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

Mendel

Senior Member.
Their general flight pattern is erratic or jerky, resembling the flight of hummingbirds, that dart hither and yon, hover temporarily, suddenly change altitude, and then zoom out of sight with astonishing swiftness.
honestly that sounds like survivor bias

if a flying object does not appear to move strangely, it is much less likely to be reported
which is why many unidentified reported objects appear to move strangely

unfortunately that means you have now learned something about the reporters and nothing about the flying objects
 

LilWabbit

Active Member
Or you can try to eliminate this "memory noise" by searching for common patterns among eye witness testimony instead of trying to dissect a single one.

Even memory noise elimination process has serious limitations, as shown in psychologist Chris French's review study on false memories in which he reviewed studies on four types of cases of false memories.

Article:
This article will focus on the reliability of accounts of anomalous events from individuals who are sincere in presenting those accounts.

. . .

(1) Cases where a normal episode is generally agreed to have taken place, but eyewitnesses disagree over details of what happened. (2) Cases where an apparently paranormal episode is generally agreed to have taken place, but eyewitnesses disagree over details of what happened. (3) Cases where there is a doubt as to whether a sincerely remembered normal episode ever took place at all. (4) Cases where a sincerely ‘remembered’ episode can be shown never to have taken place, but is entirely the product of an experimental procedure of one kind or another.


Under the first category of cases French reviews some of the relevant research conducted as regards multiple eyewitnesses who have discussed the event with each other as well as multiple witnesses having independently witnessed and reported the same event:


French also reviewed research demonstrating that 'flashbulb memories' are prone to error:

 
Last edited:

Itsme

Active Member
honestly that sounds like survivor bias

if a flying object does not appear to move strangely, it is much less likely to be reported
which is why many unidentified reported objects appear to move strangely

unfortunately that means you have now learned something about the reporters and nothing about the flying objects
That's a bold claim. Can you tell me what it says about the reporters, so we can check your claim with the data?
 
That's a bold claim. Can you tell me what it says about the reporters, so we can check your claim with the data?
It's common sense...I was walking home yesterday when a jet-black 'spheroid' passed silently overhead. I didn't report it to the RAF, because it moved in a straight line accross the sky, in exactly the way bin-bags do on a breezy day.

I did have my phone in my hand but it was moving too quickly accross the visible section of sky (I was between buildings and I am useless with my phone) so I missed the shot.

While I was hopeful of capturing the image to post hereabouts, I had no expectation that it represented 'first contact' or even a 'black-project'...Just a bin-bag, seen out of context.
 

Itsme

Active Member
It's common sense...I was walking home yesterday when a jet-black 'spheroid' passed silently overhead. I didn't report it to the RAF, because it moved in a straight line accross the sky, in exactly the way bin-bags do on a breezy day.

I did have my phone in my hand but it was moving too quickly accross the visible section of sky (I was between buildings and I am useless with my phone) so I missed the shot.

While I was hopeful of capturing the image to post hereabouts, I had no expectation that it represented 'first contact' or even a 'black-project'...Just a bin-bag, seen out of context.
?? That makes as much sense as saying "I had covid, it was just like the common cold so all these stories about people hospitalised because of it must be either based on misdiagnosis or the nocebo effect". But I assume you already realize that yourself, which implies you're dodging the question.
 
TBH I have no idea of what you are saying there...But it sounds like you are suggesting that I should report to the RAF something that I very strongly suspected to be a wind-carried plastic bag, on the off-chance that it might be ET...How does that help the cause of UFO research?
 

TopBunk

New Member
  1. Has any interview with Fravor's WSO been published anywhere?
  2. Is the "discernible midline horizontal axis" part of the tic tac description just language from the I-Team? Never seen that repeated by Fravor, Alex or Slaight, so is it wrong?
 

Parabunk

New Member
  1. Has any interview with Fravor's WSO been published anywhere?
AFAIK, he hasn't talked publicly about this anywhere. The Executive Report seems to contain some written statements by him (LT something, referred with he/his).

  1. Is the "discernible midline horizontal axis" part of the tic tac description just language from the I-Team? Never seen that repeated by Fravor, Alex or Slaight, so is it wrong?
Those are Fravor's words from the same Executive Report. If you mean that by I-Team, they just published that document. It originates from AATIP/BAASS.

I just tried to ask about that statement from Dietrich today:
Source: https://twitter.com/ParabunkBlog/status/1416840703162859521


She liked my question. So in effort to provide you all the information I have gained about that, I liked your questions.
 

jackfrostvc

Active Member
Fravors WSO has a high up role in the NAVY and is still with them.
So until he resigns , I don't think we will hear from him.

Same with the pilot from Chad Underwoods jet, she is still in the NAVY from memory
 

DavidB66

Active Member
She liked my question. So in effort to provide you all the information I have gained about that, I liked your questions.
She also 'liked' a tweet of mine, addressed to her. Then, while I was still basking in contentment, she also liked a tweet by someone else which violently disagreed with mine. I guess she has her account automated with a default setting to 'like' all tweets addressed to her. I'm not sure how you can do that (I don't think it's an 'official' Twitter option), because it would never occur to me to do it! Apart from anything else, you would run the risk of 'liking' racist or libellous tweets, which could let you in for a whole world of pain.
 

Theferäl

New Member
Has anyone got any theory for the 'heat wave' effect that Jim Slaight reported seeing "around the entire surfaces" of the object? It's interesting to me as it implies it must've been fairly pronounced in order for Slaight to see it depending on how close the Dietrich/Slaight F-18 was from the object. But then it's not something Fravor has ever mentioned [unless someone knows different]. I asked Alex Dietrich about it on Twitter and she said that although she didn't see the 'wavy' effect herself it was something that was brought up by others after the encounter took place, presumably back on the Nimitz. [IMO, Slaight's account, if true, makes the parallax 'balloon' theory extremely unlikely to be correct.]
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
I guess she has her account automated with a default setting to 'like' all tweets addressed to her.
i often like comments on MB, just to indicate that i read them and acknowledge the feedback i got. if someone answers me, it seems rude to just ignore them.
 

markus

Active Member
Some more from Alex today about what she saw

1626682592251.png
I never really understood where the "ping pong" movement Fravor described was supposed to happen, but my impression was that it was somewhere near the beginning,

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...-like-a-ping-pong-ball-former-navy-pilot-says

So it seems to have ping ponged when moving north to south, east to west over the white water. After this is the portion of the encounter Fravor described as "relatively benign", where he gently descended as the object gently ascended, after which it 'shot off like a bullet from the barrel of a gun' as he cut across the circle. This "linear then funky chicken dance" account is not consistent with that.

Whether the explanation is a balloon or missile or whatever, it seems definitive that parallax illusions affected the observations of some or all of the pilots.
 

folly4

Member
I never really understood where the "ping pong" movement Fravor described was supposed to happen, but my impression was that it was somewhere near the beginning,

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...-like-a-ping-pong-ball-former-navy-pilot-says

So it seems to have ping ponged when moving north to south, east to west over the white water. After this is the portion of the encounter Fravor described as "relatively benign", where he gently descended as the object gently ascended, after which it 'shot off like a bullet from the barrel of a gun' as he cut across the circle. This "linear then funky chicken dance" account is not consistent with that.

Whether the explanation is a balloon or missile or whatever, it seems definitive that parallax illusions affected the observations of some or all of the pilots.

According to Fravor's accounts, the ping pong movement is right at the beginning of the visual. It marks the start of his 5 minute visual engagement, which then proceeds to include a slow 300 knot circular descent.

During that descent, the Tic Tac stops moving back and forth, and begins to "mirror" him, flying on the opposite side of the circle.

At some point (apparently 4 minutes and 50 seconds into the visual contact) Fravor drops his nose and cuts the circle to intercept the Tic Tac in what both he and Dietrich have called an "aggressive maneuver."

Dietrich said in her interview with Mick her 10 second visual was Fravor's 10 second aggressive engagement. She said she was "confident" of this.

Dietrich is saying essentially the opposite as Fravor about the timing of the Tic Tac's erratic movement: She saw the object moving over the whitewater in a line at a very fast speed first... and then said the object started to make movements that did make sense.

Fravor is saying the visual started with erratic movements... and then the Tic Tac began "flying" in a circular path before disappearing.
 
Last edited:

Alphadunk

Active Member
Both seem to agree on the trajectory of Fravor's jet. Is 10 seconds long enough to perform the maneuver they've both described?

IIRC Fravor says his flight maneuver was in reaction to the churning water and he only noticed the tic-tac bouncing around after he started descending.
 

folly4

Member
Both seem to agree on the trajectory of Fravor's jet.
Not at all. Dietrich describes Fravor turning and swooping down to engage aggressively right as she starts her visual. She says that took 10 seconds, which corresponds with her entire visual.

There is no long, slow, 5 minute, 300 knot descent in Dietrich's account.

IIRC Fravor says his flight maneuver was in reaction to the churning water and he only noticed the tic-tac bouncing around after he started descending.

Fravor specifically says he's "going in" to investigate the Tic Tac. Dietrich, in radio contact with Fravor, says she will "stay up high." This is quick in Dietrich's account.

There are now intractable problems with the timelines.

No one sees anything until after "merge plot" is called. Dietrich sees the object going fast and in a straight line over the water disturbance. Fravor sees the object moving back and forth, north & south, east & west over the water disturbance.

Fravor says they all saw it for 5 minutes. Dietrich says she saw if for 8-10 seconds.
 
Last edited:

DavidB66

Active Member
Has anyone got any theory for the 'heat wave' effect that Jim Slaight reported seeing "around the entire surfaces" of the object? It's interesting to me as it implies it must've been fairly pronounced in order for Slaight to see it depending on how close the Dietrich/Slaight F-18 was from the object. But then it's not something Fravor has ever mentioned [unless someone knows different]. I asked Alex Dietrich about it on Twitter and she said that although she didn't see the 'wavy' effect herself it was something that was brought up by others after the encounter took place, presumably back on the Nimitz. [IMO, Slaight's account, if true, makes the parallax 'balloon' theory extremely unlikely to be correct.]

I haven't followed this story closely, but I noticed someone on Twitter yesterday referring to Slaight's 'statement' as something new. I hadn't seen it before, and on first reading the main question that occurred to me was 'how could Slaight possibly observe all this detail?' If I understand the set-up correctly, Slaight was in the WSO seat behind the pilot (Dietrich). Their plane was initially cruising at between 10,000 and 20,000 feet, accompanying Fravor. Then Fravor descended (either fast or gradually, depending on the account) to take a closer look at the mystery object, while Dietrich and Slaight stayed at a higher level, and observed the encounter between Fravor and the object. (I think Dietrich herself has said they 'stayed up high'.) If this is correct, they were never in a position to get a close up view of the object. If they stayed above 10,000 feet, they would probably have been at least 2 miles away at all times From that distance, how much detail could anyone see with the naked eye, even the legendary eyesight of a Top Gun pilot? At 2 miles, a linear object of 40 feet would only span a visual angle of about 0.2 of a degree. Moreover, in level flight wouldn't the WSO have a rather restricted field of view? In the 'Batman balloon' photos, taken by the WSO in a similar plane, the WSO didn't have a view of much below and in front of the plane. But maybe Slaight had a better view if the plane banked and turned.
As for the statement that there was 'no noise or sound' from the object, what would you expect to hear from that distance in the cockpit of a jet plane, and probably wearing earphones?
 

Alphadunk

Active Member
At 2 miles, a linear object of 40 feet would only span a visual angle of about 0.2 of a degree. Moreover, in level flight wouldn't the WSO have a rather restricted field of view?

I think you've made valid points. I just wanted to add that Dietrich has stated her plane was banked so their field of view was presumably clear to facilitate having eyes physically on Fravor and his mysterious prey.
 

JFDee

Senior Member.
While collecting examples of parachute flare 'UFO' sightings, I stumbled upon a short interview with a helicopter pilot which rang a bell because there were parallels with Fravor's account.

Here is the transcript of the snippet:



Source: https://youtu.be/VDs4b_eiqJE?t=59
 
Top