CBS 60 Minutes Segment on UAPs

jackfrostvc

Active Member
@Mick West

Alex Dietrich seems open to talk about the experience. She seems very science minded as well and believes there must be a terrestrial science explanation to the event.

You should try contacting her for an interview.

Here is some Facebook posts she made pre-60 minutes interview where she mentions her interest in science etc

https://www.reddit.com/gallery/ndrx65

1621213562945.png
 
Last edited:

Alphadunk

Active Member
One aspect of the Nimitz encounter I've always found interesting is their description of the target bouncing around or moving randomly before it started moving in a more conventional manner. I generally don't put too much value in eyewitness descriptions but now we have another pilot in another jet saying she saw the same thing and the possibility that the two others in the jets may come forward. At this point I'm more inclined to consider their testimony and begin to think about what could explain that type of physical sighting.
 

jackfrostvc

Active Member
One aspect of the Nimitz encounter I've always found interesting is their description of the target bouncing around or moving randomly before it started moving in a more conventional manner. I generally don't put too much value in eyewitness descriptions but now we have another pilot in another jet saying she saw the same thing and the possibility that the two others in the jets may come forward. At this point I'm more inclined to consider their testimony and begin to think about what could explain that type of physical sighting.

Jim Slaight did come forward. He was Dietrich's WSO. He went on Fox with Fravor back in the day. But the Fox presenter made it into a bit of a joke , and the word on the street from those who claimed to have spoken to Jim, is that he was put off from appearing again after that.

I also know who the WSO on Fravors jet was - but since he is still serving (I checked), I will not mention his name. But it's becuase he is still serving that I'd imagine he didn't come forward. As you can see in the FB posts by Dietrich I posted earlier, she only came forward now as she just retired.

Also, I know who the Pilot was on Underwoods jet- Again , out of respect that they haven't come forward, best not to reveal as I'm not sure if she is still serving. Actually just checked, I think she is still serving
 
Last edited:

jarlrmai

Senior Member
I find Alex Dietrich's statement on the technology interesting, one one hand her listing of science achievements and how we don't know what the future of technology holds is kind of a positive way of looking at things, but we do have a slow steady line of well known, documented small technological steps, breakthroughs and improvements that led us to iPhones and organ transplants. We don't really have anything indicating that what they are describing is possible or nearly possible, of course military black projects exist but they still need fundamental breakthroughs in theory that usually comes from academia.

Also if this is some sort of advanced manmade technology then there are 2 main likely possibilities, her own employers developed it and put it in the same dangerous environment that she was being asked to work a dangerous job in but didn't tell her, maybe you get used to that in the military? I mean what if they had really thought there was danger and ejected, or performed dangerous maneuvers etc. I would be annoyed by that.

The other is that her potential adversaries developed it and her employers go from being the most powerful military force on earth to basically nothing.

Neither seems that amazing to me when you are on the front lines, I mean now with nothing actually happening it is academic but it strikes me as odd.
 

Ravi

Active Member
I don't understand why this show is considered so extremely important. It is entertainment, driven by advertisement. Now someone please explain to me why they would be reporting anything to SOLVE things? Of course that is never the goal of a news outlet that wants to earn more money.
 

LorentzHall

Member
Three sane highly trained observers all report seeing a white featureless object defy everything we know about inertia, on a perfect still day.

You can argue the details vary slightly, but that doesn't change the incompatibility of inertia with their observations.

To propose candidate answers consistent with these extraordinary observations, we must look beyond our assumptions, but ideally without breaking the laws of physics. "These 3 F-18 pilots were all seeing seagulls/balloons/reflections" just won't cut it.

Here are 2 examples, as crazy/wrong as they may end up being:

  • What if the object only appeared to be solid? Could the "tic-tac" be a natural buoyant plasmoid of some sort? Generated by atmospheric phenomena we don't understand? That would explain the erratic "movement" and extremely high exit speed ("almost like it disappeared"). Ball lightning has been observed to move in an erratic fashion.

  • What if there was no object, or it was something prosaic, but the same bizarre phenomenon (or technology) tricking the SPY-1 radars caused shared hallucinations? Think transcranial magnetic stimulation. (Even crazier theory: what if that was the test?)

Does anyone else find it a strange coincidence that Dietrich now works at the National Center for Atmospheric Research? Is it possible this event inspired her to choose that as a post-Navy career?
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
And the Peruvian military spent a year investigating and failing to insert something that turned out to be identified as a commercial airliner within a few days of the footage being released. People make errors, multiple people can make multiple errors in the same scenario.
 

LorentzHall

Member
Chilean - and that was an IR sensor from 65 miles away.

This is within visual range. Multiple sets of Mk1 Human Eyeballs. Different ballpark entirely.

FLIR1, the video, is uncompelling, and was taken long after from a distance by a different set of pilots. The Tic-Tac, whatever it was, was probably not actually captured on film.
 

Alphadunk

Active Member
Agreed, the Chilean event has no real relevance to this and is really only brought up in an attempt to discredit. I think if we are to accept the testimony from the pilots that they visually saw the object then it changes the conversation substantively. I'd agree that if we're only accepting the video evidence then it is far less compelling.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I don't understand why this show is considered so extremely important. It is entertainment, driven by advertisement. Now someone please explain to me why they would be reporting anything to SOLVE things? Of course that is never the goal of a news outlet that wants to earn more money.
It is important because A) a lot of people watch it. and B) it's mainstream, and so legitimizes similar stories in other mainstream media.
 

DebunkMee

New Member
Three sane highly trained observers all report seeing a white featureless object defy everything we know about inertia, on a perfect still day.

You can argue the details vary slightly, but that doesn't change the incompatibility of inertia with their observations.

To propose candidate answers consistent with these extraordinary observations, we must look beyond our assumptions, but ideally without breaking the laws of physics. "These 3 F-18 pilots were all seeing seagulls/balloons/reflections" just won't cut it.

Here are 2 examples, as crazy/wrong as they may end up being:

  • What if the object only appeared to be solid? Could the "tic-tac" be a natural buoyant plasmoid of some sort? Generated by atmospheric phenomena we don't understand? That would explain the erratic "movement" and extremely high exit speed ("almost like it disappeared"). Ball lightning has been observed to move in an erratic fashion.

  • What if there was no object, or it was something prosaic, but the same bizarre phenomenon (or technology) tricking the SPY-1 radars caused shared hallucinations? Think transcranial magnetic stimulation. (Even crazier theory: what if that was the test?)

Does anyone else find it a strange coincidence that Dietrich now works at the National Center for Atmospheric Research? Is it possible this event inspired her to choose that as a post-Navy career?
If this was some rare atmospheric phenomena that occurred then it's very strange that it happened at the same time as the radar tracks (unless we also propose that this phenomena was responsible for the radar tracks, but then it would have to occur at multiple places large distances apart) and the other sighting by Underwood, which seemed to moved more like a conventional craft. Ball lightning is extremely rare to begin with, but it's also mostly reported alongside regular lightning, so the chances of it being that are astronomically low considering it was a clear day.

I think physical experimental craft(s) is the candidate which is most likely. The extremely physics-defying high speeds/accelerations measured by radar could be the result of multiple crafts spoofing the radar into thinking it's the same object. As for the visual sightings from the pilots, it could be that they did lack control surfaces but achieved propulsion by continuously expelling compressed air through multiple holes at differing strengths to achieve the desired movement. If a craft like that were to hover over the water surface, then that would be consistent with the pilot's reports of disturbed water around it.

It's also possible that some government's black budget science research achieved a scientific revolution of sorts and discovered a fundamentally new kind of propulsion, eg some sort of direct spacetime manipulation. It might sound crazy at first, but when you have tons of money and suck up the smartest scientists in the relevant fields to go work on experimental science, I don't think it's that hard of a reach to assume they're going to outpace the part of science that is public. It does seem a little strange that this technology would remain undiscovered for almost 20 years however.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Three sane highly trained observers all report seeing a white featureless object defy everything we know about inertia, on a perfect still day.

You can argue the details vary slightly, but that doesn't change the incompatibility of inertia with their observations.

To propose candidate answers consistent with these extraordinary observations, we must look beyond our assumptions, but ideally without breaking the laws of physics. "These 3 F-18 pilots were all seeing seagulls/balloons/reflections" just won't cut it.
I don't think you can eliminate the possibility of simultaneous, but different, observer errors. There have always been a variety of differences between their accounts.

But it is difficult to explain, especially if we don't want to hurt their pride. I generally try to focus on the videos, but people keep asking me about the other stuff, so I give my best set of observations and hypotheses.
 

Mauro

Active Member
I don't think you can eliminate the possibility of simultaneous, but different, observer errors. There have always been a variety of differences between their accounts.

But it is difficult to explain, especially if we don't want to hurt their pride. I generally try to focus on the videos, but people keep asking me about the other stuff, so I give my best set of observations and hypotheses.
'Especially if we don't want to hurt their pride' sums up it all :)
 

JMartJr

Senior Member
I don't think you can eliminate the possibility of simultaneous, but different, observer errors. There have always been a variety of differences between their accounts.
It seems to me that it is also important to note that they were in communication during and after the event. Discussions tend to lead to convergence of memories of what happened. Multiple independent witnesses are one thing, multiple witnesses who have discussd their experience and shared their stories are another. In some cases, folks intentionally "get on the same page." I have no reason to suspect that happened here. But it happens unintentionally, as well. It is a shame there is no video or other evidence subject to analysis in this case.
 

Rocky

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


CBS Article
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ufo-military-intelligence-60-minutes-2021-05-14/

And extended Dietrich/Fravor interview.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygB4EZ7ggig


Basically the same stories - nothing at all new, but packaged up for a general audience.
Cmdr Fravor lied in that CBS interview. At the 9:37 mark of the first video he says that he wasn't a UFO guy when in actuality he was. He even admitted to faking a UFO sighting with his jet in night time flights. He said they would look for a campfire below, speed above it with all lights off and and then pull straight up activating the afterburners so the people on the ground would think they were seeing a UFO. Plus he has been doing UFO conferences. He is a liar when he says he is not a UFO guy.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
What could be the endgame in all this, if any? Why it looks like if the state supports it? It is blowing out of proportions now. Any ideas? Just hysteria?
i think its like when Ghost Hunters think they got evidence of ghosts. It not only proves to their mockers that they were right all along, but they get to be "the first guy who found evidence of a ghost". IF you were the first guy to find evidence of a ghost, or bigfoot or an ET spaceship...your name would definitely be in the history books. People would view you with respect.
 

LorentzHall

Member
Regular observer error can account for seeing something at incorrect scale, shape, or distance.

I simply don't see how it can account for seeing something move like a ping-pong, instantaneously changing velocity without apparent acceleration.

Ball lightning is extremely rare to begin with, but it's also mostly reported alongside regular lightning, so the chances of it being that are astronomically low considering it was a clear day.

I am not suggesting ball lightning itself, I'm suggesting there may be a range of similar rare atmospheric phenomena, perhaps related to releases from underwater hydrothermal vents, that we have not yet documented.
 
Last edited:

Oklahomeless

New Member
What could be the endgame in all this, if any? Why it looks like if the state supports it? It is blowing out of proportions now. Any ideas? Just hysteria?
If you take a step back and look at the ordeal, there are just a couple politicians, ex-government operatives, and one billionaire driving a lot of this. The framework for UFO media was already in place, it just needed a cast of seemingly credible characters and a few ambiguous videos to nudge it in the right direction.
The movement is getting a lot of mileage out of people like Mellon and Elizondo. Their roles give the discussion the appearance of “coming from the government.” Maybe it is, but their actual motives aren’t clear. If this actually is disclosure nobody from inside current leadership seems to be playing along.
This isnt the first instance of UFO mania but the powers of podcasts and social media, in my opinion, have pushed it further along than ever before. It’s a captivating subject.
 
If you take a step back and look at the ordeal, there are just a couple politicians, ex-government operatives, and one billionaire driving a lot of this. The framework for UFO media was already in place, it just needed a cast of seemingly credible characters and a few ambiguous videos to nudge it in the right direction.
The movement is getting a lot of mileage out of people like Mellon and Elizondo. Their roles give the discussion the appearance of “coming from the government.” Maybe it is, but their actual motives aren’t clear. If this actually is disclosure nobody from inside current leadership seems to be playing along.
This isnt the first instance of UFO mania but the powers of podcasts and social media, in my opinion, have pushed it further along than ever before. It’s a captivating subject.
People like Ratcliffe and Rubio have or had respectable positions and should be avoiding embarrassments like suggesting that UFOs are aliens, but it could be that they are just UFO nuts like Elizondo, Mellon and Reid.

What surprises me more is that somebody is leaking these videos and the military is confirming them (it wasn't for this we even could have speculated that they are shot in somebody's backyard). They confirmed the last leak of the splashing balloon/drone/flare super quickly. I mean, it is like if they know who shot them and who leaked them. Doing this is if not a crime, then a career ending action. Super confusing situation.
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
They are confirming they were filmed by Navy personal, that's all they've confirmed. I think they do this to get ahead of the storm of official requests that would follow a leak.

The stills from the video were released weeks ago, so they probably knew the video was coming and had already set things up to confirm to try to avoid the paperwork.
 

JMartJr

Senior Member
They are confirming they were filmed by Navy personal...
On the "once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action" principle, at what point does it begin to become significant that released/leaked videos are all from within the Navy? I don't want to speculate on why that might be... but a pattern is beginning to become evident.
 

Oklahomeless

New Member
People like Ratcliffe and Rubio have or had respectable positions and should be avoiding embarrassments like suggesting that UFOs are aliens, but it could be that they are just UFO nuts like Elizondo, Mellon and Reid.

What surprises me more is that somebody is leaking these videos and the military is confirming them (it wasn't for this we even could have speculated that they are shot in somebody's backyard). They confirmed the last leak of the splashing balloon/drone/flare super quickly. I mean, it is like if they know who shot them and who leaked them. Doing this is if not a crime, then a career ending action. Super confusing situation.
It’s a very sketchy situation from all sides. We were eventually made available the paper trail for the release of the original 3 videos. They were simply not classified, which makes one wonder if that’s a reflection on how special the Pentagon thinks the objects really are... unless it was all a ploy to gain public attention, which is how Elizondo frames the situation.

When originally reading the NYT expose I thought it was compelling but looking deeper caused me to be way more dubious. That column launched a lot of interest in the subject but it turns out to be only one side of the story. It’s a good example of how an initial media exposure can guide further coverage and entrench the public’s expectations. This is why some news stations will intentionally sensationalize a story only to retract it later.

If they secretly have the Pentagon’s blessing to leak this stuff it, that would be a very complex situation behind the scenes. If these videos are what they’re implying they are then this is no doubt a immense state secret. I’d expect somebody to be putting up a lot of resistance. You’re right, it’s a confusing situation.
 

Oklahomeless

New Member
They are confirming they were filmed by Navy personal, that's all they've confirmed. I think they do this to get ahead of the storm of official requests that would follow a leak.

The stills from the video were released weeks ago, so they probably knew the video was coming and had already set things up to confirm to try to avoid the paperwork.
I agree with this take. This is also why they’re coordinating all requests through a specific office, so as to not further confuse things and cause even more requests and PR clusters. Up until recently it has seemed they would just rather not comment. But, lately, I’m beginning to suspect public pressure is building to a point where they’ll be forced to make an actual statement. If these leaks are not approved behind the curtain, the situation seems untenable and unlikely to resolve on its own. If they are authorized, then it’s some type of conspiracy we can only speculate on.
 
Last edited:

NoParty

Senior Member.
I don't understand why this show is considered so extremely important. It is entertainment, driven by advertisement. Now someone please explain to me why they would be reporting anything to SOLVE things? Of course that is never the goal of a news outlet that wants to earn more money.
Why would "solve things" be incompatible with "earn more money"?
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Regular observer error can account for seeing something at incorrect scale, shape, or distance.

I simply don't see how it can account for seeing something move like a ping-pong, instantaneously changing velocity without apparent acceleration.
i have friends that bring things up we did that i havent thought about in years. Because i myself have little recollection, i now adopt their recollection as mostly what happened. It's possible they all do remember everything about that day but 15 years and thousands of consequent flights ... i personally think Fravor just thinks the thing went flying off at sonic speed because for 15 years he thought the FLIR video was an object flying off at super speed (which it wasnt) and his memory twisted the two.

Old memories... if they all had diary entries from that day or week, it would be better.
 

jackfrostvc

Active Member
Regular observer error can account for seeing something at incorrect scale, shape, or distance.

I simply don't see how it can account for seeing something move like a ping-pong, instantaneously changing velocity without apparent acceleration.



I am not suggesting ball lightning itself, I'm suggesting there may be a range of similar rare atmospheric phenomena, perhaps related to releases from underwater hydrothermal vents, that we have not yet documented.


See this is the problem with the whole story, the lack of a clear story of what happened. People are now fixated with this whole Ping Ponging. Some would say it was Ping Ponging all over the place.

Yet in the 2009 AATIP report, Fravor says the movements were minor.

1621300362612.png
 

Alphadunk

Active Member
I wouldn't put too much thought into why politicians like Rubio have attached themselves to this subject. Look at how many interviews and how much tv time Rubio has managed to get by talking about this stuff. And to his credit he has never said anything all that surprising or risky to his career. He has always maintained his interest lies in making sure these sightings don't represent a threat to America, which is a perfectly safe position to take.

The whole thing is still pretty weird. I'm not convinced it's all driven by Bigelow/Puthoff at this point and I'm not convinced it's some bizarre roundabout way of drumming up defense spending. Even if you're a staunch skeptic it's still a fun time to be into this stuff. :)
 

MichaelMelisma

New Member
Long time lurker with my first post and I hope it's not too long or off topic... I am a centrist when it comes to pretty much everything, and as a centrist, I look at extremes at both ends of the continuum expecting the answer to be somewhere in the middle.

So I greatly appreciate the work of debunkers surfacing hoaxes just as I appreciate the UFO folks for filing the FOIAs that continues to give us more data.

But what does surprise me is the lack of understanding of potential motivation and recognition of solid data that is already available.

To the first point, the Navy's motivation is entirely logical. The Air Force is responsible for air cover and I'm assuming you guys have read the flat out lies where the Air Force did everything they could to make legitimate sightings disappear decade after decade.

It was a Navy Captain R. B. McLaughlin that first shared the balloon launches and documented uap's that surrounded them in White sands in 49... one of the first accounts that was documented by the use of theodolites..

So for a long long time the Navy has tolerated intrusions into their airspace and that gives them an extremely good reason to bring this to the public...they know the Air Force will continue to ignore the problem as long as possible. But by allowing these cases to leak, they don't appear to be supporters of crazy UFO hoaxes... Instead, the public looks at these videos and says if the Navy doesn't know what these things are somebody needs to figure it out and ultimately the Air Force will have to change its ways.

On the second point, reliable data has been available for a very long time. Of course it's a small subset of all sightings, but the airline and military reports from the 50s and 60s document consistent behavior that couldn't be explained then or now.

Immediate 180 and 90° box turns, pulling extreme g's that would rip any known technology into pieces, accelerations from extremely slow speeds to extremely high speeds, ability to move from ground level to extreme heights in seconds and an extreme interest in military operations. Obviously, drones and aircraft of that time period could not possibly explain these behaviors, which are very similar to the behaviors that are now being documented.

In fact, the old cases are often more useful than the new because there has been plenty of time to pull together a large amount of data and the individuals are far less worried about prosecution. If you desire some background about the types of infringements that the military has tolerated, take a look at this extremely well documented website.

https://minotb52ufo.com

Although the Air Force tried to explain this event as a misidentification of stars and a misunderstanding that a B-52 was in the middle of this incident, the data speaks for itself.

The maps show the fields of view from roughly 15 ground security guards who documented the movement of a large glowing object that hovered and maneuvered over Minot AFB for more than 2 hours in 1968... By triangulating their views it's absolutely clear that the object was not a star and was clearly inside the base.

And a B-52 happened to be returning from a mission when the UAP stalked them for 20 miles or so and the B-52 recorded its movements on their radar. The radar analysis comes from multiple radar experts and the photos and logic are pretty self-explanatory. Once again, the UAP performance could not be matched even today.

Last but not least, the control tower vectored the B52 to fly over the UAP that washad landed on the ground. They flew directly over the UAP at low altitude and the pilot and co-pilot described it as a large glowing red object sitting in a field, they both drew similar drawings and the description matches perfectly with the views from multiple ground security personnel.

Unlike so many of the other cases that the AF 'disappeared', enough of the participants protected enough of the data that makes this recent analysis possible. The bombardier had kept copies of the radar scope photographs.. the pilots were still alive and we're happy to provide interviews and their own documentation. And the interviewer was able to interview ground personnel and integrate their original reports into this study.

Much of what we need to know about this phenomenon is reflected in this case and I am not aware of any skeptic who has been able to legitimately question anything from this study.

As far as what they are, I don't know and I'm not sure that I care that much. What makes me happy is that it sounds like a lot of data is likely to be protected and surfaced in the future.

I'm also looking forward to the time when we don't second guess the professionalism of pilots and military personnel who clearly understand what balloons and exhaust images look like... It's logical that if these phenomenon are easily explained, these military personnel would not have taken the risk to surface this data and the Navy would have had extremely good reason to clamp down on cell phones.

But that's not what happened and it's going to be extremely interesting to see if the kimono gets opened in the next month or so.

Once again I'm a newbie so help me out if I have posted this in the wrong place and I hope this information might be useful.
 

LorentzHall

Member
See this is the problem with the whole story, the lack of a clear story of what happened. People are now fixated with this whole Ping Ponging. Some would say it was Ping Ponging all over the place.

Yet in the 2009 AATIP report, Fravor says the movements were minor.

These are not contradictory

His claim is that the movements were minor, but erratic (instantaneous velocity), while it was over the whitewater.

 

Alphadunk

Active Member
How minor do you presume the movements to be? I find it hard to believe the pilots would even mention it if it were a balloon flopping around 5-10 feet back and forth. Would movements that minor even be noticeable when looking at an object from 20k feet? I've never heard Fravor really clarify how much he thinks the object was moving at that point which is unfortunate.
 

jackfrostvc

Active Member
How minor do you presume the movements to be? I find it hard to believe the pilots would even mention it if it were a balloon flopping around 5-10 feet back and forth. Would movements that minor even be noticeable when looking at an object from 20k feet? I've never heard Fravor really clarify how much he thinks the object was moving at that point which is unfortunate.

A tethered balloon could move 100's feet , depends on the length of the rope.
 

jackfrostvc

Active Member
or a "consistent altitude". But that is just an artist's rendition. Did Fravor ever say that clip is accurate?

According to Dave Beaty, Fravor didn't want to be interviewed by him, and then threatened legal action when his name was mentioned in the first cut of Beaty's video. So I'd imagine not
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
To the first point, the Navy's motivation is entirely logical.
But by allowing these cases to leak,

That's a big bundle of speculation there. It's not "The Navy" doing anything, that we know of. We don't even know if an individual sailor leaked these things. They are just as likely to have been leaked by the UAPTask Force or one of it's consultants.

I'm also looking forward to the time when we don't second guess the professionalism of pilots and military personnel who clearly understand what balloons and exhaust images look like...
The Chilean Navy ufo proves that professionals can make simple mistakes. Just like every other human being on Earth.
 

Alphadunk

Active Member
A tethered balloon could move 100's feet , depends on the length of the rope.

A tethered balloon would be moving about randomly, at a high rate of speed with no visible acceleration, in an area spanning hundreds of feet in weather that was reported as calm? The longer your hypothetical tether the more force would need to be applied to produce changes of direction on the balloon. We can easily reproduce this on a small scale to test it. The balloon hypothesis just doesn't hold water if we're going to accept the testimony from the pilots. A balloon wouldn't produce the types of sharp movements they claim to have witnessed.

Some type of highly maneuverable rotor based drone would make more sense but doesn't really fit with their "it disappeared!" narrative.
 

DavidB66

Active Member
Various comments here and elsewhere have referred to pilots observing objects with the 'naked eye', or the 'Mark 1 eyeball'. But this is never strictly true. They will always be observing through the cockpit windscreen, and usually through a curved visor. They may also be wearing corrective lenses. One might naively expect that all military flyers would need outstanding uncorrected eyesight, but apparently this is not the case. According to one source:

To become a pilot in the Navy or Marine Corps, an applicant's uncorrected vision can be no worse than 20/40 (correctable to 20/20) in each eye. Once flight training begins, vision can deteriorate to no worse than 20/100 (correctable to 20/20) in each eye. After flight training graduation, if the eyesight deteriorates worse than 20/200 (must be correctable to 20/20), the pilot will require a waiver for carrier operations. If the vision deteriorates past 20/400 (correctable to 20/20), the pilot is restricted to aircraft with dual controls.
(Source here: https://www.thebalancecareers.com/vision-requirements-to-become-a-military-pilot-navigator-3332649 )

20/40 is about half as good as 'normal', whatever that means, so 20/200 must be pretty bad. 'Correctable' presumably means with glasses. Apparently contact lenses are not allowed for military pilots, though since 2007 laser eye surgery may be allowed. Non-pilot aircrew are subject to less stringent requirements. I note that in recent photos David Fravor is usually wearing glasses, but I don't know if this applied when he was in active service.

This is not to suggest that pilots with 'corrected' vision are unsafe or in any way unqualified for the job, just that wearing glasses (as I often do myself) introduces yet another layer of glass or plastic between the eyeball and the object, which means yet another opportunity for reflection or refraction. Some of the alleged behavior of UAPs, such as incredibly rapid or jerky movement, or simply vanishing from sight in an instant, sound much more like the behavior of reflected light than of physical objects. There are some examples in this amusing video by Thunderfoot, especially from around 10: 20 to 11:00.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Th4VlqQyVr4&t=597s


I don't agree with everything Thunderfoot says (like the 'flapping wings' of the Gofast object) but his irreverent approach is a corrective to some of the 'Top Gun' hero-worship we see.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Mick West Debunked: 1 Hour on this Bike Can Power Your Home For 24 hours [More like 5 minutes] Science and Pseudoscience 18
MikeC San Bernardino - false flag accusations start within minutes.... General Discussion 72
M Claim: Robert Parry: Australian 60 Minutes fudged evidence to pin blame on Russia Flight MH17 21
nanotchi Debunked: January 4th 2014 – Planetary Alignment Decreases Gravity – Float For 5 minutes! Science and Pseudoscience 10
Mick West Climate Scientist Alan Robock gets asked every chemtrail question in 11 minutes Contrails and Chemtrails 15
Van Wigington Debate Mentioned in this radio segment, Geoengineering Watch Global Alert News, January 30, 2016 Contrails and Chemtrails 16
Mick West Unusual Segment of Trail on KLAS-TV, Alamo, Las Vegas Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 4
Mick West Debunked: Russian TV3's X-Version Segment on "Chemtrails" Contrails and Chemtrails 0
Robert Tankersley Debunked: Meteorite? Paris, Oxford County, Maine [Sunlit contrail segment with shadow] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 46
Mick West Kentucky UFO - Jet Contrail Segment? UFOs and Aliens 3
flarkey Multiple UAPs in Mexico Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 6
SkepticSteve Alleged DHS Employee Leaks of filmed UAPs. A-10 "Chased" by Object UFOs and Aliens 34
U The UAP Policy and Discursive Shift - Changing narratives on UAPs and its effect on policy. UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 21
Mick West UAPs, Bigelow, and the "Invisible College" UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 59
TripWire Why Doesn't The Military Shoot Down UFOs/UAPs in Military Airspace? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 34
LarryLobster Off-Camera Pentagon Press Briefing comment on UAPs as Aliens: UFOs and Aliens 2
Mick West DoD IG Evaluation of DoD's Action Regarding UAPs UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 22

Related Articles

Top