CBS 60 Minutes Segment on UAPs

deirdre

Senior Member.
She's now implying she has unreleased "reports" and what looks like two VHS tapes connected with all of this.
Actually YOU are implying that she is implying. I, myself, dont take her words to mean that.

Although hopefully she only added the helmet and gas mask to the pic so she'd look "cool". If the cop sees a helmet and gas mask he isnt going to care about a UFO report. (In fact throwing a UFO report into what he will be thinking, isn't going to help her at all)

"Is there a reason you have a gas mask and helmet in your trunk, ma'am?"
"Don't worry officer, I'm exposing aliens".
"please step away from the car, ma'am"
 

Empiricist

New Member
To her credit, Alex Dietrich states upfront in her recent CNN interview that her recollection may be faulty, but then she plows ahead anyway

I don't mean to read into this too much, but the second portion of the quoted part almost reads as if you would rather her not share her recollections at all if they are outside of the framework of things that fit conveniently in the world as we understand it.

She has stated that she made a thorough written report within hours of the event, so hopefully we get access to that and the issue of malleable recollection over time can be minimized. Then we're just left with the potential "incorrect perceptions of reality" issue.
 
Last edited:

Buckaroo

Member
I don't mean to read into this too much, but the second portion of the quoted part almost reads as if you would rather her not share her recollections at all if they are outside of the framework of things that fit conveniently in the world as we understand it.
For my money, the appropriate thing to do would have been to decline to make any statement, since she admits that her recollection is likely shaky. Not because it doesn't "fit conveniently in the world as we understand it," but because it's likely to be so contaminated by 17 years of confabulation and expectation that it erroneously confuses the analysis, making her testimony worse than useless. The attention-seeking behavior on the part of the people involved is coming at the expense of getting to the bottom of what happened.

She has stated that she made a thorough written report within hours of the event, so hopefully we get access to that and the issue of malleable recollection over time can be minimized. Then we're just left with the potential "incorrect perceptions of reality" issue.
Agreed.
 

Woolery

Member
I'd choose the pilot, but ideally I'd like a neutral observer in the plane to provide a second opinion. But in any case I think it's the wrong question to ask. The problem is not that someone else is better qualified than the pilot to make a 'heat of the moment' assessment, but that no-one is going to be reliable in that situation. That's why it is so important to have photographic evidence or other instrumental records.


I certainly agree that all eyewitness testimony, regardless of expertise, is fallible. And I agree in the vital importance of additional evidence. No one can know for certain what someone else saw without it. But that does not mean eyewitness testimony is without value. And that value is in part determined by the competency of the observer given what he or she is observing. If an astronomer says he saw something in the night sky he can’t identify, it narrows the range of likely possibilities more than if my seven-year-old son says the same thing.

My point is that someone’s expertise is not a handicap to their ability to make observations relative to that expertise (this should be self-evident) and that someone’s level of expertise is one of a number of factors worth considering in determining the usefulness of their testimony.
 
Last edited:

MichaelMelisma

New Member
Hmmm... I don't quite understand this question. Friendly-fire losses happen all the time, even outside of the usual fog-of-war situations. And pilots make mistakes all the time.


I haven't, and this might not be best thread to discuss this case (maybe make one, if it doesn't exist already?). However, because we know that these kinds of stories ALWAYS grow in the telling, I would be very surprised if the ground-truth reality of the incident bore much relation to the accounts that you're giving here. Not that I'm necessarily accusing you of conscious embellishment - the story would have gone through many channels before it even got to you - but it's unavoidable and in their nature. This is why I personally don't put much stock in eyewitness accounts, unless there is a significant amount of corroborating evidence, and even then you have to be very careful - it's too easy for the "evidence" to contaminate the story, especially over half a century later.
Friendly fire first..
In vietnam, long distance air-to-air missiles were relatively ineffective because it was difficult to identify long distance aircraft. So the rules changed... our pilots had to make a visual confirmation before they fired, there was very little effective long-range identification available so our pilots had to move in close which took away the advantage of long range missiles.

Of course, the military recognized this deficiency and before the gulf wars had created long-range networks centered on awacs aircraft that fly high above the battlefield and share data with pilots. IFF had been available by the end of world war II, however it is far more advanced today and it's practically impossible for the enemy to spoof current identification codes.

And today's communication systems are leaps and bounds beyond that. Today multiple pilots, awacs and even ground and shipboard systems share real-time information across the entire battlefield.

So, when the f-18 pilots locked on to all of the objects in the videos, there were a lot of people receiving that same data in real time and there are many many ways of telling what they are looking at.

First of all is iff. If they're not squawking the correct code, or not broadcasting a code at all, everyone will recognize that they have a bogey.. an unidentified aircraft. And that's where the wheels start turning.

Awacs and ground/ship systems are aware of commercial traffic.. of course there have been some major mistakes made when that traffic was identified as an enemy instead of neutral however those have been a very small percentage of regular aircraft identification. However in the green pyramid and submersive UFO videos, it's certain that they have more than enough information to identify any commercial aircraft.

Assuming it's not commercial, systems begin to look at the signals, signatures and performance of the bogey and are able to identify aircraft type most of the time.

So in all the locked on f-18 cases (and shipboard cases) that we know about, a wide range of people have a wide range of data about the locked on object. With all of these identification systems in place and with multiple decision makers in the loop, our pilots can now safely fire missiles from a very long distance. (Safely at a wartime level).

So anytime that this entire network of information gathering fails, it becomes extremely important to figure out what happened. if all of these systems fail but we fire anyway there's a far greater chance of a friendly fire incident.

In other words, in the cases we know about or the cases that have yet to be revealed, it is extremely likely that there were many eyeballs on the data and awacs and ground/ship based personnel would rapidly inform the pilot that they've locked onto a friendly target. Otherwise, they're not training pilots to meet war level standards.

As far as UAP cases in general, I agree that most are very poorly documented. That's why I practically always recommend the Minot case as the gold standard. It's one of the few times that the Air Force didn't disappear the records, that a wide range of personnel were involved, and the early 2000 re-interviews are in nearly perfect lock step with the radar data, the security reports and the pilot reports.

The analysis of the radar by multiple experts is intriguing in itself. But this report has collected so much information that it would probably take you about a day to work through everything published.

I've never thought of posting Minot here, but that really is a good idea. Just because skeptics haven't found any fatal flaws so far doesn't mean that you guys couldn't identify something that no one has thought of in the past.

I'll take a look and it might be able to post tonight.

Thanks again for an interesting conversation!
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
I like 60 Minutes and was a bit intrigued that they were doing to do such a piece.
I've casually followed the relevant threads on this site, which did not leave me thinking there was much there.
I missed the broadcast, but soon saw Mick's reaction: The beginning of this thread.

I wasn't surprised...but maybe a bit dismayed that perhaps CBS hadn't done due diligence
re. questioning the story.
I took the 60 Minutes piece off my to-do list, and just went on with life.
But in the days between Sunday and now, I've been surprised at how many folks have acted as if
it was some sort of important, game-changing story. :0

If it's really just a re-packaging, and nothing new, did CBS drop the ball, re. questioning it?
 

Empiricist

New Member
For my money, the appropriate thing to do would have been to decline to make any statement, since she admits that her recollection is likely shaky.

If I experienced something incredible that was outside the paradigm of things that I could explain or make sense of, I would also qualify my testimony with a brief statement on the fallibility of human memory and human perception, etc. etc. in order to not lose credibility for the incredible experience which I would then go on to describe - even if I felt my memory of the event was still strong. If you listen to her exact words, she doesn't claim that her recollection is shaky - she only admits that human perception and memory are fallible. That seems like the most reasonable position to take, and shouldn't necessarily reduce her credibility.

The alternative, claiming with certainty that you recall the event exactly as it happened, and that your perception could not be flawed, has rightfully been widely criticized here. Mick West himself even criticized that type of thinking just today.

From your comments, it almost seems like if you experience something hard to integrate, you can't share the experience after first giving a caveat about human perception without losing credibility, nor can you insist you recall it correctly without losing credibility. I understand that human perception and memory are fallible, but it seems like you're setting up a framework whereby nobody should give testimony of extraordinary events (other than immediately after they happen), lest they misrepresent reality. I think that even with the errors that may be introduced due to human memory, we're always better off with more information than less information.

But we agree that the contemporaneous written reports will be the gold standard, and fortunately they appear to exist in this case.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I wrote a more extended response here:

https://www.skeptic.com/reading_roo...real-an-analysis-of-60-minutes-investigation/

 

deirdre

Senior Member.
She has stated that she made a thorough written report within hours of the event, so hopefully we get access to that and the issue of malleable recollection over time can be minimized. Then we're just left with the potential "incorrect perceptions of reality" issue.
Obviously she might have her own personal report, but there is this EVENT document that Fravor seems to back, that was released. (scroll past the video) if you havent seen it.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/2004-uss-nimitz-tic-tac-ufo-flir-footage-flir1.9190/post-214089

rereading it i note the 5nm from the ocean disturbance, the speed of the tic tac which according to google was 690mph. no zooming off in there.

I'm not knocking her or Fravor. I believe they saw something. I just think based on wording used and body language, their detail memories might be a bit jumbled.

But as you said, maybe she does have a "diary" from a few hours later that describes it as zooming off at super speeds. Then i can be interested again in this story!

And i do like her advocating for other pilots speaking out. I just wish she would use more modifiers in her story telling, to soften the "this is fact" way it all comes across. she also needs to be careful of her "we" usage, because the guys keep saying they werent losing their minds or nervous or scared. (but maybe they were and her recollection on that part is the correct one).
 

Buckaroo

Member
If I experienced something incredible that was outside the paradigm of things that I could explain or make sense of, I would also qualify my testimony with a brief statement on the fallibility of human memory and human perception, etc. etc. in order to not lose credibility for the incredible experience which I would then go on to describe - even if I felt my memory of the event was still strong. If you listen to her exact words, she doesn't claim that her recollection is shaky - she only admits that human perception and memory are fallible. That seems like the most reasonable position to take, and shouldn't necessarily reduce her credibility.

The alternative, claiming with certainty that you recall the event exactly as it happened, and that your perception could not be flawed, has rightfully been widely criticized here. Mick West himself even criticized that type of thinking just today.

From your comments, it almost seems like if you experience something hard to integrate, you can't share the experience after first giving a caveat about human perception without losing credibility, nor can you insist you recall it correctly without losing credibility. I understand that human perception and memory are fallible, but it seems like you're setting up a framework whereby nobody should give testimony of extraordinary events (other than immediately after they happen), lest they misrepresent reality. I think that even with the errors that may be introduced due to human memory, we're always better off with more information than less information.

But we agree that the contemporaneous written reports will be the gold standard, and fortunately they appear to exist in this case.

I dunno, I've had several unexplained things happen to me, from childhood well into adulthood, that could easily fall into the category of Fortean if I didn't know better. I don't feel any need to talk about them because I recognize that there's almost certainly nothing noteworthy about the truth behind any of them, and that the overwhelming probability is of a mundane event that I misinterpreted, mispercieved, or misremembered. I certainly didn't run to the media and make myself into a social media darling in order to discuss them. Fravor, Deitrich et al have made a decision to embrace the potential for fame (maybe after getting a taste of it on PBS's Carrier?), based on what was almost certainly a mundane event that they misinterpreted 17 years ago, and are being rewarded for it. There is a strong incentive to sensationalize and embellish in this situation.

Credibility is a tricky thing.
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
Deitrich et al have made a decision to embrace the potential for fame,
Deitrich will always be a second string player in this, so i think it more likely that she came out to back up her friend. If people were mocking my friend or an employer i respected and i knew some of the story, at least, was true i would come out and back them up. Loyalty or honor... whatever it's called, I would have their back.
 

jackfrostvc

Active Member
Alex Dietrich says she has the notes and diagrams she made about the Tic Tac incident when it happened. She has dug it up and hopefully will show it soon.

1621481156214.png

1621481174765.png


1621481041541.png
 

Buckaroo

Member
Deitrich will always be a second string player in this, so i think it more likely that she came out to back up her friend. If people were mocking my friend or an employer i respected and i knew some of the story, at least, was true i would come out and back them up. Loyalty or honor... whatever it's called, I would have their back.
Yep, you're probably on to something.
 

MichaelMelisma

New Member
I don't think that is unusual behavior at all. I also take issue with your wording, "allowing"?, and DOD confirmed the footage was taken by Navy personnel they havent confirmed any of them are STILL unidentified. I dont think the Navy provides the public explanations until years later when the documents are released.

(but nice to see that you do know your Minot link was explained)

As far as your Navy leak theory... if anything, it would prove they are hoodwinking us and proving the Air Force right. Aside from Elizondos videos which we know Elizondo released himself (or it might have been Chris Mellon) for financial gain*, ... youve got a leak of a obvious bokeh, 3 pictures of obvious balloons and now this USS Omaha blob which frankly doesnt scream ufo to me at all. If the Navy is leaking these things then they are doing it to make ufologists look foolish.

*His ultimate reasons for release might not have been financial gain, but we cant deny he and TTSA started asking for donations right away. Not a good look.
Hmmm... I understand what you are saying, but I'm not seeing that trail as clearly as you are.

As far as Minot AFB, I did a rudimentary search and have not seen skeptical analysis here or another sites. Can you explain to me what your reference to Minot means?

I understand that we need to stay centered on topic, so I'll take a shot at opening a Minot thread and that might be a better place for that conversation.
 
Last edited:

gtoffo

Active Member
because the guys keep saying they werent losing their minds or nervous or scared. (but maybe they were and her recollection on that part is the correct one).
I don't think this is correct. Also according to Kevin Day they were screaming on the radio: "Oh my god! Oh my god! I’m engaged, I’m engaged! Shit!" He says they were "basically pooping his pants" (minute 26 onwards Source: https://soundcloud.com/kgra-radio/ret-sr-chief-petty-officer-kevin-day
)

Those are Navy Pilots....they are tuff but most of all they want to show that they are tuff :D
 

gtoffo

Active Member
Deitrich will always be a second string player in this, so i think it more likely that she came out to back up her friend. If people were mocking my friend or an employer i respected and i knew some of the story, at least, was true i would come out and back them up. Loyalty or honor... whatever it's called, I would have their back.
Why would she be a second string player? She was one of the two pilots in the sky in that moment (plus the WSOs). Also she was in high cover so she was in the best position to exactly observe what was going one while Fravor was aggressively manoeuvring and that could have lead to loss of situational awareness. She was in the best position to observe the relative movements. She is a crucial witness.

The two WSOs in the backseat would be even better witnesses as they were not piloting.
 

jackfrostvc

Active Member
I just hope she finds her Tic Tac notes and event diagrams and drawings she says are probably in that storage box.

I'd like to see Dave Beaty make a re-creation video from it
 
Last edited:

Empiricist

New Member
there is this EVENT document that Fravor seems to back...

rereading it i note the 5nm from the ocean disturbance, the speed of the tic tac which according to google was 690mph. no zooming off in there.
Thanks for linking this, I had not yet seen it. While I agree that it doesn't providence evidence for the "zoomed off" claim, I'm not sure it is detailed enough to completely debunk it either, nor find it unreasonable to describe using that language.

It describes an object accelerating rapidly and then being lost in the haze, with a maximum reported speed of ~690mph. It doesn't say "the object accelerated rapidly at first and then continued away at a fixed speed of 690mph". Furthermore, it's clear from the report that the object had substantial acceleration, which I think a reasonable person would describe as "zoomed off" - which could refer more to the acceleration than the ultimate speed. Especially when the report states that "FAST EAGLE 110 COULD NOT KEEP UP WITH THE RATE OF TURN AND THE GAIN OF ALTITUDE BY THE CAPSULE". If I was driving on the freeway and the car next to me rapidly accelerated to a speed 30 mph greater than mine, I would have the impression of it "zooming off" even if it's maximum speed was still within the limits of my own vehicle.

What is clear from the report though, is that they did not report the object maneuvering in a way which is outside the realm of human technology, though it is clearly a very abbreviated report. I'm certainly looking forward to reading a more comprehensive contemporaneous report.
 

Alphadunk

Active Member
I haven't exhaustively cross referenced the report but it doesn't completely line up with Fravor's story. The report states:
FAST EAGLES (110/100) COULD NOT FIND UNID AIRBORNE CONTACT AT LOCATION GIVEN BY
PRINCETON. WHILE SEARCHING FOR UNID AIR CONTACT, FAST EAGLES SPOTTED LARGE UNID
OBJECT IN WATER AT 1430L. PILOTS SAW STEAM/ SMOKE/CHURNING AROUND OBJECT. PILOT
DESCRIBES OBJECT INITIALLY AS RESEMBLING A DOWNED AIRLINER, ALSO STATED THAT IT WAS
MUCH LARGER THAN A SUBMARINE.

However in this interview, along with many others, Fravor contends that he did not see an object in the water. He has always maintained he only saw whitewater and in this interview outright says there was no visible object. Video should play at the correct time:


I don't think is enough to discredit the entire report but I'm not sure we should consider it in lockstep with what the pilots claim they saw.
 

Alexandria Nick

Active Member
Although hopefully she only added the helmet and gas mask to the pic so she'd look "cool". If the cop sees a helmet and gas mask he isnt going to care about a UFO report. (In fact throwing a UFO report into what he will be thinking, isn't going to help her at all)

"Is there a reason you have a gas mask and helmet in your trunk, ma'am?"
"Don't worry officer, I'm exposing aliens".
"please step away from the car, ma'am"
It isn't all that odd for a Naval aviator to keep their helmet and oxygen mask. They're common souvenirs.
 

RTM

Member
Some what related, Luis Elizondo appeared on Tucker Carlson last night and supposedly said that the Pentagon is in possession of exotic materials that they need to do more analysis on. Does this suggest that he is referring to Arts parts, and if so does it show the disconnect between the "UFO fans" who are clinging to discredited evidence and the "mainstream" Pentagon.
 

FatPhil

Active Member
You can see reports of some of these sightings here in this article.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...ts-from-navy-pilots-flying-off-the-east-coast

And that area also seems to have a balloon problem

https://www.pilotonline.com/ask/vp-...0190913-56a4334i7bbmxm4dwnqzap3beu-story.html
Beware, the internet no longer works how it was initially designed - all I get from that link is a redirect to https://www.tribpub.com/gdpr/pilotonline.com/ that delivers:
And likewise:
Given that there's no guarantee that pages will even be accessible to anyone at any point in the future, please quote the pertinent bits of such articles in the threads where you cite them. You will sometimes see regulars refer to the "link policy", that's basically what it is. Cheers.
 

Empiricist

New Member
However in this interview, along with many others, Fravor contends that he did not see an object in the water. He has always maintained he only saw whitewater and in this interview outright says there was no visible object.

It isn't clear to me there is a meaningful discrepancy here. In the video, Fravor claims that he is assuming the presence of an object in the water based on the presence of the whitewater, but that he indeed did not see an object. It isn't hard to imagine whoever wrote the report mistook him for saying there actually was an object in the water (or themselves assumed there must have been an object in the water if whitewater was observed), as opposed to his conclusion that there must be an object in the water based on the presence of whitewater. The report is exceptionally terse for such an unusual event.
 

Alphadunk

Active Member
It isn't clear to me there is a meaningful discrepancy here.

Perhaps not. I've always had an interest in the "whitewater" portion of the tale as it was visually witnessed by five different people in three different jets, four of those people having made public statements affirming what they saw. I consider whether or not they actually saw an object beneath the water to be of importance because, at least internally, it would have been obvious to investigators whether the USS Louisville was responsible for the disturbance in the water. I also think it's worth noting Fravor has never claimed to have seen an object because I've noticed a few outlandish claims online about mysterious vessels beneath the water and the like.

I found the terseness of the report curious as well but I haven't seen enough of those reports to really know if the wording was exceptional.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
I found the terseness of the report
it's not "the report", its like an event log.

personally i think the difference between "
FAST EAGLES SPOTTED LARGE UNID
OBJECT IN WATER AT 1430L. PILOTS SAW STEAM/ SMOKE/CHURNING AROUND OBJECT" and "i saw white water" is pretty dang big.

They are the Navy after all. I would imagine a pod of whales playing is a bit different then a Russian submarine on fire or a plane crash.
 

jackfrostvc

Active Member
Alex Dietrich said she gave an account of what she saw after they landed , I'd guess Fravor did also.

I'm going on a limb to say the Event Summary was their supervisors report on what Fravor and Dietrich had told him.
 

jackfrostvc

Active Member
Here's is some more info. Alex says she first met Elizondo in August 2017
Note Elizondo's title. Seems consistant with what he has said before

1621569016023.png

1621568996083.png
1621568949646.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Alexandria Nick

Active Member
No but terrorists or rioters planning bad things would have such things. So a cop is likely to be suspicious of such things in a trunk.
Not to go down a hole on this, but no. Their design, shape, and features are immediately obvious as an oxygen system to anyone that's seen a movie with fighter pilots. No terrorist or rioter is walking around with a hose connected to nothing from their helmet.
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
People with zoom lens cameras have been arrested for having rifles so cops are not taking any changes with anything that looks odd in public places.

A gas mask could be seen as being protective for you against a potential attack you were making, gas attacks have happened before. It's unlikely a cop would stop to check if it were connected to something before acting.
 

Alphadunk

Active Member
This is getting a little off topic with the police/rioter discussion.

@jackfrostvc What is the significance of Elizondo's title in the email? Is that something he hasn't made reference to before?
 

jackfrostvc

Active Member
This is getting a little off topic with the police/rioter discussion.

@jackfrostvc What is the significance of Elizondo's title in the email? Is that something he hasn't made reference to before?

Sorry, added that in now. It is consistant with his resignation letter etc. So lines up

And judging by his resignation letter where he said his resignation was effective Oct 4th. It seems he resigned , very soon after talking to Alex (email Aug 30). A matter of days probably between him first emailing Alex and then sending in his resignation letter.

I wonder if his email and meeting with Alex somehow sparked something.
 
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
jarlrmai NASA Administrator Bill Nelson's views on UFOs, UAPs, and Alien Life UFOs and Aliens 32
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 35
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 78
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