House Oversight Hearing on UAPs - July 26, 2023

[Amathia]

But we don't need real stuff that can do those things. We only need the enemy to think we might have such stuff....reverse engineered from aliens/future time travelers....take your pick. And ironically, if the enemy has as many true believers as our governments seem to have, that is also all we need for the deception to work. Wasn't there a documentary...Mirage Men or something...in which a former DOD intelligence official openly 'admitted' that UFOs have been 'used' for psyops ? Of course, that admission may itself be a psyop. That's the problem with the shady intelligence world that the likes of Lue Elizondo live in. Would the real person who is telling the truth please stand up.

Yeah, that's the Richard Doty documentary. He's still at it too despite not working for the Air Force anymore (that we know of).


Source: https://youtu.be/7zKyy8h5Ow4


He's a weird one. Admitting that yes, we've used UFOs as psyops to hide our own secret projects, while also alleging a lot of crazy shit (as seen here) as true.

 

[Duke]

He's a weird one. Admitting that yes, we've used UFOs as psyops to hide our own secret projects, while also alleging a lot of crazy shit (as seen here) as true.

I think it would be more accurate to say we took advantage of people reporting classified aircraft as UFOs. This happened on a few occasions I'm personally aware of back in the mid/late 80s when our F-117s, prior to being revealed to the public, went "off the reservation" to do cross country training flights. We didn't spread UFO rumors, but certainly didn't explain what was seen either.

I've mentioned this before somewhere in some thread, but "60 Minutes" did a segment on UFOs in the late 80s. One of those they interviewed was a commercial artist who did an impressive rendering of a craft she reported having seen. She had a good eye for detail and had painted a very respectable representation of a classified aircraft. Lots of discussion in the office the next day.

 

[Agent K]

But why would we drop something that ( allegedly ) can run rings around the best fighter jets on the planet ? Maybe cost, but then if Fravour is reporting accurately a single one of those craft could take on the entire Russian or Chinese air force....so it would have to be mind bogglingly expensive. But then, most of the cost of any product is R&D, and if we have produced one then it should cost less to produce another one...and so on.

Fravor's tic tac may have been a balloon or something whose size and distance he misjudged, but the question is whether it was released by a submarine when no submarine was identified, although there was one in the area. Then, Fravor said that someone jammed Chad Underwood's radar. It could've been a Navy Prowler, but I don't know if anyone investigated that.

 

[grogpickle]

First, realistic training should simulate the fog of war and the element of surprise, so everyone isn't told everything.

Second, mishaps happen, like the two Army Black Hawks that collided in Kentucky.

i think fravor said his weapon system's weren't armed, is that normal procedure if you are going to check on a potential threat?

 

[Amathia]

I think it would be more accurate to say we took advantage of people reporting classified aircraft as UFOs. This happened on a few occasions I'm personally aware of back in the mid/late 80s when our F-117s, prior to being revealed to the public, went "off the reservation" to do cross country training flights. We didn't spread UFO rumors, but certainly didn't explain what was seen either.

I've mentioned this before somewhere in some thread, but "60 Minutes" did a segment on UFOs in the late 80s. One of those they interviewed was a commercial artist who did an impressive rendering of a craft she reported having seen. She had a good eye for detail and had painted a very respectable representation of a classified aircraft. Lots of discussion in the office the next day.

Is said craft declassified now? Would love to try to find that segment and compare it with the real thing. Any chance it was the B-2 or F-117?

 

[Amathia]

Fravor's tic tac may have been a balloon or something whose size and distance he misjudged, but the question is whether it was released by a submarine when no submarine was identified, although there was one in the area. Then, Fravor said that someone jammed Chad Underwood's radar. It could've been a Navy Prowler, but I don't know if anyone investigated that.

By the way, has this article ever been discussed here? I remember reading it a while back and finding it well researched and a compelling sounding possible explanation but have never seen any follow up responses to it:

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...he-u-s-and-the-pentagon-acts-like-theyre-ufos

We may not know the identities of all the mysterious craft that American military personnel and others have been seeing in the skies as of late, but I have seen more than enough to tell you that it is clear that a very terrestrial adversary is toying with us in our own backyard using relatively simple technologies—drones and balloons—and making off with what could be the biggest intelligence haul of a generation. While that may disappoint some who hope the origins of all these events are far more exotic in nature, the strategic implications of these bold operations, which have been happening for years, undeterred, are absolutely massive.

Our team here at The War Zone has spent the last two years indirectly laying out a case for the hypothesis that many of the events involving supposed UFOs, or unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP), as they are now often called, over the last decade are actually the manifestation of foreign adversaries harnessing advances in lower-end unmanned aerial vehicle technology, and even simpler platforms, to gather intelligence of extreme fidelity on some of America's most sensitive warfighting capabilities. Now, considering all the news on this topic in recent weeks, including our own major story on a series of bizarre incidents involving U.S. Navy destroyers and 'UAP' off the Southern California coast in 2019, it's time to not only sum up our case, but to discuss the broader implications of these revelations, what needs to be done about them, and the Pentagon's fledgling 'UAP Task Force' as a whole.

If it hasn't, would love to see a thread on it.

 

[Duke]

Is said craft declassified now? Would love to try to find that segment and compare it with the real thing. Any chance it was the B-2 or F-117?

It was not an F-117 or B-2. There are black aircraft from that period that are, as far as I know, still classified. I have tried to find that "60 Minutes" segment, but have had no luck. Turns out IMDB has whole seasons of the show from that period missing from their episodes list, and an email I sent to them (60min@cbsnews.com) was not answered.

 

[adam_n_eve]

It's worth keeping in mind that inevitably not all experimental technology will end up panning out. Some stuff will end up getting dropped for budget reasons, or because performance doesn't meet expectations, or a whole range of other factors. It might be a bit hasty to assume that because we don't see any such craft being used anywhere today that it couldn't have been experimental technology that eventually got dropped for some reason.

I'd also be curious to know the ratio of current day "tic tac" sightings compared to "metallic sphere" sightings. For all we know the shape of such tech went through several transition phases and what started as tic tac shaped vehicles are the technological ancestors of today's metallic spheres.

The tic tac was a wingless craft with no visible means of propulsion. We'd have surely seen some sort of craft like this regardless of whether that specific one was ever contributed

 

[adam_n_eve]

Fravor's tic tac may have been a balloon or something whose size and distance he misjudged, but the question is whether it was released by a submarine when no submarine was identified, although there was one in the area. Then, Fravor said that someone jammed Chad Underwood's radar. It could've been a Navy Prowler, but I don't know if anyone investigated that.

That's hilarious. There were 4 witnesses and you're suggesting all 4 misjudged the size and distance. And then most of all misjudged the fact it disappeared from view in a couple of seconds.

 

[cptreynolds]

The tic tac was a wingless craft with no visible means of propulsion. We'd have surely seen some sort of craft like this regardless of whether that specific one was ever contributed

Not trying to be anomalously smart here, but that description does include balloons, after all.

 

[Agent K]

That's hilarious. There were 4 witnesses and you're suggesting all 4 misjudged the size and distance. And then most of all misjudged the fact it disappeared from view in a couple of seconds.

It disappeared from view when Fravor flew by it. The ping-ponging was more anomalous. We've only heard from Fravor and Dietrich, who said the whole incident took ten seconds, so I don't know how much she actually saw with her own eyes from a longer distance.

 

[tjskep]

That's hilarious. There were 4 witnesses and you're suggesting all 4 misjudged the size and distance. And then most of all misjudged the fact it disappeared from view in a couple of seconds.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/so...osses-the-north-pacific-starlink-stack.13071/ well to be fair there was a case that mick literally just solved where 5 (sorry i was mistaken previously when i said 6) pilots in two separate jets saw a "cigar shaped" ufo but turns out it was just a starlink train mulitple people can misidentify things not saying that's exactly what happened in the tic tac case just saying.

 

[Ann K]

By the way, has this article ever been discussed here? I remember reading it a while back and finding it well researched and a compelling sounding possible explanation but have never seen any follow up responses to it:

The excerpt says

but I have seen more than enough to tell you that it is clear that a very terrestrial adversary is toying with us in our own backyard using relatively simple technologies—drones and balloons—and making off with what could be the biggest intelligence haul of a generation.

It then continues

Our team here at The War Zone has spent the last two years indirectly laying out a case for the hypothesis that many of the events involving supposed UFOs, or unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP), as they are now often called, over the last decade are actually the manifestation of foreign adversaries

Which is it going to be, the declarative "it is clear that" or the much more speculative "indirectly laying out a case for the hypothesis"? Because I don't think that it can be both.

 

[Amathia]

The excerpt says

It then continues

Which is it going to be, the declarative "it is clear that" or the much more speculative "indirectly laying out a case for the hypothesis"? Because I don't think that it can be both.

Out of all the possible things to nitpick about.

Seems to me like one easy way to "harmonize" these seemingly contradictory statements is:

"we've spent the past two years indirectly laying out a case for the hypothesis but now I have seen more than enough to tell you that it is clear that..."

I'm as much of a stickler for precise terminology as anyone because that's the bread and butter of analytic philosophy, but geeze.

 

[Ann K]

Out of all the possible things to nitpick about.

Seems to me like one easy way to "harmonize" these seemingly contradictory statements is:

"we've spent the past two years indirectly laying out a case for the hypothesis but now I have seen more than enough to tell you that it is clear that..."

I'm as much of a stickler for precise terminology as anyone because that's the bread and butter of analytic philosophy, but geeze.

A hypothesis (his word) cannot be a conclusion. The phrasing seems designed to overstate his preferred narrative.

 

[adam_n_eve]

Not trying to be anomalously smart here, but that description does include balloons, after all.

It does. Now onto the next point. Can a balloon hover above the water then disappear from view in a couple of seconds? Fravor described the tic tac as being under intelligent control.

 

[AmberRobot]

It does. Now onto the next point. Can a balloon hover above the water then disappear from view in a couple of seconds? Fravor described the tic tac as being under intelligent control.

"Under intelligent control" is a conclusion (interpretation) not an observation. Not necessarily wrong but unlikely directly observed by him.

 

[adam_n_eve]

It disappeared from view when Fravor flew by it. The ping-ponging was more anomalous. We've only heard from Fravor and Dietrich, who said the whole incident took ten seconds, so I don't know how much she actually saw with her own eyes from a longer distance.

I disagree. Fravor has stated in interviews it flew off extremely fast.
Dietrich stayed away from the tic tac whilst Fravor dived down to meet it.
Both she and Fravor saw it zoom off.
Fravor has said the day was crystal clear with visibility of around 40 miles and the tic tac disappeared in a couple of seconds.

 

[deirdre]

Can a balloon hover above the water then disappear from view in a couple of seconds?

yes.

Article:

"We don't know what it was, but it could have been a natural phenomenon in human activity. But the point was that it was weird, and we couldn't recognize it," Dietrich said,

Source: https://www.reuters.com/lifestyle/science/normalizing-ufos-retired-us-navy-pilot-recalls-tic-tac-encounter-2021-06-25/

 

[adam_n_eve]

"Under intelligent control" is a conclusion (interpretation) not an observation. Not necessarily wrong but unlikely directly observed by him.

He said that because as he approached it turned to face him, sort of nose on. And it then mirrored his approach.

 

[adam_n_eve]

yes.

A balloon can travel 40 miles in a couple of seconds?

 

[deirdre]

A balloon can travel 40 miles in a couple of seconds?

you're making an assumption the two "events" were connected. (ps can you qoute dietrich saying it zoomed off? i only remember her saying 'it disappeared'.)

 

[Agent K]

I disagree. Fravor has stated in interviews it flew off extremely fast.
Dietrich stayed away from the tic tac whilst Fravor dived down to meet it.
Both she and Fravor saw it zoom off.
Fravor has said the day was crystal clear with visibility of around 40 miles and the tic tac disappeared in a couple of seconds.

In what direction did it zoom off? Toward Fravor's 6 or 12 o'clock? If 12, then it's anomalous. If 6, then Fravor zoomed past a balloon. We can continue this discussion in this thread.

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

 

[adam_n_eve]

you're making an assumption the two "events" were connected. (ps can you qoute dietrich saying it zoomed off? i only remember her saying 'it disappeared'.)

I haven't heard Dietrich describe its disappearance.
I'm not making any assumptions, I'm taking information from interviews with Fravor

 

[adam_n_eve]

In what direction did it zoom off? Toward Fravor's 6 or 12 o'clock? If 12, then it's anomalous. If 6, then Fravor zoomed past a balloon. We can continue this discussion in this thread.

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

I haven't heard Fravor describe the direction in which it flew off but happy to hear any interviews where he states it.

 

[deirdre]

I haven't heard Dietrich describe its disappearance.

Both she and Fravor saw it zoom off.

 

[deirdre]

I'm not making any assumptions, I'm taking information from interviews with Fravor

fine. Fravor is making an assumption. Are we going to discuss this whole tic tac event (which already has some 20-30 threads) again in this thread?

 

[adam_n_eve]

Source: https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2021/05/19/alex-dietrich-ufo-sighting-ac360-intv-vpx.cnn

 

[adam_n_eve]

fine. Fravor is making an assumption. Are we going to discuss this whole tic tac event (which already has some 20-30 threads) again in this thread?

A lot of people are making assumptions. In fact everyone is.
The reason it's being discussed is that Fravor was 1 of the 3 witnesses at the hearing.
His case has not been debunked nor resolved despite it being discussed pretty heavily for a long long time

 

[Agent K]

Source: https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2021/05/19/alex-dietrich-ufo-sighting-ac360-intv-vpx.cnn

Is there supposed to be a video or a quote here? I just see a link.

 

[Ann K]

That's hilarious. There were 4 witnesses and you're suggesting all 4 misjudged the size and distance. And then most of all misjudged the fact it disappeared from view in a couple of seconds.

Fact: if you don't know the speed and you don't know the size, you don't know the distance. If you don't know the speed and you don't know the distance, you don't know the size. And if you don't know the size and you don't know the distance, you don't know the speed. That's basic arithmetic.

A pilot might estimate one of those parameters, but only if he first makes the assumption that he is watching something the size or speed of an airplane, because after all, those are the things that he is most likely to have experience of estimating when witnessed from the air. But if that initial assumption is incorrect, his estimations are incorrect. That's not meant to cast aspersions on a pilot, that's just a recognition of bald facts. Pilots are fallible human beings, and any estimates from them must also deal with the difficulties of estimating anything at all in the absence of the kind of visual cues one might get on the ground.

 

[deirdre]

Source: https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2021/05/19/alex-dietrich-ufo-sighting-ac360-intv-vpx.cnn

3:30 "it disappeared. it zoomed out of the picture so fast that we all were then scrambling on the radio"

Thank you. "the picture" is an odd turn of phrase but thanks for documenting her saying that. Next time though i will report you you for breaking the link policy. because it's annoying.

Article:

Links

The reader should not have to click on a link in order to understand what the post is about. When you link to something to back up something you are discussing then:
Describe what is in the link, and why it is relevant to the thread topic.
Quote relevant excerpts using EX tags,
Include images and screen-grabs from the link.
Links themselves are not content, they are references.

Source: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/metabunks-link-policy.5158/

 

[adam_n_eve]

Is there supposed to be a video or a quote here? I just see a link.

Sorry the video is where she says "it just disappeared"

3:30 "it disappeared. it zoomed out of the picture so fast that we all were then scrambling on the radio"

Thank you. "the picture" is an odd turn of phrase but thanks for documenting her saying that. Next time though i will report you you for breaking the link policy. because it's annoying.

Article:

Links

The reader should not have to click on a link in order to understand what the post is about. When you link to something to back up something you are discussing then:
Describe what is in the link, and why it is relevant to the thread topic.
Quote relevant excerpts using EX tags,
Include images and screen-grabs from the link.
Links themselves are not content, they are references.

Source: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/metabunks-link-policy.5158/

Apologies

 

[deirdre]

His case has not been debunked

There's nothing about his story to debunk really. Just a very old story, a mish mash of memories. Not like we can track down anything that was happening aside from the military maneuvers 20 years ago.

Spoiler

 

[adam_n_eve]

There's nothing about his story to debunk really. Just a very old story, a mish mash of memories. Not like we can track down anything that was happening aside from the military maneuvers 20 years ago.

Spoiler

View attachment 60828
View attachment 60829

There's nothing to be debunked? Seriously?
So are you really suggesting that radar picked up dolphins feeding and directed Fravor to it and that's what he saw!?!
That's hilarious.

 

[Scaramanga]

He's a weird one. Admitting that yes, we've used UFOs as psyops to hide our own secret projects, while also alleging a lot of crazy shit (as seen here) as true.

Given that his entire job spec was to lie....its not really the best job spec for ever being trusted about coming clean.

 

[Amathia]

Given that his entire job spec was to lie....its not really the best job spec for ever being trusted about coming clean.

For sure. Just interesting that he'd keep at it long after he stopped working for the air force. Retirement must be boring if this is what you decide to do with your free time.

 

[Deleted member 19405]

Possibly a stupid question as I may be misremembering, but did Grusch say during the hearing that has has a "degree in Physics"?

 

[LilWabbit]

A possibility here is that Grusch is simply acting as a biased synthesizer of different sources of possibly contradictory rumors/claims and that the idea that there is a secret program with recovered NHI comes from him and not any one source.

Well put.

Also, the "40" sources were mentioned by Grusch as ones that had knowledge of classified DoD programs "some" of whom are still involved in said programs (marginally, if at all, imo). This type of wording would logically imply that "many" if not most of Grusch's sources are "no longer" working with DoD or at least not directly with any alleged crash-retrieval programs.

In other words, a sizeable chunk of these Ali Baba's 40 thieves could just be the usual suspects since many of them are technically former DoD insiders (Stratton, Elizondo, Mellon, Taylor, Lacatski) or very loosely affiliated brief former DoD flirtations such as Bob Lazar or AASWAP associates such as Puthoff.

Against this backdrop, is it any surprise some of Grusch's sources steered clear from talking to Kirkpatrick and AARO which basically took their jobs after a seeming 'purge' of die-hard believers from UAP investigations?

 

[Scaramanga]

His case has not been debunked

But equally, we don't have definitive evidence that Fravor's incident ever actually happened and there is actually anything to debunk. I was surprised to see Fravor state in the hearings ( contrary to all the hype on the Unidentified series ) that there was zero investigation into his sighting. No men in black showed up. No tapes were taken. No 'dont talk about this to anyone' or the classic ' this never happened'. Just nothing. Even the radar tapes are, as Fravor admits, unavailable. All very odd indeed for an alleged incursion into the middle of a highly sensitive training exercise by a craft that it's claimed could run rings around our best fighter jets.