigation with your preconceived biases, it's as if you cannot allow for the possibility that the object in question might be beyond your understanding and worldview of what's scientifically possible so you stick to balloons and birds...
@@MickWest If you have the time watch the video of Kevin Day, he's a radar technician that corroborates Fravor's story. I'm not saying its aliens as it could be some rare unknown weather phenomenon, secret military technology, or other explanation. But the optical illusion hypothesis or something mundane like a balloon or bird is not a reasonable explanation. ruclips.net/video/_2zRabdvKnw/видео.html
Obviously the tic tac is the object moving in the second vid with the camera being stationary. in the first video i would say both the tic tac and camera have movement... gonna finish the video now
You used the recent fighter pilot government released ufo video as an example. The difference with that video is it wasn’t only based on observation. There was radar and other instruments measuring the object which can calculate the objects sizes, speed and direction accurately. Are you trying to debunk those videos validity? If so how do you account for the scientific measurements made?
This is well and good. Except for the fact that they have an SA (situational awareness) screen which gets direct feed from the Nimitz radar in coordination with the planes on board radar. So it shows the "topography" so to speak of the whole area. This is not 2 or 3 people witnessing this there's about a handful of people in front of monitors on board the Nimitz. And no, it's not necessarily extra terrestrial but it's no illusion either at least not in the way you are explaining (parallax). One problem I also can't get over is that you have started your position from a purely "I must debunk this" standpoint. So the arguments and experiments are ruined by this bias. Let me also add that for the ships, as high tech as they are, aren't that fast to create a parallax effect of that speed, they have to be on an alien ship with the technology to zip zag left tand right and up and down with super speeds, no plane can do that.
Great experiment! Ive been wrong on eyeballing something that I thought was one way and then seeing it for what it really was. What about speed and these cameras and the object they were tracking ? I’d know what your idea is those. If you’ve already addressed this I apologize. Also just woke up and I’m moving slow but, everyone around me is moving way too fast hoping coffee will neutralize this situation. Am I the tic-tac? Thanks Mick 🍺
Maybe it's just me and my crazy brain, but I was more concerned with the fact you have 120V string lights tacked to a garage hanging directly over a pool of water. ;-)
Camera & object are stationary, the background is moving!
Quick, get that fence before it escapes!
There's no way an albino haggis strung up and waved around on string over a swimming pool would not sqeal so loud that the fence would take off in fright. Case closed.
Ipso facto calypso quiesco sarcinas, as they used to say.
you joke but this is what believers in a globe earth really think
@@Czeckie you got it backwards
It seemed like the object and the camera were moving in both videos, it's really hard to tell and I was clearly wrong on both counts. This is a fantastic demonstration of how easy it is to fool the eye.
That’s a great way to show people how the brain can be fooled. Even by professionals flying multimillion dollar jets.
I know. I hate that so many people make it into an ego thing. I watched Fravor's entire interview with Fridman; Fravor's a very brilliant guy. And when the Mick West part came up I wanted to hear some crazy shit that could sway me toward the alien hypothesis, but I was surprised that it appeared to be more of a defence of credibility than a response to Lex's questions about Mick's comments.
@@suitorryan I wish Lex had pressed him a little harder.
After hearing David talk about the Pheonix lights, I'm convinced he is just another kooky UFO guy. His eyewitness account is no stronger than any other persons, eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable, eg the Morristown UFO hoax, ruclips.net/video/YfijQ6vtRlg/видео.html People claimed they saw giant solid crafts when infact they were looking at flares attached to helium balloons via fishing line, several Vetaran pilots and police officers gave this account.
It's easier to fool someone than it is to convince them they have been fooled.
eyewitness/visual evidence is among the lowest form of evidence. It only has a supplemental value at best
indeed, many air crashes are associated with pilot's sensory illusions, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensory_illusions_in_aviation
OKay, I paused. First video: the camera was moving. Second Video: the object was moving. Wish me luck...
Damn. Very nice Thank you! :D
You got the same result as me. I even tried to game the system by trying to infer the movement by the string attached to the object.
Mick, there is a trigger warning missing at the start of this;
_"Caution! If you are a devout UFO believer with a tiny bit of critical thinking left watching this video may ruin your day."_
@@UngrievableI agree.... The crazy Moon hoax, 9/11, Flat earth, UFO wacko's or Conspraricists" as they like to be called . Insist" bats aren't real either". "Owls aren't birds"."The sky's really not blue" LOL These people are nuts...
@@Ungrievable Scientific literacy is around 28 percent of the adult population in American. 😮 Few people would be able to answer the most basic questions regarding the science of Apollo,9/11, bigfoot, WW2 Holocaust, Alien life, Flat Earth, Sandy Hook etc, Yet these people swear they know the 9 missions to the Moon were faked.🤣
@@thomaslewis7883 hi. I realize that’s a big ask...
How about just your honest take on the “science of Alien life” but and let’s throw bigfeet in there as well. 🙃
All things that go bump in the night
and keep us humans up at night? 😱👻
Why the sudden interest in “Alien life” by certain militaries around our planet?
Is there a threat to anyone or something?
What’s your take on that?
🙏 thanks!
@@Ungrievable People lie, science doesn't...The only one worth talking about is the question "Are we alone "The James Webb telescope will be the start of a serious look for alien worlds. The JWST may be able to look for signs of alien life/detecting whether atmospheres of planets orbiting nearby stars are being modified by that life. Over time our detection abilities will improve with each and every telescope, remote sensing, etc. The telescopes sensitive equipment will look for "biosignatures"
The chemical make-up of the atmosphere of a planet orbiting another star can be measured in light by carefully measuring the minuscule dip in starlight as the planet passes between us and the star during the planet's orbit. The gases in the planet's atmosphere cause the light reduction to vary with the wavelength /or color - of light, revealing information about how much of each chemical is present. If life is or was present we may be able to detect it. Someday we might have a branch of science called interstellar archeology.
@@thomaslewis7883 hey!
True. All humans are capable of lying.
Especially those with billion dollar agendas.
Space is fast becoming the new playground for humans. A new Gold Rush, of sorts. Spooky. ⛏... 😫
As equipment and methods become increasingly sophisticated, we humans shall continue to make new discoveries, as you suggest right?
This raises so many interesting q’s tho.
Is it all worth it?
... if you were
...to encounter
other civilizations
or heck,
even one citizen
from such a civilization...
What would become of that citizen?
then it’s not merely a question of “finding life” elsewhere...
but of finding life
That is on par with,
or has far surpassed human life on earth.
Intelligent life.
What then?
Would they be prodded, probed and dissected and misunderstood by humans?
Abused?
Eaten?
Similar to what happens to lab animals at facilities like (and similar to) NIH?
What about military applications? These various agendas are intertwined, aren’t they? 😶🤕 medical? military? Civilian? Etc.
Where would the consequences of those actions lead you?
Would their technology by pilfered? Would you know what to do with it? What cockamamie schemes will be hatched around those technologies?
Remember...humans were pondering nuking our moon 🌝 for bragging rights... 🤦♂️
Like children in a forest with matches, no? Heard someone say that. Actually a good observation!! 👏
But what’s up with that!? Lol! Why so much aggression (aside from the desire to survive and thrive)?
Would you be able to cope with other highly intelligent forms of life?
What about “hostile” alien life? Or those perceived as hostile?
Why the eagerness to meet other civilizations...while our own cities burn with tribal warfare on scales both large and small and in various ways?
Why seek other civilizations
before your own affairs are in order?
Seems like an outcome fraught with peril.
Let’s hope the life we find is microbial. I wonder which kingdom of life we’ll encounter? 🤔
What do you think? Soon enough,
us humans will be able to find these things,
but should we?
What are the benefits?
The drawbacks? ☺️🙏🌌🐬
Sometimes science is driven by ego, insecurity hubris and shortsightedness. Not just curiosity and a quest for “progress”
Hope it all works out tho. 🖖👊👍
We're from the planet parallax and we come in peace.
Damn, I could have sworn the second video was camera moving along with the object (but staying relatively same to each other, like carrot on a stick).
Great explanation!
Wow, second one fooled me
You, sir, is providing a public service! Great work!
I want Mick West, Fravor, Lex Fridman, Bob Lazar and Sean Carroll all on Joe Rogan for a 5 hour podcast. Lazar wouldn't do it because he would crumble and be exposed as a fraud in front of CALTECH/MIT scientists
Milhouse VanHouten I’d say Mick West, Michael Shermer and/or Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Lex Fridman - vs Dave Fravor, Luis Elizondo, and Chris Mellon. Talk about an all-star debate :)
@@JamesxBond007 Shermer is a joke. Leave him out and you are good
Mark Johnson why - he’s a professional skeptical analyst. If you don’t have skeptical input in a hypothesis, you’re preaching to the choir. A hypothesis is only good when it can withstand stringent analysis from multiple angles, especially from people with a keen eye for bias and bs.
@nils4545 someone from CALTECH and MIT to expose him
Lazar has nothing to say in an event like this. Why did you include him?!
Thats a very clear experiment. I hope its received well and informatively.
It won't.
By those, that feel their narrative has been compromised granted... -but thats a good thing.
I find this fascinating. The military community who see these “Tic Tacs” won’t have this but me who thought the Tic Tacs was some objects defying the laws of physics as we know it now may just be misinterpreted by those that observed them.
@@hovikarnian6035 - Wrong!
I thought the camera and objects were moving I must admit. I know nothing about photography though.
Amazing, I hope this will persuade at least some people.
"It's easier to fool people than it is to convince them they have been fooled"
@@MrRecklessryan The problem is few people are scientifically literate. Only about 28 percent in American. Mick understands object-level motion detection from moving cameras A NASA physicist, pilot may not even consider object level motion detection. Hence the stories." NASA physicist and pilot says he saw multiple UFOs as a pilot in the airforce".The Navy incident reports hint at the DOD being concerned about accidents, collisions, knowing pilots see things while flying Detecting object-level motion from moving cameras is a difficult problem to solve for collision-free navigation due to the dual motion introduced by the mixture of the camera motion and the motion of the object. Future aircraft maybe be equipped with sensors, software that quickly tell the pilot the size, speed, and motion relative to the aircraft and camera movement.
The camera was stationary, and the entire earth was moving about!
the earth stays stationary as all objects rotate around it on string (unless the fulcrum is on a set of red stepladders placed at a Lagrange Point)
That was very well done! At one point I thought I saw a wake and ripples from the object moving across the pool. Funny how the brain fills in all the missing bits that aren't even there. I knew it wasn't "on" the water yet - that's all I could imagine it to be. Can you get your tracking camera to somehow "lose lock"? Then it would appear to rapidly move out of view.
It wouldn't move out of view the same as FLIR1, because there it isn't moving, but looks like it is. FLIR1 IS moving, but looks like it isn't (except for the "sudden moves" which look like it's moving, but actually isn't!
Mick West ok . I think I got that. But if the camera is tracking , and the view point is changing ( causing the apparent motion) If you stop tracking ( lose lock) then the still object will rapidly break frame as you pan ,or appear to move off screen "at incredible speed" No? Maybe the background pool needs to be shot in IR so you lose some definition. Break out the FLIR.!
Really good video . Thanks for taking the time to set up the demo. I really enjoyed it.
I am always 100 % sure what I see, but sadly reality do not always agree with me.
The second one fooled me. I would love if you could simply just have an interview with Cmdr. Fravor. I think it would be very productive. Have you reached out to him?
Mick has a background in a video game, etc so he has a good understanding of perspective. Cmdr. Fravor.would likely say this is what I perceived the object to be. He never really talked about the fact he was flying at 250 plus knots and might not have understood how that played into his observation. The turbulence in the water could have been a school of fish, submarine, whale. He might have witnessed a sub-launched drone, balloon, aircraft, etc. The amount of time his eyes were on the subject would have been a few blinks at best. I'm not saying he didn't see an object, but without video and tracking coordinates nobody should be talking about UFOs, aliens. That would be the greatest discovery in human history and would require vast amounts of scientific data,video, radar, etc,.None of which we have on the so-called TicTac Cmdr. Fravor witnessed.
The second one has the shifting water surface as an additional component, that makes it harder to check whether camera motion and parallaxe alone are sufficient.
They are children
You are a fascinating character!..applause
I don’t understand the relevance of this if the object was moving more erratically than the pilot.
This explain why the pilot sees the tic-tac move in circle and mimic his jet's movement. Basically his jet is the camera.
Dont worry. Everyone says don’t trust your eyes. But my eyes are special and I always know what I’m looking at. I have special training.
Look. Look with your special eyes!
How many fingers am I holding up?
@@onlyAerik My brand!
I'd love to know what special training Fravor received that allowed him to figure out size and distance of an object of unknown size at an unknown distance.
Trained observers have to pass The School of Special Military Looking, where in a final test a box of Tic Tacs is scattered across a beach in the shore break and students have to find all the Tic Tacs. No sleep, no food (instant fail if they eat a Tic Tac) for days until all the tic tacs are found. Navy PEEPERS were the ones who finally found and killed Wally in a raid on his secrect compound a few years ago.
The first one fooled me.
With the second one I quickly had the impression it was somehow fixed (with rotation) in the center of the camera field of vision.
Both times I guessed the size to be like the yellow plastic inside a children's surprise chocolate egg.
Very interesting! Thank you very much!
Two monks were arguing while watching a flag flapping in the wind.
"The flag is moving," argued one monk.
"No, it's the wind that is moving!" insisted the other monk.
Huineng was passing by, and remarked, "It's your minds that are moving."
Granted I do get that feeling that the object is moving. Unfortunately I feel the strings give it away. I think if the object changed directions that quickly there would be not way for the strings to stay vertical the way they do. So I override what my eyes see and go with object stationary.
Good point,though I doubt it would have changed anyone's answer as the object appears to be moving slowly when it is not... A balloon, bird, or drone hovering or moving at 20 knots and an F -18 flying by at 325 knots with a camera panning it, transforms the object into a high-speed UFO."DODs "Go Fast"video .. I'm betting the DOD scientists understand object-level motion from a freely moving camera. Most of the DOD data is left out. Did the Aegis see anything unusual,I doubt it. They seemed uninterested in the so-called mystery objects. The media, RUclipsrs, history channel capitalized on the interest in aliens and UFOs and left out the actual science, radar data. Of course, offer a retired Navy radar tech a few bucks and they'll twist the story to make it sound as if the entire fleet was chasing and tracking aliens.
but...but hes a pilot! He has training to look at stuff!
Futu Pilots are no better than you or I at establishing what an object might be..If anything its more difficult, being that their flying at 250 plus knots while trying to observe another moving object. I've talked to commercial pilots, most recall these incidents as happening in the blink of an eye. Most suggest balloons, other aircraft, military,etc.
@@thomaslewis7883 Sorry if you couldn't tell but I was mocking the other comments whose argument was that they are "experts" at seeing.
@@futu9017 Sorry, I missed the sarcasm. But thanks for pushing back. I wish more people would push back at all the ignorance in the world. If you haven't seen Mark Robers video on NASA.I recommend taking a look, its a wakeup call for those who insist scientific research and exploration is a waste of money..ruclips.net/video/lARpY0nIQx0/видео.html
@@futu9017 Yes, I went back and reread it. Good job...
@@futu9017 Poe's Law strikes again lol.
Fravor identified it as the craft he saw many years ago. He’ll be on the History Channel to detail how it defies physics.
I'd imagine being in a fighter jet messes even more with our perception of size, movement, and speed.
Our brains and senses are built for orientating in an almost stationary environment. It cannot be easy to accuracy identify something while moving close to, or above, the speed of sound.
I know I'm 3 years late but I think the camera is stationary, the object if moving, and you're using the thing where you can zoom in and keep an object in the center of the screen while it's moving around after filming.
Excellent vid - glad someone is taking the time to do this sort of thing. I truly believe the better (not faster, without proper reasoning) we can debunk the mundane, what remains will be scientifically fascinating, if not planet-changing.
The truth is out there, but may well be behind the shed or just past the pub !
Found you due to Isaac Arthur - instantly subscribed due to this vid. I am especially impressed because you seem to have found an albino haggis willing to be strung up and waved around on strings for over three minutes without it squealing (as albinos haggis are prone to do when excited).
Extra points for the "Look Around You" presentation style - brings back great memories.
Special request for your next experiment: Bowel Motion Perception with specific regard to Unexplained Anal Phenomena :)
The object never moves in either. Only the camera is moving. If you use a zoom lens with a narrow field of view, it would increase the speed even more.
Yeah but 4 pilots?
Great ex-plainer, but why would a tic-tac shaped thing be out there in the first place? maybe it was a stray balloon? And how would you explain how they describe it (as seen by their eyes) physically jumping distances...or the radar evidence also of it jumping around, coming and going... demonstrably research like this is a MUST and so important in solving the mystery but there are still questions that need to be answered IMO.
I initially thought in the second one that the camera was attached to a rod and the tic tac was suspended from same rod.
The answer to the final question is, you rely on independent confirmation from sensor data, such as Kevin Day simultaneously tracking it on radar.
This is actually really good, as is most of Mick's work, so long as people don't lose the plot. To suggest that there were simultaneous radar anomalies, and visual illusions experienced by several pilots (and possibly other witnesses ), and that this was all coincidence, I think that's a stretch.
There is no mundane explanation that fits all the facts.
Great video! You’d be a nightmare to have in the audience for a magician I’d imagine lol
People have a really naive conception of how humans estimate distances. The impression that we perceive directly distance thanks to the difference between images coming from both eyes is oversimplistic.
Yes, that's a part of how we estimate distance, but it is a tool among others. Others tools are as following :
1. Accomodation : the muscle contracting the crystallin lens is a proxy to the distance.
2. Known height of the object vs perceived height. When we know the height of the object, we estimate the distance depending on how much it looks smaller.
3. Height on the horizon. Normally, things on the ground and in the sky (birds, clouds) move in parallel with the horizon. Thus, the height the object appear to us is an indication of its distance. Objects on the ground that are more distant seems to go up while it's the opposite with objects that are in the sky.
4. Parallax. When we move from left to right, objects that are closer seems to move more thant objects that are further.
5. Texture appearance : objects that are further are less detailed.
6. Occultation : objects that mask other objects are closer.
I might forget a tool or two, but these are the main tools our brain use to guess the distance of objects. It is easy to understand that a pilot in an aircraft will loose a lot of tools (3 and 6 for instance) and other tools are used outside normal human circumstances (the parallax does'nt work the same in the air, you can't move from right to left and stop as you want, plus the speed is not human speed). And as Mick West always repeat, if the identifed object is wrongly associated to the size of a plane, tool number 2 is totally inaccurate.
All I want to say : pilot perception can easily be wrong.
Another is, even though the camera is moving to track the object, the object always stays in the center of the frame. If you were to move the object it would move from the center of the frame, but once you move your camera not tracking the object, then it will no longer appear to be moving, but stationary. The Nimitz object in the gimble video clearly accelerates (as you have stated), but if the object was moving slowly as you climb, than the tracking should have easily been able to keep up with that object, the fact that it couldn't meant the object was moving faster than the gimble.
I'm not sure which video you are referring to. Nimitz (FLIR1) and Gimbal are very different videos, a decade apart.
If the camera is tracking an object then it's not going to move from the middle of the screen unless the camera loses the track.
@@MickWest Actually, I just watched your video a fourth time and took everything. I see what you're saying now entirely. My bad I straw-manned you a bit
damn i was totally wrong hahahaha thanks mick!
Very good point, really, and a lot better an explanation than aliens in space TicTacs.
Outstanding illustration!
That explains why the other jet positioned above the both of them saw the exact same same thing, how the object was jamming their radar, how it changed direction and disappeared when they got too close, and showed back up for another pilot to see and record, also why a balloon was detected on radar for weeks by the commanding ship and they deemed it appropriate to go and look at it to find what is. Seems like a very effective way to confuse radar. Just release balloons
1. yes, an optical illusion can work from different angles. Also, aside from the video, everything else is undocumented and I take it with a rather large grain of salt.
2. someone *claimed* it actively jammed radar. See above.
3. we don't know if anything changed direction or disappeared. There's blurry footage and little else.
First one was evident because the object did not had inercia. The lines holding it were not reacting to its movement.
The second one had the lines harder to be seen
You need to take to account the direction the jet was flying, I couldnt find this info in the videos, nor can I understand the FLIR hud, but if it matches that kind of aparent "counter" movement created by the camera perspective + movement, we can say that the object wasnt actually flying fastly foward. But, this video isn't the only "phenomena" observed
Oh fuck Mr. west, nice explanation for god Sr
Great experiment, nowadays we totally believe what we see on cameras, we think they are so advanced that they dont have limitations or funny characterics that can fool us into thinking what we see on our expensive digital cameras cant be a trick of the eye as there too advanced, Mick does a great job at showing us these new unkown limitations by flir,gimble, heat/IR ect ect and the thousands of settings they come with nowadays that can drasticley change everything you do with it, just messing with the contrast on a IR camera that shows heat gives it a glow around the heat feature, it looks ghostly or like an alien shield, most people dont even know what setting there contrast is on in the first place! Something i learnt from Mick by watching his experiments! Without Mick doing these experiments on these new technology cameras that change year after year no body would really know about them especially mr average joe! 95% of these sightings can be explained better, we need to know these things so that when the real thing comes along we already have the right knoledge to confirm its the genuine thing, otherwise you get people jumping in with 2 feet running about saying its real and its nothing but a camera limitation!!!! Mick isnt trying to kill everyones dreams of seeing the first ever alien craft hes just showing us that these are thing things associated with camera technology, and have a look at these experiments first before you start wrapping tin foil around your head or loading your shot gun and heading for the hills with a baby moniter and 2 months of freezr dried pasta!! This work is essential, your cant answer or work out mysteries if you dont have ALL the knoledge and information from ALL possible angles! Great job again Mick!
Isn't the TicTac slowly spinning over the pool? Not from moving left to right or up and down but spinning on an axis?
In this video the camera is moving up and down and side to side. With the “tic tac” being used as an example is the implication that David Fravor’s fighter plane moved up and down and side to side sporadically giving the illusion that the tic tac was moving in this way? I don’t know of any airplane that performs that way.
Not exactly. The movement will mirror whatever the jet does. Me up my ladder is rather limited in terms of what I can do moving the camera, so I repeat the same movements.
Thank you! This was illuminating!
Brilliant work, Mick.
Why are you the only person who's consistently made convincing and clearly stated valid criticisms of the Pentagon UAP videos? Does anyone else know anyone that comes close to Mick's professionalism, non-combative tone, technical prowess and general logic?
@@geoffsmith6373 Adequate summary of thunderfoot, his videos would be so much better if he lost all the sarcasm and made his videos less rambly and more to the point
Nice ladder! I use the same one at work and they arent cheap. It’s really solid, though.
But both the camera and the object are moving in both scenes. The object is not swinging, but it's very clearly rotating. It's not still, it's moving.
Before going on, in the first video I see the object moving (relative to fence, up and side to side) I also see the camera moving as we have a white board and a plant come in and leave the frame of camera. Both move. In the second video it’s harder to tell, but I see an object move from pool side to side and I suspect the camera is also moving, though I’m less sure.
Great video, I was sure that the tic-taco was moving in the first video, to find it’s not then that was really surprising and comes back to the point that moving observers on unknown objects can create real illusions.
But if it was only a big mistake done by the pilots and by the instruments aboard of the F-18...why we have more precise pics showing two little pipes protruding from a tic tac? Also your model is so detailed...
This guy never flied a plane. He thing the whole word is stupid.
Second one fooled me, I was thinking the camera is moving and the object is swinging.
Absolutely fascinating
Also keep in mind the perception they had of closing distance to the object. It's not like they thought they were only watching an object near the surface of the water 20,000ft away for 5min but they also percieved a distance closure to 2,500ft away during the interrogation, I think that's worth considering.
Sure, but the object was oddly "mirroring" their movements. Almost as if it was halfway to where they thought it was.
@@MickWest Yes and I think you demonstrate that well here but only in the context of a single camera/video screen. It's not as strong of an argument when you're talking about 8 eyeballs from two different perspectives.
Well let's iron that out. Let's say the object was at 10,000 feet the entire time. From 20,000 feet the object appeared to be bouncing around like a pingpong ball. At equal elevation during interrogation the object appeared to be mirroring. We have 2 aircraft in the air. She is still at 20,000 ft. So She at 20,000 feet should still visualize pingpong ball while Fravor is visualizing mirroring?
There are a lot of leaps that have to be made for this to work. False perception of size with distance closure. 4 people from two different perspectives falsely agreeing on the same story. False perception of craft rapidly departing. False perception of a craft rapidly ascending to meet at same elevation. False perception of craft immediately halting ping pong maneuver and turning to focused attention.
I would love to see you continue on this and present a complete theory. You have no doubt opened my eyes with a few other of your experiments.
In the first clip, one can discern from the parallax of the background behind the fence, which one can see moving in relation to the fence, that the camera is indeed moving. One could assume that since the object is not "swinging" from the suspending line, that it is not moving, but one can't be 100% sure of that from the first clip. I would say I am almost certain that the object is not moving in the first clip, but not 100%. In the second clip, I don't think there's enough information to deduce whether the object is moving, the camera is moving, or both. Just going off what it looks like to me, it looks like the object is moving, but I very unsure of that conclusion. Let's see how I did.
How dare you confirm my biases that my senses and perceptions can mislead me into thinking I'm seeing one thing in a video, when I'm seeing something else? Who is paying you, Mick?!?
That's a good observation. I'd not really noticed the background behind the fence!
@@MickWestThanks! Speaking of backgrounds, here's another observation for you...apparently we share a couple of shipped titles. I didn't realize that until I looked up your mobygames just now. Small dev world.
I had the right answer on both videos and I'm far from a professional jet fighter's observational and spatial skills. Your video was interesting and gives me a new perspective on how the video itself can be confusing but unless this is a big hoax set up by the government to deceive other superpowers I still think it's an impressive video. I wouldn't be surprised if Fravor is just enjoying his newfound fame and money from this and knows it's all bollocks but there are people out there who don't stand to get a dime from believing this is a ufo and still do.
My position is : it could be a balloon or a bird but at the moment those were caught by professional fighters, all of them seemed to be genuinely impressed by what they were seeing both with their own eyes and from their instruments. And we're talking decades before any one of these pilots would get any sort of $$ from their scam. You'd also think these professional pilots know the difference between a bird and a plane. They see a lot of birds and a lot of planes I'd assume.
You're doing valuable work. Thanks.
image quality is a bit low, same for the frame rate tbh and is that lens deliberately out of focus? how rude.
:p
an excellent demo of the vagaries of cameras in motion.
Great work again Mick! Thanks!
Subtle use of a model of a tic tac and not a Adamski saucer, I wonder why.....??
Never addressed the fact the object was actively jamming radar
*allegedly actively jamming radar
Both the Navy and Raytheon could easily debunk these frauds by stating explicitly (instead of implicitly) that the objects represent nothing alien or even all that unusual. and giving fuller explanations as to provenance and what they actually are. It's their information that is being exploited by the scammers, they have a duty to correct them.
The problem is they don't see this as being a serious issue, and they don't want to get into to details as it might breach classification.
Great video West! With talent like yours I'm sure you could prove that the world is flat.
I believe Astrophysics run into this same problem when dealing with objects outside our galaxy. I think we can ask Mr. Tic-Tac to help teach these Astrophysics on how to "go with their guts"
A valid representation to illustrate the illusions of an ATFLIR recording.
Not for a pilot looking outward, though.
To mimic a pilot looking out from his cockpit you would have to make some changes:
1. Give the speeds, directions, and traveled distances of the camera - a pilot knows how his jet is moving.
2. Give the distance of the camera to the background - a pilot knows his altitude and hence his distance to the ocean surface.
3. Make way bigger sweeps with the camera - a jet does not stay in one position and just moves back and forth a bit, it covers huge distances.
It would be interesting to create a video like that, and see what is left of the illusion.
Essentially, a video like that would give sufficient data for triangulation, and I think triangulation is what humans do intuitively when they move around while watching an object.
Say there's an object (A) hovering 2000 feet below you, and 5000 feet away horizontally. You are circling that object.
There's another object (B) that's traveling on the same circle, but even lower. It's 4000 feet below you, 10,000 feet away horizontall, and it's mirroring your movement.
If you draw a line from you to A to B, it will be a straight line, and remain a straight line as you and B circle around object A.
Object B is twice the size of object A.
How can you tell them apart during this movement?
@@MickWest Thanks for responding, Mick. My remark was just that your video does not represent the situation of a pilot looking out from his cockpit. The chance that a pilot can give fairly accurate ball-park estimates of speed, distance, and size is much higher than your video suggests. And Fravor did more than just circle the object (if he circled it at all - memory cannot be trusted).
According to the Nimitz event log, the capsule initially passed under Fravor’s jet an an altitude of 4000 feet at course 300, which is almost West. It began its turn and climb while Fravor was descending and turning to acquire it. He could not keep up and the capsule was heading due East when they lost sight of it. I tend to trust this data more than human recollection years after the fact.
Curiosity SavedMankind A pilot, unlike stabilised footage, would have a frame of reference - namely the cockpit's window-frame. Most pilots looking out of window on a clear day would have an accurate sense of what was their own aircraft movement. Pilot brains tend only to get confused when not looking, vision blocked / obscured (eg by blindfold in training) or being immersed in featureless cloud. I have some limited experience of this.
@@crawlinginfilm9683 But if they don't know how big it is and how fast it is moving, then how does being framed in the window help? Something static 1 mile away and something twice as big 2 miles, but moving, away will have the same movement relative to the window frame.
A static object will always create the illusion of motion if you are moving yourself.
It’s much less likely for an object in motion to create the illusion of being static, since that takes a very specific speed and direction.
According to his recollections, Fravor initially judged the object to be *static* (with small jittery N-S and E-W movements) and just above the ocean surface. So, the probability of this being an illusion is very low.
These pilots approach and land on carriers all the time, with aircraft parked on them. If this object was really “holding like a harrier” just above the ocean surface, Fravor’s experience in approaching and landing on a carrier alone would enable him to give an accurate estimate of its size.
So, if his recollections are accurate, his size estimate probably is as well. And he would be able to see if the object started to move from its static position.
I his recollections are not accurate, what is the point of trying to explain them?
Hey @mickwest I enjoyed this video. Would it be possible to get another camera filming you film the object? And also make it look as though the object is moving? From what I understand there were 4 trained pilots observing the ticktac, 2 observing commander fravor and his interaction with the tictac at a higher altitude, and commander fravor and his co-pilots view.
Sure, there were two planes. Each plane would have had a different perspective, but the same kind of illusion. So If I had someone else balance on the top of the ladder filming me from above, and moved, and everything was removed apart from my camera, then you might be able to duplicate it.
I think thought such a recreation would be best done in CGI.
@@MickWest great! I hope it can be done. Also from what I understand the object was bouncing around like a "ping pong" and making strange movements, would this mean that fravors head or his aircraft was moving like crazy to observe the objects illusion? Because I can see you moving the camera vigorously to make the object appear to move and I am interested as Fravors explained it was clear flying conditions and didn't specify if the air was choppy or not. Would it also mean the higher altitude observers aircraft/head movements were as erratic as the camera movements?
It's a cheat - you're moving the fence and the swimming pool but the model and camera are still.
Isaac Arthur said to come here and subscribe, so i did.
I haven't seen the answer so I could be completely off but it apereas like you attached a tick tac to a string and are dangling it on a stick in front of the lens while you tilt and pan the camera with a tripod.
Good video, Thanks! Actually a smidge too good since I got distracted by the fishing line attaching the "object".
It is made much harder due to the object spinning in the wind. I guess you can track some of the background, unless water.
Interesting in the general sense of explaining this optical illusion, but by including the "tic tac" instead of any other object I can't help feel that this is a cheap "gotcha" debunking attempt that leaves out crucial information to people unfamiliar with the Nimitz case. A skeptical understanding of parallax is important for critical thinking in not falling into pure belief the moment you hear new information, but this explanation alone cannot explain the erratic movements seen from multiple pilots from multiple angles, not "in a plane from that position with two pilots [so] both pilots [see] the same illusion." All four pilots, who saw this object for about 5 minutes from multiple angles, were highly trained to identify crafts of all types, and were sent by command to investigate after the object popped up on radar, so it's not like they looked down and just got confused via parallax, as this video suggests. This video also leaves out how your (Mick West's) debunking claim of the Gimbal incident being due to faulty FLIR equipment was also debunked by certified FLIR technicians. I have to say, I was quite convinced from your online forum debunking explanation until hearing from those experts, and am just fine with returning to the realm of open to the possibility of it being something unexplainable. Perhaps you've put out a response to those technicians; again, would be happy to entertain that. I called this video 'cheap', as not only is it not providing all the details, thereby creating the potential for a 'skeptically biased' (rather than critically open) standpoint in people unfamiliar with this incident, but also because it's not explicit in being a debunking video, despite including a "tic tac" and reference to the recordings of the declassified Pentagon UAP incidents. In your defense, you could simply say that this is just a motion perception experiment and explanation of parallax. Because I've seen your work I don't doubt your explanatory skills as a skeptic, but this video alone comes across as either clickbait for views, or cheap in the sense of a half-hearted pseudo-argument.
The point of using the Tic-Tac model is that you don't know how big it is. It looks nothing like any craft they might have been trained to recognize.
@@MickWest Precisely. It also seems to me that the point of including the Tic Tac is to call into question and provide a rational explanation for the unconventional movement of the object. If so, you ought to have included the described unconventional maneuvers and witness viewpoints. Again, great explanation of parallax, but not of the Tic Tac incident.
The first object has strings to keep it steady, but judging from the distance you are holding your camera, the object must be much bigger than 2 inches. How wrong or right am I? When you circle the second object and film it from the very left, it turns above the water, but when I look at the object at a distance, it does not turn, as far as I can see. How does that happen?
It's turning. try watching on a larger screen? Or give timestamps of the bits you think are odd.
Stubborn as I am, I watched the clip at least 5 times. Confusion reigns, but I still want to know, is the object really only 2 inches wide? Yes, it's turning. But what about 2:32? I pause the clip and the object 'seems' to be at the right and at the same level as the tiled wall. How can that be, even at an extreme angle of the camera?? Btw, I watched the tic-tac and
Sorry, pressed the wrong button. To continue .....and dimble clips, but opinions galore as to what it is. I don't know.
I might be wrong but a camera and what it perceives is different from what a pair of eyes perceives. As we have depth perception. If the pilot was looking through a camera at the object then yes, you could argue that this illusion is what the pilots were fooled by. But from what I've heard, they all looked directly at the object with their eyes and not through a camera. As I said...I could be wrong about that.
There's no stereo perception from two eyes beyond around 200 feet. They are too close together and so get essentially the same image after some distance.
@@MickWest True but your camera is alot closer to your object than the pilots were to their supposed object. Cameras can distort, manipulate and create illusions to a level at which our eyes cannot. Im sure there are some film directors out there that would know more on that topic. Plus theres loads of different types of cameras or I should lens that perceive depth, colour and distance differently. The illusion you created may work on your camera but not on others for instance. I understand what you're trying to achieve but I'm not sure a camera's eye can be equated to human eyes.
Nice experiment but in the actual case, the disturbance on the water gives reference to the position of the object. With the aircraft in 2 different positions in space it’s not possible for the object to appear over the disturbance to both aircraft, unless it is very close to the water. 😉
Why did the top pilot say it was 1000-3000 feet up, moving at 400-500 knots in a straight line?
Mick West were is that quote from ?
Mick West ok I found it but it says 500 to 1000 ft not 1000 to 3000ft.
@@barthardie7683 That's Fravor's WSO (Jim Slaight) who was in the same plane as Fravor, but ALSO reports something different (straight-line motion). I'm talking about the female pilot in the other plane. thevault.tothestarsacademy.com/nimitz-report/
Lots of different reports. Hard to know now what is accurate.
Mick West I wouldn’t expect all of them to be the same especially considering the report was written five years after the event. If all the accounts were the same after that period of time then you could almost say that it was a complete lie and they were making it all up. The only thing for certain is that left a strong impression with all of them. And considering that’s 4 individuals from two different positions I find it highly unlikely that they saw a balloon or a bird or a reflection from something inside their cockpits. Outside of that there is nothing to extrapolate from their story. It’s just that, an interesting story from a group of people who are tasked with the defense of your country. What would be more interesting is the original video and the radar data neither of which anyone outside of the US military has seen. And sadly we probably never will.
Yeah but why would the jet planes in the Nimitz encounter move so erratically to cause the object to appear moving in such away. I though jet planes move in a smooth way without constantly changing trajectory as you do with the camera here. Indeed an interesting experiment in perception, but leaves a lot to be be desired. Does not explain why the object moved so erratically in that Nimitz encounter report when the perceiver (jet) was not.
Mick up a ladder in anti grav flip flops.
I know I can’t trust my own Eyes I thought the video title was perpetual Motion experiment
I got this wrong but, this raises more questions of the video to me does that mean something could have been just in one place as the gimble moved ? The glare seemed more plausible but this seems more odd.
your channel is really fun
So the suggestion is basically was it a 40ft object 20kft away or a 10ft object 5kft away. I think it's a interesting concept but the problem here is context. Looking at a screen limits context and makes that and parallax a more plausible deception. I would argue these issues are less plausible with 2 eyeballs. Maybe a more elaborate experiment is needed and maybe the opinion of a vision expert wouldn't hurt.
Stereoscopic vision is not really that useful in aviation. The distances are much greater than those we're normally used to.
@@isodoublet That's one part, again context, peripheral vision, the horizon, the F18 they are sitting in (the edges) (the wings), possibly the wingmans F18, I'm sure I'm missing a ton of other factors that aid in the context that a single camera/screen lacks in.
@@ntme9 Look up the FAA material on spatial disorientation, particularly the black hole effect, but also other runway related illusions. Even on approach, when the plane is flying low, slow, and close, pilots can sometimes confuse width and slope and misjudge their own altitude, causing accidents. This with a runway, arguably the most familiar sight for any pilot. How much more likely are these illusions with an object of unknown size at an unknown distance?
@@isodoublet Ok thanks I'll check it out. My suspicion is not likely given the details of the encounter but I will look it up. Here is my copied comment of why I find that difficult.
'@Mick West Yes and I think you demonstrate that well here but only in the context of a single camera/video screen. It's not as strong of an argument when you're talking about 8 eyeballs from two different perspectives.
Well let's iron that out. Let's say the object was at 10,000 feet the entire time. From 20,000 feet the object appeared to be bouncing around like a pingpong ball. At equal elevation during interrogation the object appeared to be mirroring. We have 2 aircraft in the air. She is still at 20,000 ft. So She at 20,000 feet should still visualize pingpong ball while Fravor is visualizing mirroring?
There are a lot of leaps that have to be made for this to work. False perception of size with distance closure. 4 people from two different perspectives falsely agreeing on the same story. False perception of craft rapidly departing. False perception of a craft rapidly ascending to meet at same elevation. False perception of craft immediately halting ping pong maneuver and turning to focused attention.
I would love to see you continue on this and present a complete theory. You have no doubt opened my eyes with a few other of your experiments.'
@@ntme9 The trouble is we don't have access to the pilot's memories, so we can't really know how consistent their perceptions really were. All we know is they described it in similar terms, allegedly (I have personally never seen this incident described by anyone else other than Fravor. If you know of a description provided by someone in the other plane (and not recounted by Fravor), let me know).
Thank you!!!
"If you don't know where it is, how do you know how big it is? If you don't know how big it is, then how do you know how far away it is? And if you don't know where it is or how big it is.... etc..
With regards to Fravor, these are answered simply: In flying around the object he was essentially able to roughly "triangulate" it. Since afterall, this was an extended encounter, not just a single brief glimpse. And of course he wasn't the only one with eyes on it. Also, your examples are much more convincing illusions in 2D, to people sat watching a screen. In Fravor's case its 3D and he's flying around it, G-forces included, changes in perspective included, changes in eye focus and head rotation included, among other factors.
Yes, for the videos, this experiment/demo is valid and useful. For the eyewitness testimony? Not so much. If the videos existed in the vacuum, this would have even more merit. But they don't.
"In flying around the object he was essentially able to roughly "triangulate" it. "
How can he do that without knowing the object's lateral motion?
" In Fravor's case its 3D and he's flying around it,"
Stereoscopic vision is not very useful in aviation. Do a search on the "black hole effect". That's an illusion that causes accidents on approach, when one is flying low, slow, and close to the runway. There's no real way to avoid these illusions (see for example the FAA's instruction document on spatial disorientation). All you can do is know the area or rely on instruments, neither of which apply to this case.
How do you account for two aircraft seeing the object move both at different heights and speed. If you had a second camera looking down in the video you. Would see the object as stationary. The tic tac reported by Cmdr favor was viewed from two perspectives, his and the accompanying aircraft above him. Both reported the tic tac moving.
Yes, like I say in the video, they would see different version of the same illusion. Both assume the object is much closer to the water. If you read the accounts, the higher pilot reported the object initially moving in a straight line before Fravor descended, whereas Fravor reported it moving north-south and east-west. So two different accounts, perhaps reflecting (literally) the motions of the different planes (i.e. Fravor did some turns to keep it in sight, so it looked like moved, top plane flew straight during that portion, so it looked like it was moving straight).
@@MickWest So the purpose of your video is to prove that the object is stationary and its movements are a consequence of the video tracking system giving the impression of movement from the non-fixed viewing position of the aircraft? Are you also saying that the same illusion is seen by cmdr favor and his wiso along with his accompanying wingman and wiso due to the objects position over water?
But does Parallax and other optical illusions explain how the instrumentation is picking up speeds of an object? I'm pretty sure multi-million dollar equipment would cancel out your own vehicles speed and heading to give an accurate speed of an object you're tracking, right? And some of these objects have been seen to accelerate from 5,000-10,000ft in a matter of seconds. Parallax might give an illusion like that to the human eye if you suddenly lowered your altitude in relation to the object, but parallax doesn't fool radar echoes and other instrumentation feedbacks which both corroborate each other. Illusions are one thing but multiple systems erroneously displaying incorrect data at the same time is extremely unlikely.
That being said, it being Aliens is even more unlikely. Illusions are one thing and they can explain a lot, but they don't explain everything.
@@crowd3r862 Sure, but nobody has actually demonstrated, or even really claimed, a simultaneous visual observation and the same movement on radar. I'm proposing an explaination for some reported visual observations (and the GOFAST and GIMBAL videos). The seperate radar observations would require a different explanation.
@@MickWest Yeah you're right. I was watching Joe Rogan's podcast where they were mocking your analyses of those events you mentioned. It rubbed me up the wrong way so I decided to check it out. I wanted to see the explanations of GOFAST and GIMBAL for myself and I too believe they are unextraordinary and don't really show anything remotely noteworthy. Just light sources. Imagination seems to be running away with them. But as for my comment specifically - I was just referring to the radar reports of the USS Nimitz which corroborated their sighting. The chief radar technician who monitored the events later claimed the radar logs and recordings were removed/deleted - which prior to the event he claimed would never happen. That doesn't really mean much I guess, but it is interesting that the corroborating evidence has been deleted or classified. I can't help but wonder why, but again it doesn't mean the object that was tracked was a UFO.
All I know is that I hope your festoon lighting over the pool is low voltage led. Wouldnt want to be in the pool if that was on and fell down 😂
Yes, optical illusions are real. But how do you explain this object appearing on radar with merge plot, moving towards the plane of Fravor and then vanishing into thin air, appearing instantly several miles away?
when they mention radar contact they meant they ask the ground base radar, on radio, where the contact go when they couldn't find it.
@@xponen I'm not an expert in radar technology, so I have to rely on the eye witness reports, which have been made public. Both Fravor and Dietrich are very honest I think. Which doesn't mean they saw an alien spacecraft of course :-). But the tic tac report is probably the most intriguing case thus far.
I wonder how much will this effect differ if shot on a 3D camera (or a pair of human eyes for that matter)
A little at this distance, but nothing at larger scales. Over a few hundred feet there are no stereo effects, just parallax.
This little demonstration is flawed because this particular parallex effect doesn't work when the camera and object in question is far away from each other. Your kind of poisoning the well here by giving a false impression that this "illusion" works by simply having a moving camera aimed at a stationary object, but it actually only works if both camera and object are very close to each other. In order for this to be a viable explanation to the UFO video the object would needed to have been less than a few hundred feet away from the plane. That doesn't seem likely at all given how fast these F18s move being able to fly hundreds of feet in a split second. The object had to have been much further away which doesn't indicate a balloon or a bird.
Parallax works at a long distance, but not for moving your head around. The point here is more about parallax due to the velocity of your jet, which, as you noted, is high.
@@MickWest For the type of parallax that you're implying the object in question has to be relatively close to the camera. Let's not be intellectually dishonest here. Compare videos of planes tracking stationary objects to this, doesn't look remotely the same. Do you want to try to get to the truth via investigative research or is your aim simply to debunk because the notion of technology way more advanced than the public perception doesn't sit well with you? By the way you can watch the interview of Kevin Day on RUclips, he's another witness to the tic tac event. Should interest you.
@@03chrisv The type of parallax I'm implying is something appearing to move when it does not move much, and the main movement is from the camera (i.e. the motion of the jet with the camera). This is the type seen in the GOFAST video, where the object is around four MILES away. Check it out.
@@MickWest If we know the distance of the object (4 miles), the altitude of the plane, the speed of the plane, camera's/screen resolution, and zoom factor can we not figure out the object's size? I'm 100% certain we can.
I think you're coming at this with faulty assumptions and that you're not being as objective and impartial as possible. You're assuming the parallax effect works from 4 miles away without even knowing the size of the object or how high it is above sea level, details that you don't seem interested in figuring out but have actually enough data to do so.
You're poisoning your own investigation with your preconceived biases, it's as if you cannot allow for the possibility that the object in question might be beyond your understanding and worldview of what's scientifically possible so you stick to balloons and birds...
@@MickWest If you have the time watch the video of Kevin Day, he's a radar technician that corroborates Fravor's story. I'm not saying its aliens as it could be some rare unknown weather phenomenon, secret military technology, or other explanation. But the optical illusion hypothesis or something mundane like a balloon or bird is not a reasonable explanation. ruclips.net/video/_2zRabdvKnw/видео.html
Obviously the tic tac is the object moving in the second vid with the camera being stationary. in the first video i would say both the tic tac and camera have movement... gonna finish the video now
You used the recent fighter pilot government released ufo video as an example. The difference with that video is it wasn’t only based on observation. There was radar and other instruments measuring the object which can calculate the objects sizes, speed and direction accurately. Are you trying to debunk those videos validity? If so how do you account for the scientific measurements made?
Like this: ruclips.net/video/PLyEO0jNt6M/видео.html
Mick West that’s super interesting is there anything about the other two videos he briefly said were debunked ?
skaruts yeah I found it after I realized it was his page and he covered lots of debunking stuff. Miks a real parade rainer lmao
How about this? ruclips.net/video/xPXFcFyZma0/видео.html
Mick West how about this? He seems very passionate about his belief and has the experience to back it up. ruclips.net/video/xPXFcFyZma0/видео.html
This is well and good. Except for the fact that they have an SA (situational awareness) screen which gets direct feed from the Nimitz radar in coordination with the planes on board radar. So it shows the "topography" so to speak of the whole area. This is not 2 or 3 people witnessing this there's about a handful of people in front of monitors on board the Nimitz. And no, it's not necessarily extra terrestrial but it's no illusion either at least not in the way you are explaining (parallax). One problem I also can't get over is that you have started your position from a purely "I must debunk this" standpoint. So the arguments and experiments are ruined by this bias.
Let me also add that for the ships, as high tech as they are, aren't that fast to create a parallax effect of that speed, they have to be on an alien ship with the technology to zip zag left tand right and up and down with super speeds, no plane can do that.
1. I see the object moving
2. same, I see the obj moving
Interesting. Careful you dont fall into the pool though.
Great experiment! Ive been wrong on eyeballing something that I thought was one way and then seeing it for what it really was. What about speed and these cameras and the object they were tracking ? I’d know what your idea is those. If you’ve already addressed this I apologize. Also just woke up and I’m moving slow but, everyone around me is moving way too fast hoping coffee will neutralize this situation. Am I the tic-tac? Thanks Mick 🍺
Oh yes of course, the hornets were moving side to side and up and down. Not the tictac
😂😂😂😂
I’ll bet Navy pilots get it wrong just as often as a typical RUclips viewer does.
Maybe it's just me and my crazy brain, but I was more concerned with the fact you have 120V string lights tacked to a garage hanging directly over a pool of water. ;-)