Are there any fighter pilots that debunked the navy videos?

[Domzh]

The only one who unintentionally admitted that David Fravor's and Ryan Grave's claims were wrong is Chris Letho after his k and forth with Mick.

Im not a fighter pilot myself but to me its super obvious at this point that the proclaimed air bubble is a sharpening feature of the atflir system and that Underwood did loose track because of his constant mode switching.

I searched youtube for quite a bit and could only find some interviews with fighter pilots supporting their claims.

Why arent there any to come forward and publicly say that these guys are lacking understanding in how their systems work?

is it that they are truly right or are they scared of backlash because theres some unwritten law of brotherhood to never speak out against colleagues?

 

[jarlrmai]

Outside of here, UFO twitter and UFO Reddit not many people care about the nitty gritty of the videos.

Mick has apparently spoken to people that wont come on the record, likely experts are either

Still actively working in the military.
Still actively working in the defense industry.
Know that as pilots they don't know enough about the system end to end to make counterclaims.
Don't want to get involved and become a target for irate UFO fans.
Don't want to get in to tit for tat with the pilots that were former colleagues.
Don't care enough to get involved.
Don't want to put reputation on the line.

The videos represent complex puzzles that cover a few specific details of systems that are upgraded and changed likely you would need a team of specific people (engineers) from Raytheon to confirm what is going on and even then there may be operational things the engineers might not know. For instance stuff like a possible smearing of the front element of the ATFLIR leading to the glare shape we see in GIMBAL for instance.

My view is that GIMBAL can be recreated but doing so is a complicated process that essentially requires a combined effort of Raytheon and the Navy so requires political will and financial resource to do so.

The airframes and versions of the equipment are all getting old now, it might still be possible with current running airframes, but let's say the dero stuff was changed in new ATFLIRs the effect might not be the same etc.

Tracking down an ATFLIR pod that matches in terms of software and hardware from GIMBAL might be required and might be more difficult.

 

[jarlrmai]

Oh I also forgot, making claims is easy debunking claims is often much harder, and also debunking them might involve revealing secret things about the tech that might be covered by secrecy laws.

 

[logicbear]

There are some other pilots who have voiced their opinion that some of the videos don't necessarily show anything extraordinary.

Here's F-16 and F/A-18 pilot C.W Lemoine "Mover" reviewing the Navy videos in 2020:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9NhOKy2K80

He thinks GoFast is probably/possibly a drone, FLIR1 just loses track at the end, and Gimbal might not be rotating, only the heat signature.

F/A-18 pilot Brian Burke also agreed with Mick about many aspects of these videos during their discussion:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3keF8rf7Ig


But yes there's a significant amount of work involved with these to really debunk them in detail, that few people have attempted.

 

[jarlrmai]

There's probably plenty of people who agree and disagree with Mick that don't really understand the rotating glare theory.

It's part of the problem, when something is so complex people tend to go on feeling.

 

[Domzh]

There's probably plenty of people who agree and disagree with Mick that don't really understand the rotating glare theory.

It's part of the problem, when something is so complex people tend to go on feeling.

i realized this when watching this "move" guys explanation that "the heat source is rotating and now the object".

its really puzzling though how all these guys who work with these systems dont get it, i never cared about camera systems and optics but was able to understand the glare hypothesis right away.

 

[Ann K]

is it that they are truly right or are they scared of backlash because theres some unwritten law of brotherhood to never speak out against colleagues?

Or is it that they simply didn't see enough of the claimed anomaly to rebut another person ...but the media go straight to the people who said they saw something strange. There's a regrettable tendency to count a positive claim as evidence of something, but fail to count the negative claims as evidence against it. After all, "I didn't see it" could mean "I was looking the other way", but could also mean "It didn't happen as he said".

 

[logicbear]

i realized this when watching this "move" guys explanation that "the heat source is rotating and now the object".

its really puzzling though how all these guys who work with these systems dont get it, i never cared about camera systems and optics but was able to understand the glare hypothesis right away.

He said "heat signature", not "heat source". Here's the actual transcript:

Article:

He's talking about "its rotating", I mean, we're in IR mode so "it" may not be rotating. Whatever the heat signature is is rotating

The glare is the heat signature that appears on the ATFLIR's IR sensor. The glare/heat signature has a different shape and can rotate independently of "it", the object itself, the heat source, whatever it may be (perhaps the tailpipe of a jet). So I don't think his comments related to Gimbal were inaccurate. He really was endorsing the glare theory.

I asked him to confirm this in the comment section of another video here: