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?
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.