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

Agent K

Senior Member
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
There's the "June gloom" marine layer on June mornings, but the tic tac episode was on November 14 around noon. Fravor said visibility was very high, and the Weather Underground says conditions in San Diego were fair almost all day long, and only partly cloudy for a couple of hours at 2:51 PM and 4:51 PM.
https://www.wunderground.com/history/daily/KSAN/date/2004-11-14
 

jackfrostvc

Active Member
There's the "June gloom" marine layer on June mornings, but the tic tac episode was on November 14 around noon. Fravor said visibility was very high, and the Weather Underground says conditions in San Diego were fair almost all day long, and only partly cloudy for a couple of hours at 2:51 PM and 4:51 PM.
https://www.wunderground.com/history/daily/KSAN/date/2004-11-14

Only problem with that is Fair or Partly Cloudy does not indicate HAze or not.
 

markus

Active Member
That's a really odd thing for a professional fighter pilot to say.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOswfrc7Xtg


A rather famous video of a dogfight between a Rafale and an F-22. 3:28 minutes long. Or this random DCS video. Merge happens at 0:40, kill shot at 4:56. As far as I know, durations of 2-5 minutes are typical for dogfights, far from a 'lifetime'. Really not much gets to happen in 10 seconds, especially not a descent from 24,000 feet to 12,000 feet. That would be a supersonic dive even straight down.

It's also hard to reconcile this 8-10 seconds description with this tweet. She almost sounds like she's describing Fravor's descent _before_ the merge plot, but in that case, what would Fravor have been looking for? If Fravor had descended to look for a radar contact instead of a visual one, why would she have been so spooked?

8-10 seconds sounds plausible for some of the two-circle flow and the yo-yo maneuver. Maybe that's what she's thinking of?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
There's the "June gloom" marine layer on June mornings
I suspect that is what she was jokingly referring to (I live in Santa Monica, up the coast.) But the weather is variable. Some days it's clear with visibility in the 50+ mile range. Sometimes it's hazy, sometimes foggy.
 

jackfrostvc

Active Member
I suspect that is what she was jokingly referring to (I live in Santa Monica, up the coast.) But the weather is variable. Some days it's clear with visibility in the 50+ mile range. Sometimes it's hazy, sometimes foggy.

Frustrating I couldn't get a straight answer. It's still in limbo now.
You know I was asking in reference to the Event Summary saying they lost it in Haze
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
So Dietrich contacted Fravor, and confirmed his recollection was different.

So, unresolved.

Her 2017 account says she saw the Tic-Tac near the water, so that would still be at least a couple of minutes by Fravor's account.

Fravor also describes being alerted to it by the WSO in Dietrich's plane. 9:02 on Rogan
So Dietrich suggesting "my 8-10 sec was at the tail end" does not really add up.
 

markus

Active Member
A longer discussion with Alex, in which she does not 100% reject my parallax illusion theory. Mostly going step by step though the Event Summary, and comparing it with her recollection, and explaining some of the terminology.
That's a very helpful interview. If she circled together with Fravor and she only took notice when he "cut across the circle" -- an aggressive maneuver that could've plausibly taken 10 seconds -- a parallax explanation seems even more likely.

1. At this point, Fravor thought the object was at least 10,000 feet up, but Dietrich saw it near the water.
2. It's often said that it couldn't be parallax because Dietrich's literal bird's eye view of the engagement would've made that impossible, but now it looks like they'd be seeing pretty much the same thing, even if Slaight had eyes on the thing the whole time.

So now we have three accounts containing some level of detail about where the tic tac was: Fravor's, his WSO's, and Dietrich's. And they're all different!
 

Domzh

Active Member
Great interview!

Dietrich is BY FAR the most credible and reasonable eye witness of all of them. No agenda, no assumptions (and if, she clearly labels them as such), no ego.

I believe a submarine (Louisville or another) deploying EW balloons, maybe tethered at the beginning, makes the most sense now.

28k feet, 100 knots, SE movement matches the weather report for winds at this altitude!

They spoofed the same signature, maybe by accident maybe to have a laugh to appear at CAP point. Maybe they already deployed multiple balloons with a similar signature and they thought balloon 1 is the same as balloon 2. This could definitely explain the "snowflakes" of Kevin Day.

It would also make sense to either test the new radar of the princeton OR it was just a EW exercise for the louisville (maybe a combination of both).

I dont know how EW in 2004 worked but maybe there were multiple balloons in the air, reflecting radar signature when their reflector had a specific angle and when this angle of the reflector changed due to wind it didnt return a ping.

The AATIP report stated the uss louisville was in the area and didnt notice anything "unusual" on its sonar.

She said they could rule out "A life fire situation from a submarine in the area", EW deployment is not a life fire exercise.

To this day we dont know the position of the lousiville nor do we have a single testimony from her crew. Makes you wonder..

The 10 seconds time frame, Dietrich following Fravor does solve the parallax issue of two oberservers, no radar, no flir, only eyes combined with Fravors extreme self believe how he cant misjudge size and distance because hes an instructor, Fravor pushing ET narratives, etc

Im 99% sure this is roughly what happened.AD79062B-A17E-4E42-AD42-EDC7EED3FF3B.jpeg
 
Last edited:

Parabunk

New Member
So now we have three accounts containing some level of detail about where the tic tac was: Fravor's, his WSO's, and Dietrich's. And they're all different!

Slaight was Dietrich's WSO.

And we don't really have proper account from him. But yes, the few sentences he managed to say in that Fox segment do differ.
 

Domzh

Active Member
Slaight was Dietrich's WSO.

And we don't really have proper account from him. But yes, the few sentences he managed to say in that Fox segment do differ.
do you have a link to the fox segment, i couldnt find his appearance on yt
 

Parabunk

New Member
I believe a submarine (Louisville or another) deploying EW balloons, maybe tethered at the beginning, makes the most sense now.
Same.

The AATIP report stated the uss louisville was in the area and didnt notice anything "unusual" on its sonar.

She said they could rule out "A life fire situation from a submarine in the area", EW deployment is not a life fire exercise.

The report also states:

"There was a live fire exercise conducted by the USS Louisville during the period of and in the vicinity of the AAV sightings; however, the weapon in use did not match the flight profile or visible characteristics of the AAV."

If only it wasn't so vague on those details.

They seem to have thought it was close enough to have the need to mention it didn't fit the description. Although that description they compared with most likely didn't quite fit reality either.
 

markus

Active Member
Slaight was Dietrich's WSO.

And we don't really have proper account from him. But yes, the few sentences he managed to say in that Fox segment do differ.
I don't know about Slaight, that fragment of a sentence he was able to get out could really go anywhere if he'd been allowed to complete the thought. But it's interesting that each of the other three accounts is different.
 

Alphadunk

Active Member
I believe a submarine (Louisville or another) deploying EW balloons, maybe tethered at the beginning, makes the most sense now.

I'm not so sure. Dietrich reiterated in the interview that she was assured multiple times by different parties that there was so sub in the area during their encounter. Furthermore there is no evidence American subs deploy balloons, tethered or otherwise, in 2004 or anytime after.
 

markus

Active Member
I'm not so sure. Dietrich reiterated in the interview that she was assured multiple times by different parties that there was so sub in the area during their encounter.
As cited in posts above, the executive report mentions the Louisville was in the area conducting a 'live fire exercise', so it's possible the people who reassured Dietrich were lying or misinformed.
Furthermore there is no evidence American subs deploy balloons, tethered or otherwise, in 2004 or anytime after.
There is evidence that American subs deployed balloons in highly secretive operations (project Palladium). They wouldn't advertise it. If, as seems increasingly likely, we're looking at a near collision of whatever they were testing with a fighter jet, this could be a career ender for those responsible.
 

Domzh

Active Member
I'm not so sure. Dietrich reiterated in the interview that she was assured multiple times by different parties that there was so sub in the area during their encounter. Furthermore there is no evidence American subs deploy balloons, tethered or otherwise, in 2004 or anytime after.
She said something like "they could rule out life fire from a submarine in this area" (paraphrasing).

are you sure the lousiville conducted a life fire training during this time? wasnt this prior to the encounter?

life fire also doesnt really match the location i believe. they have a designated area for this purpose on san clemente island.

also a life missile, heading towards cap point...? no way

the uss louisville is equipped with:

"4 × 21 in (533 mm) bow tubes, 10 Mk48 ADCAP torpedoreloads, Tomahawk land attack missileblock 3 SLCM range 1,700 nautical miles (3,100 km), Harpoon anti–surface ship missile range 70 nautical miles (130 km), minelaying Mk 67 mobile Mk 60 captor mines"

Source: Wikipedia

The tomahawk and harpoon both should be easily recognizable as missiles, they produce a ton of smoke which is way bigger than the missile itself

Video of a submerged tomahawk launch Source: https://youtu.be/1FEDvvZQPJQ
 

gabelewis

New Member
As cited in posts above, the executive report mentions the Louisville was in the area conducting a 'live fire exercise', so it's possible the people who reassured Dietrich were lying or misinformed.

There is evidence that American subs deployed balloons in highly secretive operations (project Palladium). They wouldn't advertise it. If, as seems increasingly likely, we're looking at a near collision of whatever they were testing with a fighter jet, this could be a career ender for those responsible.
Obviously purely conjecture: I find it a bit odd that if that is the case, no one has come forward to set the record straight, even anonymously.

Of course there are many reasons not to go public - but I know I would feel pretty grumpy if I knew the truth about an incident like this from first hand experience. Watching Fravor go whole hog on UFOs would make my skin crawl in that scenario. I'd probably try to tip off a reporter or something just out of sheer embarrassment for the institutions involved.
 

Parabunk

New Member
There is evidence that American subs deployed balloons in highly secretive operations (project Palladium). They wouldn't advertise it.

There generally isn't much available information on what those subs are doing. And afaik, pretty much everything about them is FOIA exempt. And my understanding is that they also don't store too much to logs. So unless some crew member speaks out, the relevant information looks to be very hard to obtain.

The executive report also contains this curious quote from "the CSG-11 Senior Intelligence Officer (N2)":

"When asked what he thought the AAV was he replied he believed it was part of a counterdrug operation based on the area of operations."

I have long wondered if that was just a wild guess, considering the area only, or something more. It sounds like an odd comment if one assumes there was some supersonic tic-tac. But not so much if one for example happens to know there are subs deploying surveillance balloons for such purposes.
 

Domzh

Active Member
Comprehensive Navy San Clemente Training Range Document

288 Pages, detailing ALL trainings, UAVs used, zones, missiles, air target descriptions etc

Extract:

"The combination of Navy-controlled airspace and proximity to Fleet assets makes San Clemente Island an ideal site for UAV operations. UAVs range from small 1-kg (3-lb) systems that are launched by hand to systems that are several hundred kg (lb) and take off from the NALF runway. UAVs are typically flown at a wide range of cruising altitudes ranging from 46 to 3,048 km (150 to 10,000 ft) mostly dependent upon their size. upon their size. "

"UAV aircraft include the Swift, Pointer, Raven, Silverfox, Neptune, Aqua Puma, Scan Eagle, and Predator"

Maybe someone will help me read through it and extract the interesting information

PDF Click

2D443338-2418-4202-8246-0EDD44FC0865.jpeg

460D093F-DF2A-4B92-B457-4ACC04F4F864.jpeg


The tic tac encounter happened within an area, that is designated for AIR-TO-SURFACE exercises such as bombing and sinking vessels. (TMA-P5)

SOCAL Range Complex Handbook

3DA49C63-D0EB-4E80-BE7D-785D2C76D37F.jpeg

F1D80623-FB86-4CEC-8435-CD073D948BC1.jpeg
 
Last edited:

jackfrostvc

Active Member
@Mick West

Tell me you asked Alex about Douglas Kurth's jet in conversation prior to or after recording?

Also, did you mention to Alex that one report located the USS Louisville in that vicinity. ?

Would have been good to get her response on both those things.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
@Mick West

Tell me you asked Alex about Douglas Kurth's jet in conversation prior to or after recording?

Also, did you mention to Alex that one report located the USS Louisville in that vicinity. ?

Would have been good to get her response on both those things.
Unfortunately not. It was rather an impromptu interview, and I didn't get to (or remember) everything
 

markus

Active Member
I have long wondered if that was just a wild guess, considering the area only, or something more. It sounds like an odd comment if one assumes there was some supersonic tic-tac. But not so much if one for example happens to know there are subs deploying surveillance balloons for such purposes.
Interesting. I did a quick search about the kinds of balloons that get used for that sort of surveillance of operation, saw some tests from a company called Raven Aerostar that roughly fit the timeframe, looked them up and found this:

https://ravenaerostar.com/news/rave...t-of-nasa-prototype-super-pressure-balloon-in



Huh.
 

markus

Active Member
Those balloons are HUGE though. They start out partially inflated, and expand to something like 400 feet across. - but only at high altitudes. Not a contender.
Do you mean the specific example I found, all similar balloons from this company, or all balloons used for surveillance applications?
 

Domzh

Active Member
I believe I have found the most likely explanation besides EW launched balloons.

Hypothesis: It was indeed a live fire exercise of the USS Louisville and parallax effect! However, they did not encounter a weapon but an aerial target launched by the USS Louisville itself!!

US Navy Gunnery Officer Handbook
"e. Locally prepared air targets

(1) Balloon!!

(2) Air burst from a mechanical time fuse round

(3) Star shells"
3. One week prior to the scheduled exercise

a. Notify key personnel of pending exercise. This should just be a reminder.

b. Hold alignment, benchmark, and tram checks to verify internal alignment.

c. Gunnery Officer will personally observe a loading drill and the exercising of the gun mount.

d. Submit a rough firing plan through the chain of command for approval and publication/distribution.

e. The ship will submit a pre-exercise message if the Commanding Officer is designated as the OCE and if the exercise is to be held in a Navy OPAREA. The Operations Officer or CIC Officer will normally assist the Gunnery Officer with the preparation of this message.

4. Two days prior to the scheduled exercise

a. The Gunnery Officer will personally review the transmission checks or Daily System Operability Tests (DSOTS).

5. One day prior to the scheduled exercise

a. A pre-fire conference should be held with the CO, XO, Combat Systems Officer, Gunnery Officer, Commo, DCA, leading Gunners Mate, and Fire Controlman in order to coordinate services and responsibilities and discuss the exercise procedures.

b. A pre-fire briefing should be held with all personnel involved with the firing exercise, i.e. gun mount crew, gun control console operators, CICWO, OOD, JOOD, and magazine crews.

c. Brief designated exercise observers and data recorders on recording and reporting procedures.

6. The day of the scheduled exercise

a. Conduct pre-fire checks utilizing the appropriate MRC and ship's pre-printed check-off sheet.

b. Compute initial ballistic corrections.

c. Man up weapons stations and conduct movement checks (the ship may go to GQ for the gunnery exercise at the CO's discretion).

d. Fire pre-action calibration if it applies to your ship.

e. Collect all data recorded during the exercise for correct scoring.

- The USS Louisville was in this area!

- The USS Louisville did life fire tests!

- They only said the weapons used dont match the tic tac description. WHAT ABOUT THE TARGETS USED???

- Launched balloons at this vector match exactly what Kevin Day reported! 28k feet, 100 knots, moving south east. If they use the same balloons, they will get destroyed when shot at and reappear on sea level when deployed! Weather report attached!

How to proof?

Can someone FOIA request the documents needed for the preparation of such a shooting exercise? I mean every piece of paper or note stated in the preparation above!
 

Attachments

  • 7952C8D5-4259-46CA-AEDE-89C81C54E5C2.jpeg
    7952C8D5-4259-46CA-AEDE-89C81C54E5C2.jpeg
    705.6 KB · Views: 60
Last edited:

Mendel

Senior Member.
- They only said the weapons used dont match the tic tac description. WHAT ABOUT THE TARGETS USED???
I thought the dementi was overly specific :p

but anyway, are these targets usually launched by submarines? or is the disturbance in the water unrelated?
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
Sub could be there making the disturbance but unrelated to the test, just a co-incidence with a few unrelated events that have been assume to be related.
 

gtoffo

Active Member
That's a really odd thing for a professional fighter pilot to say.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOswfrc7Xtg


A rather famous video of a dogfight between a Rafale and an F-22. 3:28 minutes long. Or this random DCS video. Merge happens at 0:40, kill shot at 4:56. As far as I know, durations of 2-5 minutes are typical for dogfights, far from a 'lifetime'. Really not much gets to happen in 10 seconds, especially not a descent from 24,000 feet to 12,000 feet. That would be a supersonic dive even straight down.


It's also hard to reconcile this 8-10 seconds description with this tweet. She almost sounds like she's describing Fravor's descent _before_ the merge plot, but in that case, what would Fravor have been looking for? If Fravor had descended to look for a radar contact instead of a visual one, why would she have been so spooked?

8-10 seconds sounds plausible for some of the two-circle flow and the yo-yo maneuver. Maybe that's what she's thinking of?
However: that's an extraordinary dogfight and video.

In the video the F-22 is dead at minute 2.34 and that is the end of the dogfight. This is an extreme engagement among air to air superiority fighters. It is therefore very long as it is pushing the boundaries between two extremely capable aircrafts that can manoeuvre for a long time without loosing energy. The F-22 is also a 5th generation fighter. Much more capable with thrust vectoring etc.

The F-18 Dietrich piloted is not an A/A fighter. It's a fighter/attack aircraft and is carrier based. So it's not as capable. It is also much older and much less capable. Against an F-22 it would be dead in an instant.

It can't make such aggressive manoeuvres and will bleed energy much faster. Therefore engagements will be shorter.

I think she is being a bit extreme with 8-10 seconds but that's still an accurate statement. I think realistically an average engagement would not last more than 1 min.
 

markus

Active Member
However: that's an extraordinary dogfight and video.

In the video the F-22 is dead at minute 2.34 and that is the end of the dogfight. This is an extreme engagement among air to air superiority fighters. It is therefore very long as it is pushing the boundaries between two extremely capable aircrafts that can manoeuvre for a long time without loosing energy. The F-22 is also a 5th generation fighter. Much more capable with thrust vectoring etc.

The F-18 Dietrich piloted is not an A/A fighter. It's a fighter/attack aircraft and is carrier based. So it's not as capable. It is also much older and much less capable. Against an F-22 it would be dead in an instant.

It can't make such aggressive manoeuvres and will bleed energy much faster. Therefore engagements will be shorter.

I think she is being a bit extreme with 8-10 seconds but that's still an accurate statement. I think realistically an average engagement would not last more than 1 min.
Well, take a look at this:
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LuLHfauM1w


DCS so not a real jet obviously, but things like fuel consumption should match reasonably closely. Merge happens at 2:30, Su-27 is dead at 9:20. That's almost 7 minutes, with the F-18 being transonic/supersonic during much of the fight (that's the other thing, not all dogfighting happens with the throttle to the firewall; it's a maneuvering contest, not a race).

I'll chalk it up to the usual twitter saber rattling because there's really no way this makes sense otherwise. Sort of a moot point though, the discrepancy seems to have been more or less resolved after the conversation with Mick above.
 

folly4

Member
I believe I have found the most likely explanation besides EW launched balloons.

Hypothesis: It was indeed a live fire exercise of the USS Louisville and parallax effect! However, they did not encounter a weapon but an aerial target launched by the USS Louisville itself!!

US Navy Gunnery Officer Handbook



- The USS Louisville was in this area!

- The USS Louisville did life fire tests!

- They only said the weapons used dont match the tic tac description. WHAT ABOUT THE TARGETS USED???

- Launched balloons at this vector match exactly what Kevin Day reported! 28k feet, 100 knots, moving south east. If they use the same balloons, they will get destroyed when shot at and reappear on sea level when deployed! Weather report attached!

How to proof?

Can someone FOIA request the documents needed for the preparation of such a shooting exercise? I mean every piece of paper or note stated in the preparation above!

Look at this...

1623855746594.png
 
Last edited:
Top