I wonder if they (Fravor etc) have agents.
Actually YOU are implying that she is implying. I, myself, dont take her words to mean that.She's now implying she has unreleased "reports" and what looks like two VHS tapes connected with all of this.
To her credit, Alex Dietrich states upfront in her recent CNN interview that her recollection may be faulty, but then she plows ahead anyway
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.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.
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.
Friendly fire first..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.
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.
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.
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.
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.Deitrich et al have made a decision to embrace the potential for fame,
Yep, you're probably on to something.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.
Hmmm... I understand what you are saying, but I'm not seeing that trail as clearly as you are.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.
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-daybecause 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).
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.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.
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.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.
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.
It isn't all that odd for a Naval aviator to keep their helmet and oxygen mask. They're common souvenirs.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"
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:You can see reports of some of these sightings here in this article.
And that area also seems to have a balloon problem
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.
no. somewhere on MB there are pictures of the talks he gives that show what he is probably talking about.Does this suggest that he is referring to Arts parts,
it's not "the report", its like an event log.I found the terseness of the report
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.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.
More likely the plans to set up To the Stars Academy was already in the works and him reaching out to Alex was connected to that.I wonder if his email and meeting with Alex somehow sparked something.
More likely the plans to set up To the Stars Academy was already in the works and him reaching out to Alex was connected to that.
He was already getting the 3 vids released (FLIR1,Gimbal and GOFAST) in early AUgust.
|Thread starter||Related Articles||Forum||Replies||Date|
|Debunked: 1 Hour on this Bike Can Power Your Home For 24 hours [More like 5 minutes]||Science and Pseudoscience||18|
|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|
|Debunked: January 4th 2014 – Planetary Alignment Decreases Gravity – Float For 5 minutes!||Science and Pseudoscience||10|
|Climate Scientist Alan Robock gets asked every chemtrail question in 11 minutes||Contrails and Chemtrails||15|
|Debate Mentioned in this radio segment, Geoengineering Watch Global Alert News, January 30, 2016||Contrails and Chemtrails||16|
|Unusual Segment of Trail on KLAS-TV, Alamo, Las Vegas||Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky?||4|
|Debunked: Russian TV3's X-Version Segment on "Chemtrails"||Contrails and Chemtrails||0|
|Debunked: Meteorite? Paris, Oxford County, Maine [Sunlit contrail segment with shadow]||Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky?||46|
|Kentucky UFO - Jet Contrail Segment?||UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal||3|
|Why Doesn't The Military Shoot Down UFOs/UAPs in Military Airspace?||UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy||3|
|Off-Camera Pentagon Press Briefing comment on UAPs as Aliens:||UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal||2|
|DoD IG Evaluation of DoD's Action Regarding UAPs||UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy||22|