lightpanther

Robert, It doesn't work that way. If you look at Raytheon's own material and specification for the ATFLIR, you will see that the entire front pod structure, including the external housing, rotates to track the object. It is literally *not possible* for this to be a "bug on the lens" scenario. That is an object out in external space that has been acquired by the tracking system. My own view, as I articulated above, is that it is an amorphous heat and light signature, which is why the system is struggling to get sufficient range data. I also replied to your point about it seeming to stay in the same position. What you are looking at is mainly artefactual IR flare from the object, imo, and the attitude adjustment is not sufficient to change this (think in terms of rotating your camera lens when there is a lens flare in the frame). Only later, when the object itself clearly rotates, do we see a sufficient change. Please understand that the tracking system could NOT acquire this object if it was attached to the system.

Edgard, you make a very good point. The object is dead center, so it is actively being tracked. An object can't be on the array and tracked by the array simultaneously. Although we don't see the gimbal object acquired, the "go fast" object is definitely acquired during the video.

You said: "You can't say for sure that the target that they saw on the radar is also what you see on the FLIR screen." The target on radar referred to is part of the Nimitz incident and so has no bearing on the gimbal footage. I don't need to look at your captures again, because I already acknowledged a change in attitude of the tracking aircraft. It is possible that it is a piece of particulate matter on the sensory array, but without informed input from a Raytheon engineer (and I wouldn't hold your breath since it is defense hardware) we are just speculating when we imagine that this is even possible. My comments refer to the possibility that this is an amorphous heat and light signature external to the aircraft, in which case the apparent shape on the sensor may be more in the way of artefact than real, and if that is the case, I don't think the attitude adjustment was sufficient to conclude that the object was not in external space.

This was not part of the Nimitz incident at all. However, It does seem that the gimbal object may remain in the same attitude when the tracking aircraft makes a slight attitude adjustment, but I don't think that the adjustment is sufficient for what is seen on the video to be that clear cut. It would need a larger correction in attitude to be certain, and we don't have one, because when there is a larger correction, both objects are in rotation.

There are three videos of interest, imo. What is called the "gimbal" video, what is called the "tic tac" video, and what is called the "go fast" video. The one you are discussing here is the so-called gimbal footage. I strongly suspect that what you are calling insect legs are in fact asymmetrical artefacts of the infrared tracking. It is clear from watching the video that the object rotates independently of the aircraft's attitude. The gimbal video is not of the Nimitz incident, which is the "tic tac" event. As I said above, for that event, objects were radar observed by the USS Princeton intermittently for a two week period prior to this sortie. During the sortie, commander David Fravor had prolonged visual contact with the object as did his accompanying aircraft. They did not succeed in getting a tracking capture. A subsequent aircraft launch after Fravor had landed captured the tracking video. I am no UFO nut, but I'm also no debunker. This cannot be an insect/insects if these military people aren't lying. It also cannot be a conventional aircraft because of its behavior. This then leads to the following possibility set, imo: 1) High capability technology of our (human) own, perhaps being (surreptitiously) tested to determine real world pilot response (but that's a bit of a conspiracy theory and not very plausible, imo) 2) A natural phenomenon of this world of a form we don't understand (the most likely, imo) 3) Technology or phenomena associated with a source that is not human and not from here 4) Carefully contrived hoax with military involvement and consent (again, has the "conspiracy theory" problem).

Hello. I have been following this topic and also wondered if it is a bug on the lens. However, in interviews, the commanding officer of the strike group has specifically said that the objects were simultaneously tracked visually and by radar. Indeed, the sortie existed in the first place because they were sent to the location to investigate anomalous targets radar had been picking up in the vicinity for two weeks. I cannot reasonably see how this combination of events can be insects on the sensing equipment unless the military pilots are simply lying. As to the "legs" on the bug....yes they could *conceivably* be legs on a bug...and they could also be nothing of the sort. The image just is not clear enough for that kind of conclusion and that is just creating a "canals on Mars" problem. All the same, I would like to see someone who has expertise on this particular type of fighter sensor equipment give their view on whether or not it is even possible for an insect to be inside the system. I would assume that an insect would have to be inside the equipment housing and not just on an external surface, as it is difficult to see how it could possibly sustain itself in that position. Does a forward seeking infrared sensor even give a heat report for something that would be inside the equipment body? Again, without proper, technically accurate and informationally rich answers from those with direct knowledge of this particular type of equipment, speculations here cannot be considered conclusive.