Fravor's Hypersonic UFO observation. Parallax Illusion? Comparing Accounts

gtoffo

Active Member
That doesn't seem to add up. Linear motion on the part of the object and observer wouldn't result in apparent abrupt changes of direction.
Makes even less sense if we consider there were 2 sets of observers from different vantage points.

That's a lot of redundancy by very experienced observers for this to be a complete failure of perception.

Possible of course... but exceedingly improbable.

For example:
  • let's say it was a ballon tethered to a sub flapping in the wind.
  • The balloon is then released and starts going up as the jet flies down
  • the balloon is then ingested in the engines (would cause damage) or propelled by the jet exhaust and appears to accelerate or just blows up and disappears.
We would need all 4 observers to completely misinterpret this chain of events. And this would be a balloon.... not anything particularly fancy. We would need 4 Navy pilots to be basically drunk flying. And on the same day we would need weird radar returns, an unknown sub making unknown tests, a video of an unknown object etc.

This doesn't work.
 

jackfrostvc

Active Member
Unknown Sub?

We have already talked about the USS Louisville being at that location. Also an EW balloon launched from a sub is a thing.
 

gtoffo

Active Member
Unknown Sub?

We have already talked about the USS Louisville being at that location. Also an EW balloon launched from a sub is a thing.
Ok so either:
- an unknown sub

OR

- the USS Louisville forgetting they deployed a balloon
AND
- in the wrong position OR the F-18s in the wrong position
AND
- USS Princeton not realising they were guiding the F-18 to intercept a friendly sub training
AND
- no subsequent investigation figuring that out

Either doesn't seem very probable.
 

jackfrostvc

Active Member
Ok so either:
- an unknown sub

OR

- the USS Louisville forgetting they deployed a balloon
AND
- in the wrong position OR the F-18s in the wrong position
AND
- USS Princeton not realising they were guiding the F-18 to intercept a friendly sub training
AND
- no subsequent investigation figuring that out

Either doesn't seem very probable.

-USS Louisville forgetting they launched a balloon? They never said that.
-In the wrong position, how so, they were there
-As you saw in the AATIP report, the range manager had no notice of any live fire tests, yet the AATIP report also says the Louisville performed live fire tests. One of the odd things that was in that report which I pointed out
-Who said there was no investigation or that they didn't figure it out?
 

Alphadunk

Active Member
The balloon theory seems to have gained prominence after TheDrive published a piece on the subject (linked below) in 2019. There is very little information online about the types of balloons that a sub might launch or even if it is something that happens in modern operations. We know sub launched balloons have been used in the past but it remains unclear if America has used them or continues to do so. Submarine technology and operations are notoriously secretive so it isn't too surprising I'm coming up empty. I plan on doing some more searching but if anyone has any information or links handy it would be appreciated.

The questions I had hoped I could find answers to:
  • What types of balloons can be launched from a sub? How big are they?
  • Does the launch necessitate the sub breaching or coming close to the surface? (disturbance in the water)
  • Are the balloons tethered or optionally tethered?
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...are-encountering-be-airborne-radar-reflectors
 

Tim Printy

New Member
The balloon theory seems to have gained prominence after TheDrive published a piece on the subject (linked below) in 2019. There is very little information online about the types of balloons that a sub might launch or even if it is something that happens in modern operations. We know sub launched balloons have been used in the past but it remains unclear if America has used them or continues to do so. Submarine technology and operations are notoriously secretive so it isn't too surprising I'm coming up empty. I plan on doing some more searching but if anyone has any information or links handy it would be appreciated.

The questions I had hoped I could find answers to:
  • What types of balloons can be launched from a sub? How big are they?
  • Does the launch necessitate the sub breaching or coming close to the surface? (disturbance in the water)
  • Are the balloons tethered or optionally tethered?
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...are-encountering-be-airborne-radar-reflectors
I spent twenty-two years in the Navy. Most of the time was on submarines. I retired in 2000. I can answer some of those questions based on my experience.

1. I have never seen the submarine launch balloons. We did have a signal ejector (which was sort of a mini-torpedo tube) to eject flares and noisemakers. I never saw a balloon being ejected, which would be the only way a submerged submarine could do so. It would have to be in a signal ejector tube to be launched from underwater.
2. Since I never saw a balloon launched from any of my subs (one ballistic 616class/aka boomer and two attack/aka fast attack subs 688 class). Again, if it could be done submerged, it would have to be via the signal ejector. However, I have never seen one done this way and were not aware of any such items to be used in the signal ejector. However, I was a nuke and we just pushed the cone and provided electricity. My knowledge of what happened in Ops and weapons was limited to what I saw and learned during qualification. If subs have launched balloons in the past, I would expect them to be surfaced.
3. I would assume balloons launched from a sub would be untethered. Why tie something to you ship if you want to remain undetected?

I hope this helps. I tried contacting some people from Louisville a few years ago and had no luck.
 

jackfrostvc

Active Member
The pic of Fravors drawing is from James Fox - The Phenomonen
Sorry, thought I had said it, but looks like I forgot to add that
 

Alphadunk

Active Member
I spent twenty-two years in the Navy. Most of the time was on submarines. I retired in 2000. I can answer some of those questions based on my experience.

1. I have never seen the submarine launch balloons. We did have a signal ejector (which was sort of a mini-torpedo tube) to eject flares and noisemakers. I never saw a balloon being ejected, which would be the only way a submerged submarine could do so. It would have to be in a signal ejector tube to be launched from underwater.
2. Since I never saw a balloon launched from any of my subs (one ballistic 616class/aka boomer and two attack/aka fast attack subs 688 class). Again, if it could be done submerged, it would have to be via the signal ejector. However, I have never seen one done this way and were not aware of any such items to be used in the signal ejector. However, I was a nuke and we just pushed the cone and provided electricity. My knowledge of what happened in Ops and weapons was limited to what I saw and learned during qualification. If subs have launched balloons in the past, I would expect them to be surfaced.
3. I would assume balloons launched from a sub would be untethered. Why tie something to you ship if you want to remain undetected?

I hope this helps. I tried contacting some people from Louisville a few years ago and had no luck.

Thanks so much Tim. This aligns with what I've gleaned from reaching out to people and doing reading on the subject. I've found zero evidence that launching balloons from American submarines is something that is done today or in the recent past.
 

Candy-O

New Member
The 4 pilot sightings do not just exist by themselves out of context. The whole reason they were instructed to go investigate was a radar hit. And leading up to that day there were several incidents of objects (plural) showing up on radar with improbable velocities. Then that same day you have Chad Underwood showing up and taking the FLIR footage. And you also have Fravor being told that the objects showed up several minutes later at their CAP point, many miles away. So we have 3 interlocking aspects - 4 pilot sightings, multiple radar hits, and FLIR footage. All 3 need to be addressed in a cohesive manner, not piecemeal, if the incident is to be solved.

My issue with every explanation I've seen here is that, in isolation, a single aspect of the incident can definitely be shown to have a possible prosaic explanation such a radar glitch, or a balloon etc. But I'm still waiting for a hypothesis that explains ALL the various facets of the encounter in a cohesive manner. IMO, tacking together 10 different unlikely (but still theoretically possible) explanations for each segment of the incident ends up being more unwieldy (and farfetched) than the straight forward explanation offered by the pilots and physical evidence.

At what point do the great lengths concocted to explain away every facet of the incident start to violate Occam's Razor's tenant of "the simplest explanation tends to be the right one" I think there has to be a simpler explanation that accounts for all of the aspects of this incident, but so far have not seen anything convincing here. There is nothing simple about this case, because for every single bit of alternative prosaic explanation you can come up with, there is another part of the incident that negates it. Simple balloon? What about the radar? Radar glitch? What about visual sightings and FLIR? FLIR was a normal plane in the area? What caused the previous radar hits and the 4 pilot reports? Pilot's were imagining things/misidentification/ lying? What about the FLIR and the radar? We just go around in circles.

I will grant that sometimes in life you have a series of highly unlikely events that all string together to create a one in a billion occurrence. But is that what happened here? Seems a bit weak to pin our hopes on that and smugly declares ourselves "the winner"
 
Last edited:

Agent K

Senior Member
At what point do the great lengths concocted to explain away every facet of the incident start to violate Occam's Razor's tenant of "the simplest explanation tends to be the right one"
Article:
Hickam's dictum is a counterargument to the use of Occam's razor in the medical profession. While Occam's razor suggests that the simplest explanation is the most likely, implying in medicine that diagnosticians should assume a single cause for multiple symptoms, one form of Hickam's dictum states: "A man can have as many diseases as he damn well pleases."


Some of the most famous UFO sightings turned out to be a combination of unrelated things.
For example, the Rendlesham Forest UFO was the reentry of a Russian rocket at 9pm, then a meteor at 2:45am, then a flashing light from a lighthouse, then rabbit diggings and axe cuts mistaken for "burn marks", etc.

Article:
When you examine each piece of evidence separately on its own merit, you avoid the trap of pattern matching and finding correlations where none exist. The meteors had nothing to do with the lighthouse or the rabbit diggings, but when you hear all three stories told together, it's easy to conclude (as did the airmen) that the light overhead became an alien spacecraft in the forest. Always remember: Separate pieces of poor evidence don't aggregate together into a single piece of good evidence. You can stack cowpies as high as you want, but they won't turn into a bar of gold.
 
Last edited:

jackfrostvc

Active Member
@Candy-O

And what if they were doing a EW exercise in the SOCAL Range Complex ., testing the updated SPY-1B radar on the Princeton , their EW tech and fleet reaction?


For example Radar spoofing from emmiitters at fixed sites such as at San Clemente island. From mobile sites inc boats, aircraft, drones, balloons .

What I'm saying here is the reason I believe it was an EW exercise is that EW requires assets to work, it needs all the things above to cover an area,

Also there is records of them doing 100's of EW exercises in the SOCAL range complex every year from 1988

So when I say they launched some kind of EW object from the USS Louisville, it's because I think it's one part of a greater exercise.
Or maybe in the confusion they got vectored to a live missile test. Who knows , the point is a lot goes on in a EW test and also in the SOCAL Range Complex generally that makes it rich for a number of scenarios to play out

EW is Just a theory

But then have a look where Kevin Day notes most of the strange radar tracks happened. This is from Dave Beaty's Nimitz Encounter YT video titled
"The Nimitz Encounters Updated With New Info"

1622527811121.png

This below is what has been on San Clemente Island since at least 1991. There are also two other EW sites on San Clemente Islandfrom back then as well, called Tombstone and Little Rock

1622528001857.png

1622537274897.png

This is further complicated by the fact they also run simulataneous exercises in that area. A lot in an effort to simulate a real war enviroment.
And they can mix different things. EW and real things like drones they fire off San Clemente island that simulate a missile attacks. .etc.

They could be running Anti Submarine exercises in one spot, and Air defense exercises in another spot. They could be doing missile launches from sub. It gets complicated

Here is a video example of drone fired from San Clemente Island

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4VMH5smXO8



What I'm trying to say is that the SOCAL Range Complex is a theatre they use to train the fleet readiness and reactions, they also test new weapons and systems int he area to evaluate them and to measure responses to refine tactics.

TL;DR Shit goes down in this area

It bears note that everything that happened in the 2004 Tic Tac encounter (radar tracks, tic tac object sightings etc) and the 2019 drone/Sphere/triangle events - > All happened within the boundaries of the SOCAL Range Complex.

So either aliens like to train with the US fleet, or..........

SOCAL Range Complex

1622528538931.png

All the training, exercises , weapons evaluations etc are run by SCORE at North Island San Diego.
Below gives you a high level run down of what goes on in the ranges within the SOCAL Range Complex

1622532843312.png

Source: https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/score.htm
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Going back to the parallax illusion, I just read this:
https://books.google.com/books?id=T...J4KHRckBEQQ6AEwAHoECAMQAg#v=onepage&q&f=false
2021-06-01_00-41-30.jpg

This seemed oddly similar to Favors description of an object anticipating his movements, and then flying off after he turned directly towards it.

https://thenimitzencounters.com/2018/09/17/david-fravors-statement/
 

Alphadunk

Active Member

Would the parallax illusion explain the descent to 1,500 feet as it "streaked out of sight?" It's unclear if that was just his perception (likely) or corroborated by equipment.

I found this note from the article interesting as well. Parallax could explain the perception of an object overtaking the position of a plane but that's a bit more complex than the proposed illusion in Fravor's encounter IMO.

Capture2.PNG
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Interestingly the term "repulse radar" seems only to exist in the context of UFOs. Radar was still pretty new in 1950. I wonder if "repulse radar" was just some theorized automatic safety device. The pilot tried to make sense of what he was seeing, and that's what came to mind. Maybe it had a different name.
 

Daniel F

Member
Yes this is another thing to consider. As well as varying eye witness testimony, I’ve heard Fravor state that there are people flat out lying. Saying that they saw the tic tac from deck. Saying they watched the tapes and they are much longer. Also some have said that men in black came and took the tapes and told everyone to stay quiet. According to Fravor none of that happened. They just did normal debrief procedure and got on with things.
 

Domzh

Active Member
I hacd feknf
According to Fravor none of that happened. They just did normal debrief procedure and got on with things.
Could (very well) be flawed recollections for all of them, its 17 years almost

three thoughts:

1) We should focus on the earliest documented testimony

2) We should find out why no one mentions the third FA18 of Kurth, he must have been at the exact same spot at the exact same time. According to his testimony his timeline and altitude matches with the tic tac. He even takes off at the same time as the tic tac and guess where he goes: CAP point (i made a post with more detials about it because i believed Kurth could have been the tic tac. I just cant find a plausible explanation how someone 4 pilots could misinterpret an FA18 for a tic tac)

3) My gut feeling tells me if we solve the disturbance, we will solve the tic tac

Cross or oval shaped disturbance: https://media.defense.gov/2019/Oct/04/2002191006/-1/-1/0/190930-N-AY639-104.JPG


Submarine would fit. What can they launch realistically in 2004 with no signs of propullsion.

Do they have small blimps.......? lol
 
Last edited:

jackfrostvc

Active Member
Yes this is another thing to consider. As well as varying eye witness testimony, I’ve heard Fravor state that there are people flat out lying. Saying that they saw the tic tac from deck. Saying they watched the tapes and they are much longer. Also some have said that men in black came and took the tapes and told everyone to stay quiet. According to Fravor none of that happened. They just did normal debrief procedure and got on with things.

There are numerous witnesses they say they saw a longer vid and mention someone taking the tape. And they back each other up

These were on the Princeton for which Fravor. Fravor was never on the Princeton so it's odd that he made comments about what happened on a ship for which he wasn't on
 

Daniel F

Member
There are numerous witnesses they say they saw a longer vid and mention someone taking the tape. And they back each other up

These were on the Princeton for which Fravor. Fravor was never on the Princeton so it's odd that he made comments about what happened on a ship for which he wasn't on
Ok that’s interesting. I’ve heard Fravor state that people have claimed to see a longer vid but its not true. I’ve heard him stating that someone took the tape from him claiming superiors had requested it. Then he realises they are fooling with him so he marches back and takes the tape. He seemed adamant about it, Apologies,I’ve got no link, I think it’s on Joe Rogan. This must be the Flir1 tape ? Also why would he have it ? Because he was the commander ? His claim is that these people have subsequently come forward just to gain publicity rather than having any knowledge of the incidents. He then says that he locked the tapes away and that they went missing somehow. Again, apologies for no link. I think this is all from Rogan.
 

Alphadunk

Active Member
2) We should find out why no one mentions the third FA18 of Kurth, he must have been at the exact same spot at the exact same time. According to his testimony his timeline and altitude matches with the tic tac.

No it doesn't. Kurth has always maintained he was above Fravor.

https://ufos-scientificresearch.blogspot.com/2021/05/former-lt-col-douglas-kurth-speaks-out.html

"That's when they vectored Fravor's flight toward the Unidentified Contact. After a few minutes when my checks were completed, I accepted their vector toward the Unidentified Contact. I had Fravor's flight on radar and was directly over the top of them when they were visually observing the Supersonic Tic Tac. I was not on the same radio frequency as Fravor's flight. I saw the visual disturbance in the water (which had been previously and accurately reported) and that is what I used as my reference point to orbit overhead. The disturbance in the water cleared suddenly. It all seemed odd to me at the time...I never saw the object physically myself."
 

Domzh

Active Member


https://thevault.tothestarsacademy.com/tictacreport
- what were the two radar pings below 5000 feet, was this Fravor and the tic tac? Why didnt he got a ping for Dietrich as well? she should have been watching the scene from 20000 feet according to Fravor.

- He believed the two radar pings to be the approaching FA18 but this would not match Fravors altitude when he arrived at the scene.

- Question in general: Can a FA18 radar properly identify friendly FA18 signatures or is every return just a generic blob and could be literally anything?
 

jackfrostvc

Active Member
If people haven't seen it yet. A new Tic Tac witness on the Princeton (Now a few months ago) came forward and gave an interview to Dave Beaty . His name is Karson Kammerzell, CTO3 - Cryptologic Technician

He talks about seeing lights at night of flying objects that didn't move like conventional craft, he puts it down as maybe tests of a drone or VTOL

He backs up the other witnesses on the Princeton


He also scrutinises Fravors encounter, I guess he a little skeptical. Wonders why Fravor or the other jet never started recording with the systems on the jet (ie not the ATFLIR which he didn't have, but other systems)

Has some interesting things to say generally about the event

If you have the time, it's worth watching both parts below

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eYMebO5l-I


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

Domzh

Active Member
i feel after 17 years its almost impossible to to "solve" this case with testimonies if the witness wasn't an 'insider' and reveals some secret uhm insights.

its literally a mess :-/

however, i would be massively interested in fravors co-pilot (anyone knows his name?)
 

Alphadunk

Active Member
however, i would be massively interested in fravors co-pilot (anyone knows his name?)

IIRC he's still in the Navy so his name hasn't been made public although his identity isn't too hard to figure out. He's never commented, openly or anonymously, on the subject as far as we're aware.

Dietrich's co-pilot Jim Slaight has spoken about it a few times and even did an onscreen interview in the early days of this whole thing. He seemed pretty offended by how he was treated in the interview and hasn't really been part of the narrative in some time.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
however, i would be massively interested in fravors co-pilot (anyone knows his name?)
We don't need to dox anyone or speculate on who it might be. Fravor may have had more than one co-pilot.

If someone wants to remain anonymous (to avoid the press, and overzealous UFO believers and debunkers), then that's their right. (Unless they are using it as a shield for nefarious activities. even then, no speculation).

The person indicated in the deleted post above was not Fravor's WSO on that day. The actual WSO's name was revealed two years ago in a leak, but as it was personal information, it has mostly not been discussed.
 

Domzh

Active Member
oh i fully agree! i thought maybe he already came forward years ago and we could easily google his testimony (these princeton guys around kevin day gave longer testimonies but almost no one knows about them and their videos have like 3000 views only).

we definitely shouldnt stalk anyone but reaching out to someone who already came out but isnt well known, i dont see a problem there.
 

jackfrostvc

Active Member
@Mick West
Yeah, I was just about to post that twitter exchange. You saved me the effort

I also thought Fravor said 5 minutes, but then I could be wrong. I think that quote has to be dug up and quoted here
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Unless there was more context to that tweet, I'm more confused now.

5 minutes for the dog fighting and visual - but 8 seconds visual? What? I don't understand what she is saying here
How do you dogfight with something you don't see, especially with no radar track. I'm lost on that statement
She is saying it only took 10 seconds, and that 5 minutes is a stupid long time for what supposedly happened, as they would have run out of fuel.

Fravor says five minutes.
 

jackfrostvc

Active Member
The tweet below is odd given the discrepancy between Fravor and Alex regarding how long they had eyes on the Tic Tac ie 5 minutes vs 8-10 seconds

1623647678814.png


Also, can someone from San Diego or who has been there decode the tweets below for me. As an australian, I have no clue what's being said here in regards to there being Haze or not on the Tic Tac day

1623649434794.png
 
Last edited:
Top