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 think fravor said his weapon system's weren't armed, is that normal procedure if you are going to check on a potential threat?
If it hasn't, would love to see a thread on it.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.
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.
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
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.
Not trying to be anomalously smart here, but that description does include balloons, after all.
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.
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.
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.
A hypothesis (his word) cannot be a conclusion. The phrasing seems designed to overstate his preferred narrative.
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.
I disagree. Fravor has stated in interviews it flew off extremely fast.
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,
He said that because as he approached it turned to face him, sort of nose on. And it then mirrored his approach.
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'.)
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.
I haven't heard Dietrich describe its disappearance.
I haven't heard Fravor describe the direction in which it flew off but happy to hear any interviews where he states it.
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.
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.
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.
Sorry the video is where she says "it just disappeared"
Apologies3:30 "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.
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.
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.
There's nothing to be debunked? Seriously?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.
