CBS 60 Minutes Segment on UAPs

Max Phalange

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.

The "Event Summary" appears to be a kind of standardised report made for every training exercise, e.g. From an air defense exercise later that day:

EventSideNarrative
ADEX
4A1,4B1,4D1
111,
212,201,
413
FAST EAGLES (BLUE), CAMELOTS (RED), AND HOBOS (BLUE) PERFORMED ADEX IN OPAREA MISR-1E, 2V2. ALL EXECUTED 3X RUNS.

So the whole tic-tac encounter has been crammed into the "Narrative" format which is usually just a couple of sentences.

This is quoted from the abovetopsecret.com forum where it originally appeared, not sure if there's a better formatted version to link to: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread265835/pg9#pid2951082

(Presumably one of those later sorties was the plane that filmed the FLIR1 video, but there's no mention of any such activity).
 

jackfrostvc

Active Member
The "Event Summary" appears to be a kind of standardised report made for every training exercise, e.g. From an air defense exercise later that day:

EventSideNarrative
ADEX
4A1,4B1,4D1
111,
212,201,
413
FAST EAGLES (BLUE), CAMELOTS (RED), AND HOBOS (BLUE) PERFORMED ADEX IN OPAREA MISR-1E, 2V2. ALL EXECUTED 3X RUNS.

So the whole tic-tac encounter has been crammed into the "Narrative" format which is usually just a couple of sentences.

This is quoted from the abovetopsecret.com forum where it originally appeared, not sure if there's a better formatted version to link to: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread265835/pg9#pid2951082

(Presumably one of those later sorties was the plane that filmed the FLIR1 video, but there's no mention of any such activity).

Event 4 you quoted (that comes after Event 3 - Fravor/Alex Tic Tac encounter) is talking about them doing a air defense excersize (ADEX) in the Missile Range MISR-1

From the location given of MISR-1 below, it puts the area right where the Nimitz and Tic Tac were generally. Also where the USS Louisville was.
Which as noted below is also an area designated for Carrier and Submarine activities. BTW: ASW is Anti Submarine Warfare


1621648646634.png

https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2008/10/W8b-10-2008-a3.pdf


Here is a map I got from Beaty which roughly shows where the Nimitz and the Tic Tac were sighted. The USS Lousiville from the AATIP report was meant to be in the vicinity of the Tic Tac sighting conducting live fire tests -> Missiles?

1621650539872.png
 

Alphadunk

Active Member
Curious that MISR-1 AND MISR-2 extend to exactly 80,000 feet. That's the exact altitude Kevin Day has claimed the radar returns were at before rapidly descending to sea level.
 

jackfrostvc

Active Member
One of the theories out there is that Fravor was inadvertantly vectored to a live fire test from the USS Louisville.
If you believe the Event Summary is accurate, the missile theory would be plausible as it makes no mention of the weird moves and just has an object travelling along and circling up with them losing it in HAZE.

I have heard through the grape vine (So take it with a grain of salt) that it was not the airforce that came on board to get the drives, but rather NCIS. I was also told the only other time someone had come on board in a similar fashion and took drives, was when a drone crashed into one of the ships
 
Last edited:

jackfrostvc

Active Member
Not sure when we are going to see Alex's reports, pics and diagrams she made of the Tic Tac event back when it happened, judging by the response below

1621683642835.png


She also did a radio interview where she said due to the time that has gone by , it's not really worth her trying to say what she remembers of the event. This is the second time she has said this. She also said the same thing on CNN when asked to describe what she saw

San Diego New Fix radio interviw: https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/san-diego-news-fix

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96dq1-ziUz0
 

Lu Ann Lewellen

New 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:


(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.

I'm watching this one as we type.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCH7BWGpl5s
 

ArtL7

New Member
Basically the same stories - nothing at all new, but packaged up for a general audience.
Were there any new videos in the 60 Minutes segment that weren't already debunked by you, Mick, as in FLIR/Gimbel/Go Fast? if so where are your debunking of any new video featured on 60 minutes? I appreciate your work, and I wrote critically years ago about Roswell claims for U.S. News and World Report; and also a hoaxing of Art Bell for MSNBC, but original print reporting for the website decades ago no longer online.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

TopBunk

Active Member
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.
What are the best arguments against it being a rotary drone? No visible rotors or tail? No noise? It's disappearance?
What if it was smaller than the 40-50ft estimate with an unusual intermeshing or coaxial rotor arrangement and turning at a very high rate? Would rotors on something like that even be visible or audible at Fravor's closest estimate of 1/2 mile or would it just look like a smooth solid object with no flight surfaces? Could explain the reported unusual movements and the appendages underneath.
 

Slides

New Member
What are the best arguments against it being a rotary drone? No visible rotors or tail? No noise? It's disappearance?
What if it was smaller than the 40-50ft estimate with an unusual intermeshing or coaxial rotor arrangement and turning at a very high rate? Would rotors on something like that even be visible or audible at Fravor's closest estimate of 1/2 mile or would it just look like a smooth solid object with no flight surfaces? Could explain the reported unusual movements and the appendages underneath.

There are also zero reasons why a rotor needs to be exposed outside of the main body of the vehicle to achieve flight. It does reduce efficiency but that's not technically unsurmountable. We already have examples of many fenestron tail rotors.

The main argument against this is the high altitudes achieved. But you can have a VTOL type aircraft with dual propulsion methods.
 
Top