That’s just not how birds operate.

December 23, 2019 7:01 AM

Chad Underwood, one of the Navy pilots who encountered the "Tic Tac" that the Navy officially acknowledged was a UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena), talks with NY Magazine about the events of November 10, 2004, over San Clemente Island. He doesn't call it a UFO and would very much like not to have his name “attached to the ‘little green men’ crazies that are out there.”
posted by tommasz (10 comments total)

It is good to see a narrative of interaction with The Strange conducted by the military with curiosity rather than hostility.

Except for, y'know, Space Force™.
posted by Thorzdad at 8:34 AM on December 23, 2019 [4 favorites]

Here's an FPP from last year that also features the footage.
posted by XMLicious at 8:35 AM on December 23, 2019 [3 favorites]

So basically, we have
a) an air force that flat-out admitted that they created UFO flaps as disinformation programs.
b) repeated instrument readings from a particular sensor system that are totally UFOs, not badly designed or programmed equipment.
c) An air force pilot's testimony. Cue UFO buffs intimidate the usual "trained observer" line.
d) a video from a really dodgy source, which actually appears to be different from the AF pilot's incident.

So really it sounds like the air force is trying to hide another black box program, as well as cover up problems with one of its military radar system.

I'm not sure, because the question is always whether one's cynical enough to be accurate about the UFO field
posted by happyroach at 9:12 AM on December 23, 2019 [2 favorites]

It's phenomenon, not phenomena. Phenomenon is the singular, phenomena is the plural. Sheesh.
posted by heatherlogan at 10:07 AM on December 23, 2019 [1 favorite]

From what I understand from people in the field, this isn't the Tic Tac footage, it's something else. There's some confusion and I'm not sure why or what it's about.

There is footage of the thing they called the Tic Tac, which was allegedly a large white capsule shaped object that was recorded above a body of water while stationary. Weirdness.

Anyway yeah good to see people talking about this without the dismissive stupidity.
posted by Liquidwolf at 10:24 AM on December 23, 2019

UFO is actually a rather accurate term, and the one Underwood used:

"It is just what we call a UFO. I couldn’t identify it. It was flying. And it was an object."

If you see something, and it appears to be flying, and you don't know what it is, and it appears to be an object of some kind, then there you are. Keep in mind that an "object" is a very broadly encompassing term and could include things like sensor malfunctions, internal reflections in a lens, or strange vagaries of your visual system that make it appear as though you have seen something.

It's unfortunate that we have somehow conflated UFO with "flying saucer containing little green men". Having a category and a name for things that are simply unknown is super useful, and if you take the term UFO literally that is all it is.

Pretty much all of the unknown flying objects could easily be turned into known flying objects (or sometimes known non-flying objects, or a known phenomenon that isn't really flying or non-flying or a physical object per se, etc) given sufficient time & study. But given that we don't have the resources to track down every flash or blip that happens to appear in our visual cortex or on some instrument, and also happens to be above the horizon line (and thus "flying"), we should be content with the idea that many things of that nature are "unknown" in the sense that we can't immediately nail down precisely what it was.

But even though the typical UFO is technically "unknown" in point of fact there are oodles of candidates for known and well understood things that it could be--from stars to planets to satellites to meteors to visual or equipment illusions to birds to various type of aircraft--and "little green men in their flying saucers" are way, way down the end of that list.

The only interesting thing about little green men is why seem to be so fixated on them--though anecdotally I would say we are far less fixated on them now than we were 40 or 50 years ago.
posted by flug at 12:57 PM on December 23, 2019 [5 favorites]

The term "little green men" has the effect of instantly making the subject a joke. And you almost never hear a news report without that term.
posted by Liquidwolf at 1:06 PM on December 23, 2019

For some reason I watched all of Netflix's "Bob Lazar Area 51" and I am amazed at the credulity of people who feel that it is compelling evidence of truthfulness to say "Why would I lie?"
posted by Pembquist at 1:48 PM on December 23, 2019 [1 favorite]

a) an air force that flat-out admitted that they created UFO flaps as disinformation programs.

Is that the case with these incidents? Did you read this in the article, or...?

b) repeated instrument readings from a particular sensor system that are totally UFOs, not badly designed or programmed equipment.

So it's an equipment failure? You know of this from the article, or...?

c) An air force pilot's testimony. Cue UFO buffs intimidate the usual "trained observer" line.

Well, the pilots were at least there. I wasn't. You weren't. They were, and their accounts haven't changed. But that counts for nothing, because...why? It makes you uncomfortable?

d) a video from a really dodgy source, which actually appears to be different from the AF pilot's incident.

It's confusing because there are separate incidents, it seems.
posted by zardoz at 4:26 AM on December 24, 2019

For some reason I watched all of Netflix's "Bob Lazar Area 51" and I am amazed at the credulity of people who feel that it is compelling evidence of truthfulness to say "Why would I lie?"

You know its funny, I just read what I wrote and I realize that some people might misinterpret; to be clear, I am confident that Bob Lazar is a liar and the people who muse that "there must be something to this" are credulous and not thinking rationally.
posted by Pembquist at 11:51 AM on December 24, 2019