CBS 60 Minutes Segment on UAPs
- Thread starter Mick West
- Start date
Not sure about the pilots but Elizondo has an agent who helps coordinate his appearances. Not sure if they handle everything for him but he has mentioned it in a couple of interviews.
deirdre
Senior Member.
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
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.
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
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.
Agreed.
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
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?
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
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 wrote a more extended response here:
https://www.skeptic.com/reading_roo...real-an-analysis-of-60-minutes-investigation/
https://www.skeptic.com/reading_roo...real-an-analysis-of-60-minutes-investigation/
The 60 Minutes segment of Sunday May 16, 2021 (available on YouTube), was no doubt for many people a startling revelation that the US Government has admitted that UFOs are “real” and the military is investigating them. But for me it was a walk down memory lane, a recap of the curious events of the last four years. A disappointing recap at that, as I’d hoped at least for some new nuggets of information that I could use to help solve the rather complicated puzzle of just exactly what is going on.
The segment opens with an interview with a familiar character, Luis Elizondo, reputedly the former head of a $22 million program instigated by Senator Harry Reid called AATIP: the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program. Ostensibly this was created to study possible future developments in aerospace. Elizondo claims the program was actually created to study UFOs (or, as they prefer to call them now, UAPs, or Unidentified Aerial Phenomena.) Put out to tender in 2008, the budget was awarded to Harry Reid’s friend, Robert Bigelow, a UFO and paranormal enthusiast.
[continues]
deirdre
Senior Member.
a "short dog fight"?? i thought a dog fight was shooting. I think readers may misinterpret whatever you mean by that, as what i think it means. (not sure if you can edit at this point)
deirdre
Senior Member.
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
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 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
Senior 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.
Buckaroo
Member
Yep, you're probably on to something.
MichaelMelisma
New Member
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
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
gtoffo
Active Member
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
Senior 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
I'd like to see Dave Beaty make a re-creation video from it
Last edited:
deirdre
Senior Member.
I thought you were making a direct reference to the official explanation for Minot 1968 case.
deirdre
Senior Member.
Because Fravor is already the Diana Ross of the group. as far as "fame".
Empiricist
Member
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.
I haven't exhaustively cross referenced the report but it doesn't completely line up with Fravor's story. The report states:
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.
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
It isn't all that odd for a Naval aviator to keep their helmet and oxygen mask. They're common souvenirs.
deirdre
Senior 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.
RTM
Active 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
Senior Member.
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:
Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in your country. We are engaged on the issue and committed to looking at options that support our full range of digital offerings to your market. We continue to identify technical compliance solutions that will provide all readers with our award-winning journalism.
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.Access Denied
You don't have permission to access "http://www.13newsnow.com/article/ne...ases/291-d6a4de31-b6ea-4cf3-b0b0-9ecb92b913a8" on this server.
Reference #18.5585655f.1621525472.aed1aaa
Empiricist
Member
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.
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.
no. somewhere on MB there are pictures of the talks he gives that show what he is probably talking about.
here
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/ttsas-metamaterials.10840/#post-234543
deirdre
Senior Member.
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
Senior 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.
I'm going on a limb to say the Event Summary was their supervisors report on what Fravor and Dietrich had told him.
jackfrostvc
Senior 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
Note Elizondo's title. Seems consistant with what he has said before
Last edited by a moderator:
Alexandria Nick
Active Member
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.
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.
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 What is the significance of Elizondo's title in the email? Is that something he hasn't made reference to before?
jackfrostvc
Senior Member
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.
deirdre
Senior Member.
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.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/tt...tion-email-exchange-release-under-foia.10868/
jackfrostvc
Senior Member
Similar threads
