1. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Can you quote exactly what he says, where he says it, and the data and math involved. Also some evidence he's not simple basing that on looking at the same FLIR footage.
  2. JBenn

    JBenn New Member

    Done. I misused a calculator I Google'd to return that number. I've struck it out and will return with a calculation later since there's more to calculating that.... a 40ft tic-tac shape though. A rough calculation can be made since the speed and time is given.

    That he is basing his account of what he saw on the same FLIR footage? He is asked by one of the interviewers if the DoD took the video seriously. His reply indicates he is at least talking about the Nimitz footage at that point. But again, the chain-of-custody documentation, which is missing, should shed more light on that you'd think.
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2017
  3. marrowmonkey

    marrowmonkey Member

    According to this:
    which is the most detailed account I have seen, Fravor did not have a FLIR on his jet.

    After Fravor returned to the carrier, Nimitz sent four additional jets with FLIR pods to investigate. It was the weapon systems operator in one of the jets in the second group that captured the video. The cruiser USS Princeton could track it on radar, but neither the jets nor the E-2C Hawkeye could get a radar lock.

    Here are the relevant sections that mention FLIR ("Dave" refers to David Fravor: "A good buddy of mine and former squadron mate, Dave “Sex” Fravor, has one of the most bizarre aviation stories of all time."):
    Sounds like a description of the Nimitz video discussed in this thread. And this article is from 2015. I also remember reading that a couple of years ago, which is perhaps why it got me interested this time.

    I don't think Fravor is lying, but even the best of us misinterpret what we see at times, being a pilot doesn't make him less human.

    Whenever people claim to have seen aliens the pictures and data are always blurry and inconclusive. I suspect the reason is, if the picture would have been clearer and/or the data better, it would have been identified as a known phenomena and not given further attention.

    I still wonder why no one else than Fravor is talking about this and corroborating his story, there were (if not a lot) many people involved that day.
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2017
  4. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Is there anything that suggests they were? Presumably if they had seen it travel the 60 miles then they would have reported this. It sounds like they saw a blip somewhere, then they saw a blip somewhere else.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  5. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    That is rather strange, as both those images are at the same settings, NAR, 2.0x zoom, IR. To me that suggests something like a smudge on the exterior glass in one position. Rotation of the out gimbal means the first image is viewed through a smudge, but the later image is not. You can see there's a major rotation at 0:48.
  6. sitarzan

    sitarzan Member

    The "Sex's" pal's assesment of him is telling...

    Sounds like he's describing someone that believes they're right, even when they're actually wrong. To me it does, anyway.
  7. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    Guys, if you are going to quote (or paraphrase @Heracletus) from the fightersweep article, please be sure to note that you are quoting from a person who was not involved in the incident and is just retelling an 11 year old story he says he heard from Fravor.

    Writing paraphrases of second hand stories, as if they are fact, is misleading to readers and against Posting Guidelines.
  8. marrowmonkey

    marrowmonkey Member

    According to the NYT article:
    Slaight seems to have been in the other jet:
    Would have been nice if one could get a better description of what Slaight saw as well. It's interesting that he says in the Fox interview; that he first believed it might have be a submarine missile launch. That sounds like it could explain a large part of their story.
    From that description it sounds like the Princeton lost radar contact but then saw a new blip at the cap point. But they didn't get a second visual of the object:
    And then apparently, their superiors didn't find the story interesting enough to investigate further. Why wouldn't they? I mean even if they didn't think it was aliens, what if it was a foreign sub?

    Maybe they found out from their superiors that what the pilots had seen was a US sub testing some new classified rocket system? Could explain the high acceleration and speeds and radar observations of objects moving up and down from space.

    The second group of jets, several hours later, filmed something on their FLIR pods but it's not clear what their story is, if they ever got a visual or if they saw something else.

    Experimental rockets are an unlikely explanation perhaps, but a lot more plausible than aliens I think.
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2017
  9. JBenn

    JBenn New Member

    The aliens thing should be isolated after all possible explanations have been removed otherwise it detracts from people wanting to follow it critically if the presupposition is already made that it "must be aliens". The avenue of implications is narrowed as a result if it is already presupposed to be ET's rather than just allowing people to follow the data and seeing where it leads. News channels being what they are can't help themselves making or ending their reporting with some hugely funny quip about aliens. On that point, where is the data from the AATIP? If this is to be anything more than TTSA trying to generate a new genre of fiction by stirring the believe camp (which is what their very first broadcast back in October tried to convey and have you buy into) then that's as equally important as the missing chain-of-custody docs to verify the footage (Gimbal aside- Nimitz case is strongest of the two). Right now it's almost as if there's a ton of believers dispensing with rational enquiry, because: faith. I can't get with that. More on the missile idea below.

    Chain-of-custody documentation, anybody. I'd like to know where Gimbal came from because if Nimitz pre-dates TTSA (which the article from FighterSweep c.2015 suggests) then that's half of an argument that TTSA don't have some sort of special leverage or atypical relationship with the DoD. It's not consistent with TTSA's business model which seems to be about bringing classified information through the declassification process for public consumption to build new tech, patents, and so on. Actually, I need somebody to explain the TTSA business model again, but it seems like a huge red flag selling the idea of investing in a public interest company to people when it potentially can't event get its hands on new, really never before seen material, to stir that first interest and get people buying-in for that reason, again rather than faith of disclosure.

    '[GIMBAL] comes with essential chain-of-custody documentation validating that it is received in its original and unaltered form and is authentic. The US Department of Defense uses this process in order to meticulously ensure that information and material retain their integrity without revealing sources and methods. This documentation [embelishment truncated] [establishes] its authenticity [embelishment truncated]... With the chain-of-custody documentation, GIMBAL can officially be designated as credible, authentic “evidence” of a UAP.'

    "...[NIMITZ] comes with crucial chain-of-custody (CoC) documentation because it is a product of US military sensors, which confirms it is original, unaltered, and not computer generated or artificially fabricated. While there have been leaked versions on the internet, the CoC establishes the authenticity and credibility that this version is the original footage [embelishment truncated]... With the chain-of-custody documentation, FLIR1 shows credible evidence..."

    It's so incredibly sloppy that it is not provided along with the footage at the time of release. How long has it been now? Weeks. And by the way, what standard does the DoD follow re chain-of-custody documentation? For legal purposes it would be a set process following specific rules. If the community know what that process is it could drive better questions specifically regarding the issue.

    I've tried to Google terms such as 'dod "chain-of-custody" or coc +procedure' but to no avail. I was hoping for a PDF of a manual describing the process...

    @marrowmonkey I didn't read anything that the Nimitz object ascended and descended to and from orbit. That said, I don't disagree that this could be the case for the Gimbal clip, but @LucM and @marrowmonkey I don't buy the idea of missile test or a missile of sorts for Nimitz simply based on Fravor's recounting of the event. It doesn't seem plausible @LucM that Fravor misinterpreted all the data he had coming in from his cock-pit systems, since he described himself as having been within half-mile of the object and able to see it with his eyes. You'd expect military pilots train regularly to exceed the standards they anticipate to see in actual combat and their INT keeps them up-to-date with enemy inventory. Well, you'd not order your military (if you were leadership) to train for combat against 1960's technology would you, in any capacity, and neither would you respect your leadership for ordering you to do so or putting you in something from the '60's. If you can agree with that, contrast it with Fravor's words that he'd: "never seen anything in [his] life that had the performance, the acceleration [of the UFO]... [and it didn't have] wings". He'd ruled out a helicopter since there was no rotor wash. Doesn't that seem odd given his background (he says 16 years of service and >3500 hours of flying)? It's unusual to me.

    Also, what missiles are you aware of that fall within 12-13 meters (40ft) in height? He states it was: "...a white 40ft long tic-tac shaped object just hovering above the water going forward, back, left, right [with] no rotor wash, no wings, nothing." If it's a missile then it doesn't seem to know where its heading. That's odd. A cursory look at some SAMs shows they're short in height and AAMs are no bigger than SAMs since they're to fit on a wing. Cruise missiles... the tallest (again, cursory review) I can find is an out-of-service design of 10m: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cruise_missiles (though I don't discount that there could be something in current inventory of some country much larger but it certainly wouldn't be AAM or SAM). Any bigger than a cruise missile and it seems that we would be entering the domain of sub-orbital rockets like ICBMs which need multiple stages to get the distance, right? About that too: Fravor describes the object hugging the water until his approach and lacking any exhaust signature despite also mirroring his flight pattern in response to his approach which indicates intelligent control of the object at least. Aren't those two attributes incompatible with a missile of any kind? I.e. Rocket engine = exhaust + fire and forget = limited control once fired, yet this thing was moving in multiple directions, hovering, and mirroring Fravor. It doesn't add up does it.

    "So as we drive around in a clockwise flow we get to about the nine 'o'clock position and I said 'well I'm going to go down and check it out and the other jet is going to stay high.' So when we get down as we get to the twelve 'o'clock position it starts to mirror us so it starts on a clockwise flow and it's on the opposite side of the circle from us and we continue this. It's in a climb, we're in a descent [and] we're getting a great look at it. This whole things takes about five minutes from about the time we show up. I get to about the eight 'o'clock position [and] it's in about the two 'o'clock position and I decide that I'm going to go and see what it is and it's about 2,000ft below me and I cut across the circle and as I get within about a half-mile of it [the object] rapidly accelerates to the south in about two seconds and disappears." Fravor

    Fravor describes the object's acceleration from a dead stop reaching supersonic in under 2 seconds. 768mph = mach 1. Does that sound like any missile of any type that had previously mirrored his flight pattern to avoid his approach?
  10. Fulhamyanks

    Fulhamyanks New Member

    Great analysis but kinda meaningless. The pilot said the object shot off like a bullet (instant). The gimble video zoom obviously isn’t bullet speed. Who exactly is claiming that the snippet of released video is the “bullet shot” the pilot testified too? Again, interesting finding but doesn’t really debunk anything.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. JBenn

    JBenn New Member

    Yes, he responded to a question re the speed and in his estimation it was supersonic. Like a bullet from a gun. He wasn't trying to convey "oh it was instant travel". Besides that would be quicker than supersonic wouldn't it...

    Not Gimbal. Nimitz (this thread) is the clip where the change in magnification gives the impression of a jump in velocity. That's been explained and it's a terrific catch.

    He hasn't testified since he isn't under oath in a court of law. He's just explaining what he saw. And his account from what I've been able to watch is consistent at least over three interviews which suggests he's being up-front.

    I also addressed this previously re the speed and I'm telling you in another way exactly what Fravor had said. He answers the interviewer that the speed of the object was "supersonic". So how fast does a bullet out of a gun travel.... supersonic and quicker, but to break the sound barrier you at least need to travel 768mph which is supersonic.

    Yes, I'm not trying to. I'm saying that the missile idea/theory doesn't make any sense, and that trying to debunk Nimitz is premature as a result of Fravor since he's being peddled as the pilot behind the clip yet TTSA haven't released it altogether with CoC + data + Fravor's missing 3 minutes footage*. If you agree with that, then surely you can see that it's premature to debunk Nimitz in its current state.

    *I'm aware that he might not even be the pilot based on earlier comments by other users. If the case, where's his five minutes? If his jet didn't have FLIR then there's still CoC + data missing and the only thing so far debunked about it is the discrepancy in velocity as a result of magnification which to me doesn't really disprove it as a UFO since I'm not hearing anything about IR glare due to engine signature....
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2017
  12. Fulhamyanks

    Fulhamyanks New Member

    Sorry but you are just plain wrong. Watch more of the pilot’s interview. He says “like a bullet from a gun”. I am too lazy to rewatch them all and find the link but those were his words. Just search more. Explain to me how the FLIR footage resembles a bullet from a gun. You are analyzing something that means nothing. Again, who is this person connecting the FLIR footage to the speed of object? A news anchor?? I just don’t get the point.
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 29, 2017
  13. Fulhamyanks

    Fulhamyanks New Member

    Just the way you are parcing every sentence and word of mine, separately and out of context explains your approach to this.
  14. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    pretty sure he said 'like a bullet'. perhaps if people started using exact quotes with source links it would greatly help the conversation.

    • Agree Agree x 1
  15. Fulhamyanks

    Fulhamyanks New Member

    Very well. “Bullet from a gun”. Now someone please explain to me how exactly the zoom resembles the “bullet from a gun”. Why are you positing this “zoom” has any relation to the details described by the pilot?

  16. JBenn

    JBenn New Member

    Oo. What was the disagreement over again? Might have to re-check.

    It doesn't and I didn't say the image of the object moving off screen == Fravor's comment of the object travelling like a bullet. I said that what has been shown doesn't disprove or debunk the claim that what is shown is a UFO particularly because all you've got is that the leap in velocity is only due to the jump in magnification. I also said there's more to the encounter and we don't have it hence any further debunking is moot.

    Did I do that? Happy to re-visit the comment if so.
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2017
  17. Fulhamyanks

    Fulhamyanks New Member

    Re-check. You disagreed with the “bullet from a gun” statement I made. You quoted it and said, “not exactly”. I provided a link with pilots actual words. He said the object shot off “like a bullet from a gun”.
  18. JBenn

    JBenn New Member

    Done, though I disagreed with what I misunderstood as his and your interpretation of his meaning, not that he'd said it.
  19. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    This is how you post a link:

    @1:55 fervor says

    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDj9ZZQY2kA
  20. Fulhamyanks

    Fulhamyanks New Member

    It’s fairly simple. This analysis would be meaningful if it could correlate the FLIR footage “zoom” to anything meanful other than a FLIR footage “zoom”. All this analysis but really it only means that the FLIR camera zoomed. Now that you established that it zoomed, please explain why this really means anything other than that a FLIR camera can zoom. Thanks
  21. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    Me? I'm not. I don't believe Fervor took the video.

    This thread is about the FLIR footage, not about Fervors story. I know this thread is a bit of a mess but we have a lot of newbies here and the topics are getting all jumbled up.
  22. Fulhamyanks

    Fulhamyanks New Member

    Welp, glad we have established that a FLIR camera can zoom. Wonderous waste of energy. Goodnight all!
  23. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    are you asking about what the zoom debunk is regarding? it's regarding claims like this

    @4:20 fervor says

    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mWYnTlAEAo
  24. Fulhamyanks

    Fulhamyanks New Member

    Interesting, never caught his claim until you posted it. Makes me think this pilot didn’t remember zooming 14 yrs ago.
  25. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    or the copilot zoomed. ? or the device zoomed itself ? (I don't know how FLIRs work exactly.)

    I'm striking that because I realize it sounds a bit misleading, .. I don't think "this pilot" ie Fervor, took the video. because I think he would mention "we captured this footage" or something to that effect.
  26. JBenn

    JBenn New Member

  27. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    don't attach my name to the missile hypothesis. It was probably a guardian angel they saw :)
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  28. Fulhamyanks

    Fulhamyanks New Member

    Agreed. This analysis is great and all but I still walk away having established that A: a FLIR can zoom and B: a pilot may not remember either himself, the co pilot, or the other plane and it’s two people toggling the zoom button on the FLIR 14 yrs later. Wonderful
  29. JBenn

    JBenn New Member

  30. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    This is not a conspiracy site, it is a debunking site. The objective is to remove the bunk from claims of evidence, so that readers can concentrate on the parts that aren't (or aren't yet known to be) bunk.
  31. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    I packed my crystal ball away for the winter to make room for my sweaters, ask me next spring.
    • Funny Funny x 1
  32. Fulhamyanks

    Fulhamyanks New Member

    I know. That is why I summed up what has been established.
  33. JBenn

    JBenn New Member

    @Fulhamyanks you've summed up and established that it's a UFO.

    @deirdre My point has been that there's not enough evidence to remove the bunk which is why nobody knows what it is. What TTSA have provided so far is as far as you can take it: CoC + data anyone?... Thank you and good night.
  34. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    More than that has been established.

    I think you are misunderstanding what bunk is. or did you mean "ALL the bunk"?

    The military might know what it is. We don't really have access to DOD records yet to make a conclusive decision.
  35. marrowmonkey

    marrowmonkey Member

    I'm not saying I know it is an experimental missile, I'm saying that seems more plausible than aliens. A common submarine-launched ballistic missile like the Trition II is 44 ft, has a peak speed of mach 24! (although that high speed is first reached when it is in space I assume) and if painted white would look kind of like a tic tac. That it "took of like a bullet" could be attributed to hyperbole and misjudgment of it's speed/acceleration. Fravor said it was coming up when he was going down, must be hard to tell the speed when something is coming up towards you. It then allegedly changed direction and took of south, so it was moving more horizontally making it easier to see that it was moving and accelerating very quickly (like you would expect a rocket to do). Strange they didn't see fire and smoke from a rocket engine but that might be because of some new propellant/engine. Again, I'm not claiming this is what he saw, but it mostly fits the story and would be well within what is technically possible to do today, so the claim that it must be Aliens doesn't hold. But it's hard/impossible to tell what without more data as you say.

    The FLIR video was recorded by the second group of jets (according to the NYT TTSA report and fightersweep article) and no one has said much about what the second group saw except that they captured a video of something (it could have been a different object right?). And the claim that that object accelerates impossibly fast in the end of the Nimitz video has been shown here to be simply a failure to notice that they changed zoom level at the same time the object moves to the left.

    Last edited: Dec 30, 2017
  36. Tyler C

    Tyler C New Member

    Hey all - New to the site but really like what I've read. Three quick questions around the theory that this was dodgy radar + distant plane.

    1) Has anyone been able to locate a flight and flight path that would line up w geometry of camera and F-18 position?

    2) Has the Navy released any radar data documenting the AAV they were tracking for the days leading up to this?

    3) How susceptible was Naval radar to "dodgy-ness" in 2004?
  37. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    No, because the date and location is unknown.


    Probably slightly more than how much it is now. While I'm sure every effort is made to prevent errors, that does not mean there are none.
  38. marrowmonkey

    marrowmonkey Member

    A private media entertainment company called to the stars academy claims they have "chain of custody" documentation proving the footage is really from the military. But this video and story was actually leaked some time during or before 2015. So the DoD haven't really released anything related to this, they have at most confirmed that the video is authentic.
  39. JBenn

    JBenn New Member

    Sounds like you've got a good mental picture of the flight path. Could you create a motion graphic of it? GeoGebra perhaps. Could be useful for further discussion.
    What DOD records? Specifically. Serious question. I keep saying there's CoC + data missing, but this could be expanded to be more specific.
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2017
  40. Lemurian

    Lemurian Banned Banned


    A german Researcher and Blogger wrote to the German Film Production Company:

    I also wrote to them and asked them, their answer:

    nein das stimmt nicht.
    Wir haben weder ein "Ufo Video" erstellt noch irgendwas damit zu tun.

    mit freundlichen Grüßen

    Philip Schneider"

    Means in english: "Nope! We have nothing to do with that UFO Video."

    Now it proven: E.T.s in flying Saucers or flying Disk visiting the Earth! Deal with it!!! :p

    Best regards from Germany
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 14, 2018