adam_n_eve
New Member
So now people are suggesting that the whole thing never happened and they're lying under oath in front of Congress.
That's just hilarious.
House Oversight Hearing on UAPs - July 26, 2023
- Thread starter MonkeeSage
- Start date
That's just hilarious.
D
Deleted member 19405
Guest
The word games Grusch is playing under oath are off the charts. One other example would be "non-human biologics" (biologics? I'm not a native speaker but is that even an actual word in English?) which could very well mean just animal carcasses.
How is it that no one in the hearing had the wits to point out these glaring obfuscations?
Last edited by a moderator:
Scaramanga
Senior Member
a 40 foot long craft, from 25,000 feet, would be just 1/10 of a degree in size. That's pretty small.....1/5 of the diameter of the Moon. It's not like Fravor or any of the others ever saw the thing close up enough to see the rivets on the thing.
Amathia
Senior Member
What they're saying is there's nothing to debunk without access to any of that data. You're demanding for people to provide a scientifically plausible explanation for something people claim to have seen without having any access to any of the data except for their verbal accounts of what happened.
Let me give an example from a different kind of phenomenon that I've read a lot about but which is unlikely to be something you personally believe in: exorcisms. If you watch any interview with a catholic exorcist, they'll describe the signs of demonic possession that they typically look for as confirmation that a person is possessed. One such sign is levitation. According to many exorcists (Gabrielle Amorth, Vincent Lampert, Carlos Martins) levitation is a rare but real phenomenon they've personally witnessed in the course of performing the rite of exorcism. Moreover, since catholic exorcisms are never performed alone, each and every instance of levitation has allegedly been witnessed by at least two, but usually more eyewitnesses who are there with the exorcist when it happens.
Of course, as you would expect, no footage of any such levitation has ever been shared, and their excuse is that exorcisms are never recorded for the sake of the demoniac's privacy.
So we have claims about a supernatural feat that violates the laws of nature as we know them made by many independent eyewitnesses in many different cases.
How do you explain this? We have no corraborating data (just like with the Nimitz case), we only have the testimony of fairly reputable people. Do you believe them? Why or why not?
What is a skeptic supposed to do with such stories? All we have are stories about alleged instances of levitation. Are we supposed to provide an airtight explanation to debunk these claims without having access to any video or even audio recordings of said sessions? When working with nothing but human testimony of extraordinary claims, how do you suppose people skeptical of said testimony should proceed if they doubt the stories actually happened as the eyewitnesses claim but you have nothing but their testimony to work with?
adam_n_eve
New Member
I assume that Fravor got closer than 25000 get as he dived into the object whilst Dietrich stayed up high.
jarlrmai
Senior Member.
Biologics is a word, but it refers to basically to bio-dervied pharmaceuticals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biopharmaceutical
So maybe we recovered drugs from these spacecraft. The term "non-human biologic" could actually refer to witchhazel or morphine.
A biopharmaceutical, also known as a biological medical product,[1] or biologic, is any pharmaceutical drug product manufactured in, extracted from, or semisynthesized from biological sources.
Perhaps someone should ask Grusch to clarify his definitions.
D
Deleted member 19405
Guest
Q: Mr. Grusch, could you please define the term "biologics" that you keep using?
A: I'm afraid I cannot disclose that in a public setting.
deirdre
Senior Member.
a whale with a cold blowing bubbles.
thats my favorite theory. how is that more ridiculous than aliens?
deirdre
Senior Member.
again you are likely mixing up a possible radar glitch on a new radar system with whatever fravor saw. Fravor had nothing on his true blue radar.
Scaramanga
Senior Member
Fravor stated there was no investigation into the incident. A craft ( allegedly ) runs rings round US top fighter jets and nobody investigates ?
JMartJr
Senior Member.
Or maybe it works really well. And doesn't crash as often as the aliens did. So we never see it, other than in UFO reports.
Or it works tolerably well but is hideously expensive and they never cold get the cost down.
Or the aliens came back and asserted their rights to the technology and we had to stop using it.
Or everybody who uses it slowly turns into a Bigfoot and it became hard to get pilots.
I'm more inclined to "they don't exist." And I'm not sure speculating about why we never see the technology that we don't know exists gets us very far, given the huge range of possible reasons.
cptreynolds
Active Member
Even a Chinese spy balloon floating above that poor whale blowing bubbles with the balloon operator hoping to catch a glimpse of a US sub aborting their training mission requires fewer elements not currently known to exist than some non-human transmedium craft that can outmanoeuver F-18s.a whale with a cold blowing bubbles.
JMartJr
Senior Member.
Or nobody does...
JMartJr
Senior Member.
Bear in mind they were not independent witnesses, they were in communication at the time, were on the same ship together and the others will have been aware of Fravor's story when he went public with it. That's. lot of opportunities for memories and stories to align.
Yes.
They can dissappear almost instantly, if they burst.
cptreynolds
Active Member
In principle I agree, but to be fair that thing off the Atlantic coast didn't instantly disappear when they sidewindered it.
Lu Ann Lewellen
Active Member
The report from 2004 said visual ID was lost in haze.
https://thenimitzencounters.com/201...-11-air-wing-11-event-summary-of-nov-14-2004/CAPSULE (ALT 4K FT AT COURSE 300) PASSED UNDER FAST EAGLE 110 (ALT 16KFT). FAST EAGLE 110 BEGAN TURN TO ACQUIRE CAPSULE. WHILE 110 WAS DESCENDING AND TURNING, CAPSULE BEGAN CLIMBING AND TURNED INSIDE OF FAST EAGLE’S TURN
RADIUS. PILOT ESTIMATED THAT CAPSULE ACHIEVED 600-700 KTS. FAST EAGLE 110 COULD NOT KEEP UP WITH THE RATE OF TURN AND THE GAIN OF ALTITUDE BY THE CAPSULE. 110 LOST VISUAL ID OF CAPSULE IN HAZE.
Rocky
Active Member
Why don't you think Jeremy Corbell and George Knapp didn't put Bob Lazar out there? Could you imagine the reactions he would've gotten with his ridiculous claims? They would've lost credibility real quick. But those UFO hustlers sure like to exploit him for podcasts and videos.
Ann K
Senior Member.
But you've got to understand that your incredulity and amusement are not evidence. I don't know what he saw, and you don't know what he saw, but in the absence of our knowledge there is nothing wrong with suggesting a perfectly normal marine activity as a possibility.
Last edited:
Lu Ann Lewellen
Active Member
Whatever caused the disturbance in the water may have been unrelated. Kurth checked it out and saw the disturbance but not the "Tic Tac" just as Fravor and Dietrich were arriving. It's possible they saw his FA 18 and the story grew from there. The video was probably not the "Tic Tac". It may have been Kurth or another fighter.
The whole exercise may have involved radar jamming. We know that exists and Dietrich said it was used.
There's a thread on the Kurth hypothesis:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/hypothesis-fravors-tic-tac-was-kurths-fa18.11776/
There's also a balloon and drone hypothesis that doesn't include anything Chinese.
Last edited:
JMartJr
Senior Member.
I don't know how that stuff works, but to my mind if Navy plane(s) detected radar jamming, that sort of implies that the jamming was being done by the sorts of techniques/technology we and other countries use for radar jamming, which would then imply it was Earthling hardware of the sort our jamming detection gear looks for. Given how close the incident was to the US mainland, and that it was in the middle of a bunch of training and testing space for the US military, the most likely culprit is some other US military asset.
Lu Ann Lewellen
Active Member
The fact that it showed up in the middle of a military exercise would seem to indicate that whatever it was was part of the exercise. What self-respecting ET would take a risk like that?
In the NASA public meeting Scott Kelly mentioned pilots rendezvousing on a buoy thinking it was their wingman. Misidentifications happen sometimes.
Duke
Senior Member.
Knapp and Corbell didn't pick the witnesses, Congress did. Mind you, it wouldn't surprise me if Rep Burchett called Lazar at any future hearings.
deirdre
Senior Member.
I think Burchett is in Corbells pocket and corbell is directing the show. And i use the term "show" purposefully.
Article: And Corbell has become a go-to source for UFO whistleblowers and been acknowledged as essential in organizing witnesses for Wednesday's historic, bipartisan hearing.
(i cant believe how short Corbell is)
0:13 sagaar : a little bit of the background of what it took to make this possible, you were instrumental in that.
6:20 Corbell "i've been a champion to get them here, that's the thing i think commander Fravors real pissed at me, from time to time, he always blames me being a pest, getting him to do things. These guys dont want to be jumping in front of cameras
... they all came here because of duty, and maybe because i can be a pest.
[other fun quotes from vid]
3:25 Corbell :) "it is not my position to give you insight, however it is True and that will be revealed to everybody."
3:45 Corbell "the UFO phenomenon is not real, my friend." :)
4:30 Corbell "knowledge that i cant yet go public with"
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7Na35zOEyU
LilWabbit
Senior Member
Indeed, deception tests are by far the most likely explanation.
"Distributed decoy and jammer swarms" (DDJS) (mentioned in The Drive article on the NEMESIS program) -- or their early experimental precursors in 2004 which however were bound to be more advanced than the submarine-launched balloon-based metallic spheres in the 1970s used by Poteat in similar deception tests and which already could have been mistaken for UFOs -- are bound to look bizarre to pilots, to jam radars and to also look bizarre as radar signatures. Why? Because they're supposed to.
For Fravor & crew to think such things are UFOs till today would be a mark of the great success of such a test. And for the DoD to happily go along with such a misidentification is to be expected in order not to expose such brilliantly confusing tactical deception technology.
Let's articulate this simple argument more formally:
(1) The existence, at least since the 1970s, of tactical deception programs to jam and deceive radars and "to generate the appearance of a realistic naval force to multiple adversarial surveillance and targeting sensors simultaneously", using, amongst other things, submarine-launched balloon-based metallic spheres, reconfigurable and modular electronic warfare payloads, and distributed decoy and jammer swarms for false force generation to both above and below water sensors;
(2) The ability to surprise, distract and overwhelm the enemy, including during fleet exercises, being the main purpose of tactical deception;
(3) Fravor and crew's strange observations, their reports of radar jamming, simultaneous reports of strange radar signatures, and reports of an object disappearing in a haze (rather than thin air);
(4) Taken together, these three factors single out as the likeliest hypothesis a Navy electronic warfare deception test conducted as part of a broader Navy fleet experiment which included Navy aviators.
Last edited:
so i just had a thought about Gaetz's comment about the radar data showing 4 objects in a diamond formation. Ryan Graves states in a later interview it reminded him of the Gimbal video where the pilots are discussing a 'fleet' of objects. t/s 3:00
if these objects can move instantaneously through the air, with incredible acceleration, then air resistance/drag cannot really be an issue at all, which then makes me think why would they fly in a diamond formation?
Diamond formation isn't strictly for fuel consumption/efficiency. it's also for improved manoeuvrability and stability - again a non issue given the claimed performance. another reason being better visual/situational awareness of the other pilots, but there seem to be no windows on these objects for LOS, so this doesn't make sense.
There might be attack/defensive reasons where this formation helps that could explain it, or some other yet unknown benefits based on their technology, but it did strike me as odd they'd choose a formation that benefits so greatly from dealing with air issues.
if these objects can move instantaneously through the air, with incredible acceleration, then air resistance/drag cannot really be an issue at all, which then makes me think why would they fly in a diamond formation?
Diamond formation isn't strictly for fuel consumption/efficiency. it's also for improved manoeuvrability and stability - again a non issue given the claimed performance. another reason being better visual/situational awareness of the other pilots, but there seem to be no windows on these objects for LOS, so this doesn't make sense.
There might be attack/defensive reasons where this formation helps that could explain it, or some other yet unknown benefits based on their technology, but it did strike me as odd they'd choose a formation that benefits so greatly from dealing with air issues.
Mendel
Senior Member.
For a private-sector example, Google's "project Loon" with station-keeping balloons got quite far before being dropped.
That's a fallacy.
I can make a balloon disappear. All I need is a needle.
A pilot has a high workload. He'd look out, glance back at his instruments, look out again, see the object gone, and his brain instantly constructs the subjective reality, "it zoomed off fast (otherwise I'd have seen it go)". The actual observation would be that it no longer was where he expected it to be, for a variety of possible reasons. The reason the pilot picks in that situation is no more likely to be correct as any other.
Thank you.
That description is entirely commensurable with a misjudged distance.
It would readily explain why there was no investigation. And why the radar data etc. is no longer accessible.
I'd also not be surprised at such a project being unacknowledged, i.e. the DoD officially denying something like it exists.
Last edited:
adam_n_eve
New Member
I'm sorry but your busy being factitious now because you can't explain something.
Fravor has cleared stated that the tic tac sped away in a couple of seconds and Dietrich corroborates that.
How about actually answering the question instead of trying to be silly.
Mendel
Senior Member.
"it just disappeared"
"lost visual ID of capsule in the haze"
That's not corroboration.
When you deal with witness statements, you have to be careful with separating actual observations and details that the brain adds later. See https://www.metabunk.org/threads/the-scientific-weight-of-eyewitness-testimony.11929/ (there's a link to a comic in post #7).
Mendel
Senior Member.
What question? "Can a balloon hover above the water then disappear from view in a couple of seconds?" Is "yes, when it pops" not an adequate answer?
Or should I offer "yes, when the observer is located in a speeding jet aircraft"? Or maybe "yes, when the observer moves away from the sunny towards the shaded side of the object"? Or "observer loses track of balloon as they glance away because they misjudged size and distance" (possibly because they expected it to behave like another jet)? Or "balloon appears smaller and is hard to discern when viewed from the side"? "Balloon was a Chinese lantern that flamed out"?
Like I wrote, there's a variety of reasons.
Obviously they don't involve the balloon "speeding away", that would be silly. Right?
Last edited:
I think an important point also to note is that the pilots were sent out without weapon payloads. It’s seems highly improbable that if the navy brass thought something actually was happening (ie possibly a foreign country invading our waters or airspace) they’d send out fighters with zero weapons. That conjures up 2 possible scenarios for that situation. 1. The navy brass who sent the pilots out was completely incompetent, or 2. The navy brass was aware that these objects were ours and were observing reactions of the pilots and capabilities of the spoofing technology.
Also as a side note, I honestly believe David Fravor was mistaken with what he witnessed. Scott Kelly’s story during the NASA hearing was a completely reasonable and plausible explanation for strange behavior the tic tac exhibited along with parallax as he was banking and descending down on the object.
Or 3. It’s aliens
Mendel
Senior Member.
That is his interpretation of his interpretation of what he saw.
Consult https://www.metabunk.org/threads/fr...n-parallax-illusion-comparing-accounts.10941/ to understand how a slow-moving object could be perceived to move fast. As a rule of thumb, if the motion of the observed object parallels or mirrors the motion of the observer, parallax may be involved.
Mendel
Senior Member.
Or, 3. The aircraft were already in the general area for a reason that did not require weapons (such as radar testing). Remember, the ocean is big and mostly devoid of airbases.
Not everything unknown is a threat.
Brandishing weapons before you've identified the threat is often inadvisable.
it is highly unlikely WW3 begins at a single aircraft encounter off the U.S. coast.
FatPhil
Senior Member.
No, she's quite clearly saying that you may not use the proposition
P: More than 50% of X are Y
as a premise to support the proposition
Q: More 50% of Y are X
Doing so is a fundamental (by which I mean right at the mathematical level) logical fallacy.
Here's a top tip - if you tempted to respond to a counterargument with "are you saying [something absurd that clearly hasn't been said at all]?", or some other off-the-wall accusation, then there's a very good chance you've not understood the counterargument that's been made. Let the red mist clear, reread it, and try to work out what's actually being argued. That means reading all the way back to the post you first responded too, @Eburacum's in this case, that was where you first lost traction.
You made a logical error (X is "blackbird flights", Y is "UFO reports"), and then doubled (tripled?) down on it. Learn from your mistake, so you don't make it again.
adam_n_eve
New Member
Yes I believe them. Firstly they had no reason to lie, secondly there was radar data that put the object at the location and then also tracked it to the meeting point (unfortunately we've never had access to this data), thirdly there were 4 observers who saw this object. Whilst we all accept eye witness testimony isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination when you have radar data backing it up then it does lend an additional level of credence to it
A balloon popping disappears instantly not in a couple of seconds. Fravor has clearly stated that the object flew away it of view in a couple of seconds. It was a clear day with excellent visibility (he estimated around 40 miles).
You're being disingenuous by trying to change his words.
Whilst I appreciate scepticism, in this case it simply doesn't hold weight and it becomes debunking at any cost.
adam_n_eve
New Member
I do love how the parallax illusion is put forward as an explanation as if Fravor hasn't spent countless hours flying and witnessing it before. I've yet to see a video doing exactly as Fravor described and producing the same effect.
Mendel
Senior Member.
How many sorties had Fravor flown on balloons without radar reflectors before his UFO sighting occurred? Your claim is, "hours" of them. Prove it!
I rather suspect the true answer is "none" because I can't see any reason for it.
Are you implying that something can't be true if there's no video of it? I hope you don't.
Ann K
Senior Member.
Yesterday I posted an article about a UFO sighting in 2000 in the thread "Best recorded UFO sighting" that contained a mention of this very thing:
The object suddenly sped away, going eight miles in three seconds in the direction of Shiloh, Illinois. It is worth noting that in the original radio traffic recording, Barton describes how he was reaching into the squad car to grab his microphone. When he emerged, the object was far away. He did not actually see it accelerate at exotic speeds.
Scaramanga
Senior Member
Maybe it was a fleet of these cube inside sphere radar reflectors......oops I mean UFOs.
FatPhil
Senior Member.
No, that's a logical fallacy. You are concluding that because someone has dismissed one thing said by an expert, he would only be consistent if he dismisses all things said by all experts. That simply does not follow, as it fails to take into account the reason why the one thing may have been dismissed, such as the inadequacy of the evidence to support the claim being made.
Mendel
Senior Member.
straw man argument, nobody claims they intentionally lie
@Scaramanga wrote, "we don't have definitive evidence that Fravor's incident ever actually happened", which I'm reading as a statement on how bad the evidence is that we have, not as an accusation.
a radar we know is wonky, because the rapid change in height was a software glitch that connected two spurious returns
if Fravor says his Tictac had no radar signature, then the Nimitz must have "tracked" something else that happened to be in the vicinity.
Who?
Fravor and Dietrich's accounts differ, and Kurth didn't see it at all.
But we don't have radar data backing it up!
There is little disagreement about some object being there. Underwood later went and took the FLIR1 video which might be the same or a similar object (but he was too far to see it himself). The disagreement is about what the object was, how big and how fast it was, and how it moved. And we do not have certainty on any of that.
Last edited:
Similar threads
