Explained: New Navy UFO Videos

Dropping from 80K to sea level, no sonic boom?

What this sounds like to me is Electronic Warfare / Electronic Countermeasures...

...it was being spoofed by Electronic countermeasures painting a false target. That may be an explanation.

If we can speculate that Kevin Day's radar targets were all the result of electronic warfare testing, which is a credible hypothesis at this point, what reasoning can be used to dismiss/explain the visual sightings by Fravor, Dietrich, et al?

This isn't a challenge in order to delegitimise the radar spoofing theory. I'm geuinely curious to know what people believe the US military has by way of physical/optical spoofing tech, i.e. assuming Fravor et al are telling the truth about what they saw, how might one fool 4 experienced pilots and WSOs into "seeing" a 40-foot hypersonic flying tic-tac over the open ocean?
 
Last edited:

Ravi

Active Member
This isn't a challenge in order to delegitimise the radar spoofing theory. I'm geuinely curious to know what people believe the US military has by way of physical/optical spoofing tech, i.e. assuming Fravor et al are telling the truth about what they saw, how might one fool 4 experienced pilots and WSOs into "seeing" a 40-foot hypersonic flying tic-tac over the open ocean?
Because these 4 pilots all have a different recollection of what they saw, didn't they? And one pilot even mentions all the time that she thinks her memory of the event can change over time and thus not very reliable.

Personal witness accounts cannot be taken as facts.
 

jackfrostvc

Active Member
The issue with the testimony reports taken from Fravor etc is that they were all taken years after the event.
The problem with their testimonies is that it doesn't match the Event Summary which was allegedly taken from the Nimitz computer the day the Tic Tac event happened. This was leaked in 2007 along with the Tic Tac video on the ATS forum


1621942559991.png
 
Because these 4 pilots all have a different recollection of what they saw, didn't they? And one pilot even mentions all the time that she thinks her memory of the event can change over time and thus not very reliable.

Do all 4 of the aircrew recollect differently, though? In their 60 Minutes interview, Fravor and Dietrich seemed very much in agreement to me. I haven't seen either WSO interviewed, so I can't comment on them.

And even when the 2 pilots make different analogies, they're clearly describing the same thing, e.g. I believe Fravor has described the tic-tac's movement as being like a ping-pong ball in a cup, whereas Dietrich said it moved like your phone does when you drop it and it bounces off several surfaces on its way to the floor. To my mind, both are trying to convey an erratic, unusual, rapid oscillation of some kind.

One's memory can and does change over time, admittedly, but what specific differences are you alleging, please?

Personal witness accounts cannot be taken as facts.

I really would have to dispute this. One cannot disregard all eye-witness testimony just because some of it is less than 100% accurate.
 
The issue with the testimony reports taken from Fravor etc is that they were all taken years after the event.
One's memory can and does change over time, admittedly, but what specific issues with Fravor's memory are you claiming, please? Are there large contradictory discrepancies between Fravor's accounts in years X and Y, for example?

I don't honestly see any significant differences between Fravor's account and the alleged Event Summary. Moreover, I don't see any value in even assessing where and how Fravor's claims and the alleged Event Summary do or do not match, as the latter hasn't itself been authenticated and could be from some 16-year-old's imagination.
 

jackfrostvc

Active Member
One's memory can and does change over time, admittedly, but what specific issues with Fravor's memory are you claiming, please? Are there large contradictory discrepancies between Fravor's accounts in years X and Y, for example?

I don't honestly see any significant differences between Fravor's account and the alleged Event Summary. Moreover, I don't see any value in even assessing where and how Fravor's claims and the alleged Event Summary do or do not match, as the latter hasn't itself been authenticated and could be from some 16-year-old's imagination.

The event summary was leaked by the same person who first leaked the Tic Tac video in Jan 2007. If it weren't for that leak, I doubt anything you heard afterwoods re: Tic Tac event would have come out.

And the ES does differ from Fravors testimony in some critical ways.

1) No ping ponging mentioned
2) It was seen 5NM from the water disturbance, not over it
3) Fravor and Dietrich lost it in Haze, whereas they now claim it was a perfect california day and the object disapeered
 

JMartJr

Active Member
what reasoning can be used to dismiss/explain the visual sightings by Fravor, Dietrich, et al?
Witnesses in communication with one another during and after the event, with loss of situational awareness during the incident seems likely to me.

I'm geuinely curious to know what people believe the US military has by way of physical/optical spoofing tech, i.e. assuming Fravor et al are telling the truth about what they saw, how might one fool 4 experienced pilots and WSOs into "seeing" a 40-foot hypersonic flying tic-tac over the open ocean?
It is important to differentiate between being honest and being accurate. Other than Cmdr. Fravor's somewhat troubling admission to generating (or trying to generate) fake UFO reports earlier in his career, I see no reason to suspect that any of those involved are being dishonest. On balance, my judgement is that they are honestly reporting what they believe they observed. But in the middle of what seems to have been a UFO flap on their ship, they were sent out to intercept a UFO, and interpreted what they saw and experienced through that lens.

That's my "best guess" as to what happened, based on discussions in this and other threads and listening tomuch but likely not all of what they have said publicly. Hard to prove it, maybe it is wrong. But it seems to me to be sufficient -- not to DISMISS their account -- but to recognize it has very little value without hard evidence to go with it. There's no video or pictures from the incident available to us. think it is significant that videos leaked of other incidents do not show the sort of things Fravor et al describe.
 

jarlrmai

Active Member
The main thing to me is that this testimony is always told alongside these videos on media, people even Elizondo with Mick have admitted that a lot of what has been analysed about the videos is likely the case, especially Go Fast, yet there is Go Fast playing as usual on every media appearance.

This is probably or claimed to be the producers of the TV show. But it would go a long way if they came out and said look yeah Go Fast isn't actually going fast and thus please don't show it as part of the show. Would that be huge story, would it be seen a big climb down? Possibly.

Even by omission of not removing them the implication is we saw some weird shit and here is the videos that show it. Every time it is shown alongside the testimony it reinforces it.
 
The event summary was leaked by the same person who first leaked the Tic Tac video in Jan 2007. If it weren't for that leak, I doubt anything you heard afterwoods re: Tic Tac event would have come out.

And the ES does differ from Fravors testimony in some critical ways.

1) No ping ponging mentioned
2) It was seen 5NM from the water disturbance, not over it
3) Fravor and Dietrich lost it in Haze, whereas they now claim it was a perfect california day and the object disapeered

Thanks for the points. Is there a link to the 2007 leak, please?

Perhaps I tend to take Fravor and Dietrich at their word because of their earnest, clean cut, all-Americanism, and maybe I'm a massive dupe for doing so. (I honestly accept that this whole thing could be one big psy op, and I also agree that the videos are worthless garbage that prove nothing, but that's neither Fravor's doing nor does his discredit his claim IMHO.) Nonetheless, I still feel it unfair to dispute the pilots' testimony and/or impugn their motives on the basis of an Event Summary of unknown provenance.

There's so many fallacies flying around here (let alone tic-tacs). Even if we assume the Event Summary is a genuine contemporary document from the Nimitz, how do we know, for example, that the author got his/her facts straight? The summary's author could have included some details and not others, got some wrong and some right, etc. One can't doubt Fravor on that basis.

We're having our cake, eating it, and nitpicking the crumbs by saying they're dishonest and mistaken conspirators with shoddy memories in 'lockstep' with differing accounts about a 17-year-old 'loss of situational awareness'. Occam's razor must be mentioned every few posts on here, yet why isn't the simplest answer the true one: they did see what they say they saw? Why wasn't this just a real, physical, top secret, high-tech US drone? That screams likely to me far more than 3D holograms or 2 pilots with dodgy eyes, memories, etc.

I also can't see how it's in any way 'troubling' that Fravor, allegedly like many pilots, mucked about years before 2004 freaking out campers with his afterburners. That's not a behavioural pattern of dishonesty. It's like the modern left-wing notion of problematic, i.e. something someone did decades ago is not a real issue but I don't like the person so I'll pretend it is to score a point.

Lastly, to be a momentary devil's advocate, while the ES doesn't mention ping ponging, it does describe a, 'wingless, mobile, white, oblong pill shaped craft' travelling at several hundred knots and able to out-turn and out-run an F-18. Jeez! What do we want? Given all that, does it matter that ping-ponging isn't mentioned?

To my mind, the issue still remains: 2 experienced pilots (plus 2 WSOs presumably) all say they saw a giant, flying, white, high-speed tic-tac with no control surfaces, and that hasn't changed in 17 years.

I'll give it a rest for a few days, as some of this is really beginning to feel like nitpicking to the nth degree to me. Plus it's all conjecture on everyone's part, including mine.
 

Buckaroo

Member
We're having our cake, eating it, and nitpicking the crumbs by saying they're dishonest and mistaken conspirators with shoddy memories in 'lockstep' with differing accounts about a 17-year-old 'loss of situational awareness'.
It's hardly nitpicking. We know that objects that defy what we know to be true about physics don't exist. We also know that eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. It's difficult to overstate just how malleable human perception and memory actually is, and there's a whole literature describing the psychology. So the parsimonious explanation is psychological, not Fortean. That old cliche from Sherlock Holmes cuts both ways.

I've not heard anyone claim that Fravor, Dietrich, or Day are being dishonest, or that their memory is any shoddier than any other average person. (Elizondo, on the other hand...)
 
Last edited:

Empiricist

New Member
And one pilot even mentions all the time that she thinks her memory of the event can change over time and thus not very reliable.
She's just acknowledging the same things we all say here: that human memory and perception are fallible. She is speaking directly to us skeptics, saying: "yes, I know this is incredible, and just because I remember it doesn't prove it happened that way", not "I personally have a poor memory and think my recollection of the event is faulty". I find this particularly ironic, as by prefacing her statements that way in an attempt to get skeptics to hear her out without immediately writing off her experience, she appears to have just given more ammunition to invalidate her claims. I made a similar post about this issue the other day that goes into more detail.

If you can provide a specific example of her saying something closer to the second statement, please link it.
 

lougiants

New Member
If we can speculate that Kevin Day's radar targets were all the result of electronic warfare testing, which is a credible hypothesis at this point, what reasoning can be used to dismiss/explain the visual sightings by Fravor, Dietrich, et al?

This isn't a challenge in order to delegitimise the radar spoofing theory. I'm geuinely curious to know what people believe the US military has by way of physical/optical spoofing tech, i.e. assuming Fravor et al are telling the truth about what they saw, how might one fool 4 experienced pilots and WSOs into "seeing" a 40-foot hypersonic flying tic-tac over the open ocean?
Hi Banditsat12oclock.

My opinion, I don't think they were linked. I believe Day said they were seeing these targets for multiple days...and I am not convinced that those targets ( I think he said clusters of target - maybe recon balloons) were what Fravor and his team saw.

Just as note, I was a Electronic Warfare repair specialist in the Air Force circa mid 80's - B52. I don't claim to know anything secret.
But you can google Project Palladium = 1960 Technology:

In 1960, when the Soviet Union moved a Tall King radar system to Cuba, the CIA began covertly using PALLADIUM to trick Russian air-defense radars into thinking unidentified aircraft were flying towards and even into Cuban airspace. As one of the few members of the PALLADIUM team, Barnes served as the air-defense artillery (ADA) and electronic/electromagnetic countermeasures (ECM/ECCM) officer for the classified program.

“Using an electronics-laden C-97 [EC-97G], we could make Soviet radars believe they were tracking any number of aerial objects,” mused Barnes. “At one point, a Russian MiG-15 pilot even claimed he could see the target and had a lock on it.”


I kind of commented in some other threads but let me offer some explanations( the rest of the members can flame me later :eek:):
  1. It was a balloon - a Motorized balloon. The drive was first to report on the below patent.
    1. U.S. Patent #7341224B1, which was filed in 2004 and awarded in 2008, describes a Miniature Robot Surveillance Balloon that has thrusters to control its flight path and can carry an electrical-powered payload aloft.
    2. Which if you want to connect Kevin Days sightings by all means do so as it could have been set up with radar jamming equipment.
  2. A different version of the Skunk Works Cormorant , DARPA contract in 2004= released from a submarine. Note, this thing (maybe not the Cormorant, but a different design) looked like a tic tac when they saw it as it rose, but then deployed some type of wings when it flew off. Just a thought.
    1. Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mCTVvh-zPE
  3. Fravor seemed to say two things One : it flew away in a second and was gone, Two: in the 60 minutes interview said it disappeared. Two different things in my book. Maybe I am wrong on what he said, but fact check me. Is it possible the balloon self deflated as it went in the opposite direction (this is a motorized balloon with thrusters - please read the patent) that made it seem like it disappeared as it plummeted to the water and disappeared?
  4. The US was testing a new propulsion system that they were testing on a drone that we have yet to perfect - and quite possibly this propulsion system is highly dangerous and volatile on a number of levels. Pencil in any black project or NASA project that we do not know about.
  5. Any version of the above from Russia.
  6. What is being reported didn't actually happen as stated.
  7. They saw a typical experimental drone for the time, that exhibited normal characteristics as a drone today would do, but they got confused. The Navy rather then embarrass the pilots just kept a lid on it in hope that it would just go away. It did not with the release of the FLIR video.
  8. OK, maybe extraterrestrial.
That's all I got brother.
 
Last edited:

saucerpilot

New Member
I want to bring up a couple of ideas.

1)

A seeming contradiction in Fravor's account. He's mentioned at least once that one of the first things he looked for after spotting the tic-tac, was rotor wash from a helicopter. But when he says this, it was just after he said the object was darting around like a ping-pong ball, (he moved his hands in an erratic way, changing trajectory several times a second, to demonstrate the movement.) It seems to me like his description of its erratic motion would have automatically precluded the possibility of a helicopter.

So did he make the helicopter comment just for effect? Or was he actually incongruously contemplating that what he was seeing might be a helicotper? Or was his helicopter comment evidence that he might have been exaggerating his description of its original erratic motion?

2)

Have you guys considered the possibility that a waterspout could have accounted for the disturbance that they saw in the water, as well as the erratic motion of whatever the tic-tac was? I was able to find several videos of waterspouts over water, that appeared visually to be little more than a disturbance on the water's surface.
 

derwoodii

Senior Member.
All events explained or shown beyond reasonable doubt but aarg :( the amount of misinform on UAP is reaching fever pitch on MSM TV down here.
Really tiresome & now i suspect over next weeks they ( TV ) will flipflop and chase the story's tails to milk it for more advert $$ clicks.
 

Sgt.Squarehead

New Member
Has the possibility that all of this is just a PsyOp been considered hereabouts?

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2021/05/21/pentagon-ufo-psyops-fuel-russia-china-war-risk/

Mick gets a mention in the article, which further links to this article from the New York Post:

https://nypost.com/2021/04/21/ufo-expert-debunks-navy-footage-of-pyramid-shaped-objects/

Apparently you are a 'UFO Expert'...Did you get a badge or a special hat (maybe made of tinfoil)? ;)

TBH this certainly seems a likely possibilty to me, given how easily the folks hereabouts have offered highly plausible conventional explanations for all of these videos (thus far, AFAIK). It's certainly a lot more manageable on the logistics front than launching helicopter drones from a submarine, regardless of who they might belong to!
 

Mauro

Active Member
In case anyone is interested, Richard Carrier (whom I'm a big fan of) has just posted on his blog an article about the Navy videos and the upcoming UFO report: https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/18441

He suggests that the UFO video clips came from a military training video, used to teach analysts how not to be fooled by what they see (I never heard of this hypothesis before):
Some of the material is so obviously identifiable that we can be almost sure this video was created as part of a lecture package to advise personnel on how to identify anomalous visual effects. I think the military well knows what the objects shown are, and has been using this video to train analysts to recognize them. I predict this will be admitted to (either directly or not) in the forthcoming UFO report.

He resumes the debunking of various UFO videos (Pyramid UFO, Gimbal, Tic-Tac, Go Fast etc.) through analysis made by others (and especially Mick West) and through his own ideas and analysis. This part is quite long, detailed and rigorous.

As usual with Carrier, he also takes his time to explain how evidence should be examined and how inferences should be made, just this makes the article worth to read, ie.:
the probability of a mundane explanation equals the sum of the probabilities of all mundane explanations, e.g. for UFO reports, P(mundane) = P(meteorites) + P(aircraft) + P(cloud) + P(flares) + P(etc.), such that it is not necessary to have pegged what something is, only the ordered list of things it more likely could be, and when that list’s all-sum probability exceeds “aliens,” you know it’s probably not aliens
 

jarlrmai

Active Member
I would be pleasantly surprised if any of the 'big' cases were mentioned by name in the report or even by implication. But we shall see.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
used to teach analysts how not to be fooled by what they see (I never heard of this hypothesis before):
it was mentioned here when TTSA released the "big three" videos because Elizondo had labeled them "Gimbal", "balloons" and i think "UAS"? on his release request form. Although our members said to train pilots, not analysts.
 

Alphadunk

Member
Yes the idea that that videos and slides represent training material has been a hypothesis for as long as the media itself has been in the public eye. I scanned the article but didn't really see anything new or noteworthy. All the same stuff that has been discussed here for years and I don't think Carrier's word carries any more weight than anyone here or elsewhere.

At this point I think we're all just waiting for the report to see if it confirms or throws into question our current understanding of the sighting. I'm still pretty pessimistic that it will contain anything interesting.
 

SkepticSteve

New Member
Has the possibility that all of this is just a PsyOp been considered hereabouts?

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2021/05/21/pentagon-ufo-psyops-fuel-russia-china-war-risk/

Mick gets a mention in the article, which further links to this article from the New York Post:

https://nypost.com/2021/04/21/ufo-expert-debunks-navy-footage-of-pyramid-shaped-objects/

Apparently you are a 'UFO Expert'...Did you get a badge or a special hat (maybe made of tinfoil)? ;)

TBH this certainly seems a likely possibilty to me, given how easily the folks hereabouts have offered highly plausible conventional explanations for all of these videos (thus far, AFAIK). It's certainly a lot more manageable on the logistics front than launching helicopter drones from a submarine, regardless of who they might belong to!

The idea of the UAP disclosure being a kind of Pentagon-orchestrated chessboard move seems plausible at first. The videos can be obviously easily dismissed and Elizondo's insistence that the Gimbal video is showing an actual UAP in Mick's interview appears utterly bizarre. Such that one might speculate that Elizondo is either delusional or has been deliberately set up by his superiors for years. But then: Can the consequences of such an organized disclosure really be considered in isolation?

I might be too good-willing in this regard though. Even though not being knowledgeable about the many cold war intrigues, the political circumstances which lead to the 2003 invasion of Iraq were definitely sending shock waves of distrust through the remaining Western nations. However, nevertheless these did not have any effect on hindering the invasion.
 

Keith Beachy

Senior Member
...
One of the primary innovations of the AN/SPY-1A/B system is its ability to maintain a live track instead of “pinging” a target sporadically as is the case with more antiquated systems.
The system can have false targets ...
There were no eyewitness accounts of the 0.78 second period under discussion. Just Day’s recollection of the radar data.
... possible false target. (radar, even the "super duper computer radar systems of today", have false targets. It would be interesting to know how the computer system algorithms handle possible false targets, the raw data)

As for physics defying act by a visual object with mass, or a radar return... it is junk science. Visual illusion and false radar returns can do the impossible maneuvers. For anyone who claims otherwise, show the math, the physics, the differential equations, the nonlinear differential equations, for physics on a Macro Scale.

This is the new UFO/UAP crazy stuff (as it pertains to not of this world, defies the laws of physics, and ET, and media hype), so far there is no evidence - hope Congress does not let contracts for millions to buddies who investigate these illusions. Darn, I wish I had made friends with congressmen who let contracts... darn
Has the possibility that all of this is just a PsyOp been considered hereabouts?

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2021/05/21/pentagon-ufo-psyops-fuel-russia-china-war-risk/

...
No big deal sort of, but - Strategic Culture Foundation is a questionable source, extreme right-wing, Russian propaganda, conspiracy theories. Goal is to deceive readers. SCR is not a credible source. I guess it is PsyOp, aka Russian Propaganda bunk.
 

Alphadunk

Member
Bill's messaging on the topic seems pretty consistent. Here he is a few days ago answering a similar question:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSk2hfFsXiI


As far as I'm aware this is the first time we've heard that NASA is actively "studying" the phenomenon even though Bill implies it's sort of a casual investigation at this point. Even for those who remain staunch skeptics, what a wild and interesting story this whole thing has become.
 

Ravi

Active Member
All I can see is Bill mentioning that he talked to the pilots (paraphrasing here), "they think it it real". Then he says "what can we (NASA) do from a science perspective?, Thomas can maybe say something". And Thomas continues about NASA advancements in trying to find life using scientifically methods.

Am I missing some clue here? NASA will not suddenly start analysing UFO videos, that sounds rediculous.
 

jackfrostvc

Active Member
All I can see is Bill mentioning that he talked to the pilots (paraphrasing here), "they think it it real". Then he says "what can we (NASA) do from a science perspective?, Thomas can maybe say something". And Thomas continues about NASA advancements in trying to find life using scientifically methods.

Am I missing some clue here? NASA will not suddenly start analysing UFO videos, that sounds rediculous.
So he asked the NASA scientists to look into it. They would scrutinise the data available . As such , why wouldn't they look at the videos?
 

Mike Miker

New Member
Has the possibility that all of this is just a PsyOp been considered hereabouts?

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2021/05/21/pentagon-ufo-psyops-fuel-russia-china-war-risk/

Mick gets a mention in the article, which further links to this article from the New York Post:

https://nypost.com/2021/04/21/ufo-expert-debunks-navy-footage-of-pyramid-shaped-objects/

Apparently you are a 'UFO Expert'...Did you get a badge or a special hat (maybe made of tinfoil)? ;)

TBH this certainly seems a likely possibilty to me, given how easily the folks hereabouts have offered highly plausible conventional explanations for all of these videos (thus far, AFAIK). It's certainly a lot more manageable on the logistics front than launching helicopter drones from a submarine, regardless of who they might belong to!
I suggest this is the main thing about the videos: they in themselves offer no definitive or conclusive evidence of anything unusual. They don't demonstrate high velocities or accelerations. They don't even demonstrate clearly unusual shapes or motion. As far as they go in isolation, one need go no further in trying to discount them as clear evidence of the paranormal. Offering up explanations involving conspiracy theories without evidence to support them, is to employ the tactics of your ideological enemies.
 

Sgt.Squarehead

New Member
No big deal sort of, but - Strategic Culture Foundation is a questionable source, extreme right-wing, Russian propaganda, conspiracy theories. Goal is to deceive readers. SCR is not a credible source. I guess it is PsyOp, aka Russian Propaganda bunk.
I'm aware of the issues with the sources, hence my lighthearted treatment of them.

However, the argument remains a lot more plausible than ET visitors, submarine launched drones, or TBH highly trained US Navy personell misidentifying other aircraft.

Keep in mind that the US still has a shiny new Space Force to fund.

PS - Mick's getting mentions everywhere these days:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...o-navy-luis-elizondo-republican-b1860135.html
But most of the stories amount to the same old drivel.
 
Last edited:

Epicon

New Member
To the part of not matching testemonies: I have given some testemonies in my life and it was always me talking and someone typing. At the end, I got some time to read and sign it. However the understanding of someone of your words can be very different. I'm also a film director. I cant count how often I said something and watched people doing something different. Sometimes people think in a way and its hard for them to see/understand what you are talking about. In the case of testemonies, I was always correcting stuff but often they were dismssed as unimportant details. It felt wrong because the reality of the event got distorted by that.

I mean exactly stuff like : is it 5 NM from the whitewater or is it right above the whitewater?

I just wanted to mention this. You can test this by telling someone a story who has to type it and then read what they have written. And then imagine the person absolutely has no patience in correcting the details that are wrong.

It's funny because its your words but mashed up with something else and somehow agitating because its simply not what youve said.
 

TopBunk

New Member
Apologies if this is already common knowledge but
Fravor seems to agree (in various interviews i.e. Lex Fridman, Joe Rogan) that FLIR1 shows the same object (or type of object) that he and other aircrew saw some hours earlier. Underwood doesn't seem to assert that the video he took is the same object (https://nymag.com/intelligencer/201...o-q-and-a-with-navy-pilot-chad-underwood.html) yet it was unidentified.
Does anyone know if the other pilots (Dietrich) / co-pilots agree FLIR1 shows what they saw?
 
Last edited:

Agent K

Senior Member
Apologies if this is already common knowledge but
Fravor seems to agree (in various interviews i.e. Lex Fridman, Joe Rogan) that FLIR1 shows the same object (or type of object) that he and other aircrew saw some hours earlier. Underwood doesn't seem to assert that the video he took is the same object (https://nymag.com/intelligencer/201...o-q-and-a-with-navy-pilot-chad-underwood.html) yet it was unidentified.
Does anyone know if the other pilots (Dietrich) / co-pilots agree FLIR1 shows what they saw?
FLIR1 was recorded at a different place and time than Fravor's tic tac encounter, so all Fravor can say is that the object in the FLIR1 video roughly matches the shape of the tic tac he saw with his eyes. But the video doesn't even show whether the target is white like the tic tac, and it certainly doesn't move like the tic tac in Fravor's account.
 

TopBunk

New Member
Yes I’m aware that the available FLIR1 video itself is unremarkable yet there’s significant commentary and speculation about what it shows, i.e Fravor remarking at length about the technology required for the supposed rapid acceleration, yet in the interview (above) Underwood seems to concede that the section of the video doesn't capture the extraordinary movements he says witnessed on his instruments. So I’m wondering if the other FastEagle eyewitnesses agree that it could be the same object or whether there is a doubt? I can't find anything on that from the available interviews, it just get’s glossed over or never asked. It seems important to know if their opinion differs from Fravors.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Mick West Explained: Chilean Navy "UFO" video - Aerodynamic Contrails, Flight IB6830 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 186
Mick West Explained: Why Magnets Stick To Vaccination Sites (Or Your Nose) Conspiracy Theories 18
Mick West Explained: Odd Looking Bidens/Carters Photo - Not Fake, Just Perspective General Discussion 71
Mick West Explained: UFO Filmed With Telescope [Loon Balloon] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 2
Mick West Explained: Sky Mapping at the Seattle Space Needle [Virtual, Not "Blue Beam] Conspiracy Theories 0
Patrick Gonzalez Explained: Why Biden is boarding C-32 instead of VC-25 Election 2020 35
TEEJ Explained: Inaguration Photos from Different Angles Show Different Backgrounds. Election 2020 9
P Explained: Exactly 5.55555556% (1/18) of votes for Trump across multiple precincts [Cherry Picked, Expected Ratios] Election 2020 20
DavidB66 Explained: Boris Johnson Photo With Confusing Reflection of Phone Cord Election 2020 12
Mick West Explained: Wingless Tic-Tac UFOs Moving Erratically Behind Trees UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 1
Mick West Explained: 9:33 AM ET Time on NPR Story about Storming the Capitol Election 2020 0
A.G. Explained: Covid-19 research with pre-2020 dates in Google search results Coronavirus COVID-19 4
Mick West Explained: "Disappearing needles" in Covid Vaccinations Coronavirus COVID-19 1
Mick West Explained: 82nd Airborne: "A Storm Is Coming" - Operation Devil Storm Conspiracy Theories 12
Mick West Explained: Fulton County, Georgia, "Suitcases" of Ballots being Scanned Election 2020 1
Z.W. Wolf Explained: Red Mirages, Blue Shifts, and Data Dumps in the 2020 Election Election 2020 21
Mick West Explained: Trump's Claim of Suspicious Early Morning Michigan Bump [It's Detroit] Election 2020 1
Eleora Explained: "Quantum Dots" - Storing medical information below the skin’s surface Coronavirus COVID-19 13
Cassi O Polaris Height Perspective Explained (No math required) Flat Earth 1
Mick West Explained: RARE Video Footage of "Alien Space Craft" WATCHING ISS Astronaut! UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 1
A Explained: astronaut's movement causes lunar flag to wave in Apollo 15 footage Conspiracy Theories 0
Mick West Explained: The "Many Faces" of Patrick Crusius, the El Paso Shooter Conspiracy Theories 22
Mick West Explained: "Beam of Light" in To The Stars Academy header images UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 0
Mick West Explained: "UFOS" in Donald Trump's Crowd Photo on 4th of July UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 3
D Explained: Photo of 747 with Contrails Only on One Side [Fake, April Fool] Contrails and Chemtrails 21
Qulaey Explained: 17.61 Mile Mirror Flash Supposedly Proves Flat Earth [Refraction] Flat Earth 5
Mick West Explained: The Navy's New "UFO" Reporting Guidelines UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 32
Mick West Explained: "It's photoshopped because it has to be" Flat Earth 3
Mick West Explained: Jet Chasing UFO: X-45A and F/A-18B Formation Flight Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 6
Trailblazer Explained: video of concentric circular "chemtrails" (E-3 Sentry AWACS plane, Feb 1 2019) Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 3
Rory Explained: How Mount Rainier helps demonstrate the shape of the globe Flat Earth 38
creatonez Explained: Why the Earth does not look oblate in photos from space Flat Earth 0
MikeG Explained: EU Army Deployed to Paris Conspiracy Theories 1
Mick West Explained: Unexplained Green Light During Thunderstorm [Water on Lens, Caustics] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 7
Mick West Explained: Flashes of Light During the World Trade Center Collapse 9/11 5
Mick West Explained: House "Cut in Half", Tubbs Fire, Santa Rosa, Coffey Park Wildfires 0
Mick West Explained: Burnt Cars on California Beach [TV Set] Wildfires 1
Mick West Explained: Unknown Brewing Company UFO UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 0
Mick West Explained: Why Kavanaugh's Calendar PDF looks Edited [OCR] Current Events 0
Mick West Explained: Mysterious Red Planet Like Object Filmed Next To The Moon. Atglen [Reflection] UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 0
Mick West Explained: Podesta 14 + Fish [Promotional Tweet for UN Global Sustainability Goals] Conspiracy Theories 7
Mick West Explained: Dark Streak UFO Photo - Barn Swallow + Motion Blur UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 0
Mick West Explained: DEW Energy Beam Starting Forest Fires - Dirty Lens, Light Streak Conspiracy Theories 13
Mick West Explained: A Dozen Or More Southern Valley UFOs UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 0
Mick West Explained: Floating Triangle UFO in Buenos Aires Google Maps [Bridge] UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 0
Rory Explained: Space Shuttle Footage Reflection of Face [Shot Through Window] Conspiracy Theories 5
Mick West Explained: Washington State Island "Mystery missile" - Helicopter Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 49
Andrew Gillett Explained: Squares in the sky? [Reflection of lights in a window] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 18
Mick West Explained: Mysterious lights over Milwaukee [Seagulls, Night Exposure Trails] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 27
Mick West Explained: Why Some Marjory Stoneman Douglas Shooting Google Search Results Predate the Event Conspiracy Theories 1
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top