Hypothesis: Fravor's Tic Tac was Kurth's FA18
that is almost the same level of speculation and reaching as the believers do when they propose a black ops tic tac propelled with an EM drive
the white water was cross shaped allegedly, not the object iirc
however, as already posted by myself a long time ago, a submarine can indeed create a cross shaped white water appearance
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wik...s_submarine_on_surface_(approaching_view).png
btw this is a los angeles class submarine just like the uss louisville which was reported to be in the area conducting live ammunition testing
more examples (same class):
the white water was cross shaped allegedly, not the object iirc
however, as already posted by myself a long time ago, a submarine can indeed create a cross shaped white water appearance
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wik...s_submarine_on_surface_(approaching_view).png
btw this is a los angeles class submarine just like the uss louisville which was reported to be in the area conducting live ammunition testing
more examples (same class):
Last edited:
DavidB66
Senior Member.
According to the so-called Executive Summary (admittedly a dubious source) a pilot (identified as Kurth)
On the face of it, these two radar contacts cannot have been Fravor and Dietrich. Fravor probably didn't go lower than 10,000 feet, and Dietrich is very definite that she stayed at 'high cover', around 20-25,000 feet. So either Kurth's radar somehow wildly mispresented the altitude of the planes, or there were two other planes at low altitude.
Last edited:
saucerpilot
Member
I had an experience a couple of years ago that reminded me of Fravor's description of the tic-tac's ping-ponging motion.
I was up on a hill star-watching. A plane flew directly over me, at just a couple hundred feet above my altitude. However, before I could hear the engines, I got pretty excited, because from my vantage point, it looked like a light rapidly changing directions, left, right, up, down. I guess the small variations in its course seen from an angle straight ahead of it, made it look like an object that was abruptly changing directions by a more dramatic amount.
Could fravor's ping-ponging tic tac have been another plane flying almost directly toward him?
I was up on a hill star-watching. A plane flew directly over me, at just a couple hundred feet above my altitude. However, before I could hear the engines, I got pretty excited, because from my vantage point, it looked like a light rapidly changing directions, left, right, up, down. I guess the small variations in its course seen from an angle straight ahead of it, made it look like an object that was abruptly changing directions by a more dramatic amount.
Could fravor's ping-ponging tic tac have been another plane flying almost directly toward him?
Perene
Member
That's an interesting video, but there's a fact he says that is often forgotten: the disturbance on the water ceased once the Tic-Tac object pointed in the direction of their aircraft (realigned its axis). This is in the executive report and Fravor explained in one of his videos.
The report also points out:
"The disturbance appeared to be 50 to 100 meters in diameter and close to round. It was the only area and type of whitewater activity that could be seen and reminded him of images of something rapidly submerging from the surface like a submarine or ship sinking. It also looked like a possible area of shoal water where the swell was breaking over a barely submerged reef or island. He overflew the disturbance and turned back to the northwest. As he was flying away he could see the disturbance clearing and could no longer identify the place where it occurred. He did not see any object or vessel associated with the disturbance either above the surface, on the surface, or below the surface.
Last edited:
jackfrostvc
Senior Member.
thats my guess as well. it matches the location, it looks like a cross if moving on the surface, he didnt knew about it because their training is independent and he was vectored outside of his training area, they were conducting firing drills and the pilots stated that the sea was smooth and blue otherwise, so where was it if it wasnt it what they have seen?
they even reported that they were there and conducting live ammunition training but their ordnance didnt matched the described behavior of the tictac (hovering, doing zigzags, then mimicking fravor, wrong size). parallax and misjudged distance and therefore size explains it all.
heck even dietrich initially said she thought they were vectored into a firing drill of a missile! but after all she was too junior at that point to make her ufo enthusiastic boss look like a fool and went with his story.
they higher officials or submarine crew maybe even found out about it but kept quite because having a near miss with a missile during training would definitely have resulted in consequences for those in charge. after all the crew was dead silent to this day about it.
even if fravor learned that it was a tomahawk, theres no chance he would admit and lose face after going on a media world tour as the topgun ufo guy who knew what he saw and dismissed all other prosaic explanations outright.
they even reported that they were there and conducting live ammunition training but their ordnance didnt matched the described behavior of the tictac (hovering, doing zigzags, then mimicking fravor, wrong size). parallax and misjudged distance and therefore size explains it all.
heck even dietrich initially said she thought they were vectored into a firing drill of a missile! but after all she was too junior at that point to make her ufo enthusiastic boss look like a fool and went with his story.
they higher officials or submarine crew maybe even found out about it but kept quite because having a near miss with a missile during training would definitely have resulted in consequences for those in charge. after all the crew was dead silent to this day about it.
even if fravor learned that it was a tomahawk, theres no chance he would admit and lose face after going on a media world tour as the topgun ufo guy who knew what he saw and dismissed all other prosaic explanations outright.
Perene
Member
If there was no disturbance in that area, Fravor says he would not have found the Tic-Tac object. This is one of the things he claimed.
At least that makes sense, because it was much bigger than it (my first GIF fails to put both to scale, it makes both roughly the same).
The object, shaped like a white capsule about 12–15 m long, was hovering above a patch of "white water" on an otherwise calm, blue ocean. The disturbed patch was much wider than the object itself, described as "the size of a 737."
When the Tic Tac ascended and accelerated away, the water surface returned to normal within seconds (correct me if I am wrong).
The idea this could have been a plane is the worst explanation. I think I saw one of the people involved in this explaining no plane could have entered that area without them knowing in advance.
What I find really odd from this event is the fact the disturbance ceased once it "noticed" their presence and moved upwards (ascended).
The people that believe it was aliens speculate the "white water" wasn't caused by wind or propulsion, but by a localized energy or field effect interacting with the sea surface, perhaps a strong electromagnetic or gravitational-like gradient.
If such a field existed, it could:
- Create cavitation or micro-boiling that whitens the water;
- Displace or churn a region much larger than the craft's physical size (remember: the Tic-Tac was much smaller than the cross-shaped disturbance),
- Suppress the normal splash or sonic effects expected from a fast-moving object.
When the craft left, the field collapsed and the disturbance ceased almost instantly, matching Fravor's observation that the ocean looked calm again.
If an object could generate or manipulate a localized gravitational or inertial field, that same mechanism could:
- Neutralize or redirect its own inertia, explaining the "erratic, instantaneous" movements seen on radar and visually;
- Allow it to maneuver without traditional lift, thrust, or sonic booms;
- Produce secondary environmental effects, like the transient white patch in the water.
But...
- No direct measurement ever confirmed magnetic, thermal, or gravitational anomalies at that spot. Conveniently, they all moved away from there, once the event happened.
- The idea of "gravity-field propulsion" is theoretical only; no current human or known physical model supports an engineered version of it.
- Alternative, mundane explanations (e.g., a submerged vehicle, turbulence from up-well currents, or sensor perception effects) haven't been completely ruled out either.
What is funny (and this is for the folks that believe it was a man-made object):
... Is the fact that we can never guess from where such planes, drones, balloons, or whatever-human-made object came from. I seriously hope these are alien objects, because if none of them are, that means we are clueless idiots looking at a sky filled with stuff we throw it there, yet we cannot pinpoint their origin.
Why are these things flying everywhere and we never know who put them there? There are no records (except for a few planes that happen to be at such location / moment) at all. Or it is "classified".
We are anything but prepared for these encounters.
We never know from where these flying objects came from, and it's even worse if this is foreign object invading these locations, because that proves we can be caught with our pants down at any time.
At least that makes sense, because it was much bigger than it (my first GIF fails to put both to scale, it makes both roughly the same).
The object, shaped like a white capsule about 12–15 m long, was hovering above a patch of "white water" on an otherwise calm, blue ocean. The disturbed patch was much wider than the object itself, described as "the size of a 737."
When the Tic Tac ascended and accelerated away, the water surface returned to normal within seconds (correct me if I am wrong).
The idea this could have been a plane is the worst explanation. I think I saw one of the people involved in this explaining no plane could have entered that area without them knowing in advance.
What I find really odd from this event is the fact the disturbance ceased once it "noticed" their presence and moved upwards (ascended).
The people that believe it was aliens speculate the "white water" wasn't caused by wind or propulsion, but by a localized energy or field effect interacting with the sea surface, perhaps a strong electromagnetic or gravitational-like gradient.
If such a field existed, it could:
- Create cavitation or micro-boiling that whitens the water;
- Displace or churn a region much larger than the craft's physical size (remember: the Tic-Tac was much smaller than the cross-shaped disturbance),
- Suppress the normal splash or sonic effects expected from a fast-moving object.
When the craft left, the field collapsed and the disturbance ceased almost instantly, matching Fravor's observation that the ocean looked calm again.
If an object could generate or manipulate a localized gravitational or inertial field, that same mechanism could:
- Neutralize or redirect its own inertia, explaining the "erratic, instantaneous" movements seen on radar and visually;
- Allow it to maneuver without traditional lift, thrust, or sonic booms;
- Produce secondary environmental effects, like the transient white patch in the water.
But...
- No direct measurement ever confirmed magnetic, thermal, or gravitational anomalies at that spot. Conveniently, they all moved away from there, once the event happened.
- The idea of "gravity-field propulsion" is theoretical only; no current human or known physical model supports an engineered version of it.
- Alternative, mundane explanations (e.g., a submerged vehicle, turbulence from up-well currents, or sensor perception effects) haven't been completely ruled out either.
What is funny (and this is for the folks that believe it was a man-made object):
... Is the fact that we can never guess from where such planes, drones, balloons, or whatever-human-made object came from. I seriously hope these are alien objects, because if none of them are, that means we are clueless idiots looking at a sky filled with stuff we throw it there, yet we cannot pinpoint their origin.
Why are these things flying everywhere and we never know who put them there? There are no records (except for a few planes that happen to be at such location / moment) at all. Or it is "classified".
We are anything but prepared for these encounters.
We never know from where these flying objects came from, and it's even worse if this is foreign object invading these locations, because that proves we can be caught with our pants down at any time.
Last edited:
JMartJr
Senior Member.
I disagree very strongly. We often figure out exactly where they came from, and exactly what they were.
Yes, the ones that we (the more universal "we," not just the "we folks at Metabunk" version) can't identify remain mysterious... this is a tautology, and only means that in some cases we have poor evidence and so identification is not possible.
Eyewitness claims with no further evidence, such as Fravorv et al's sighting, are going to be prominent among such cases where evidence is poor. But where the evidence is good, the track record of reported UFOs being at least pretty confidently identified is very good.
Last edited:
Ann K
Senior Member.
Assumes facts not in evidence; that applies to "these things", "flying", and "everywhere".
That excludes the category of misperceptions.
The drone flaps in New Jersey and now in Europe have reminded us that observers -- even airport employees, law enforcement and the military -- regularly fail to understand they're looking at regular aircraft once they're primed to believe otherwise. Commercial pilots also regularly mistake Starlink flares for "racetrack UFOs" on the horizon, despite @flarkey's crusade.
Mendel
Senior Member.
Reminder that we have several threads about this event; this one is about a specific hypothesis (Fravor saw Kurth's jet).
The disturbance in the water plays a bigger role in these:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/nimitz-tic-tac-fravor-dietrich-encounter-missile-hypothesis.11838/
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/2004-uss-louisville.12347/
I remember Mick also had made a mockup if what the tictac would have looked like; it stands out much less than most of us probably imagine.
The disturbance in the water plays a bigger role in these:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/nimitz-tic-tac-fravor-dietrich-encounter-missile-hypothesis.11838/
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/2004-uss-louisville.12347/
I remember Mick also had made a mockup if what the tictac would have looked like; it stands out much less than most of us probably imagine.
Mendel
Senior Member.
propulsion is a local energy effect
requires strong electromagnets
a gravitational-like gradient is not localized (think moon and tides)
no
what even is "micro-boiling"
well duh, any fast boat does that
no
there was no field
that is not a thing
no "mechanism" can do that, only magic can
that's not how inertia works
by magic
Upshoot: if magic exists, the whole incident could have been caused by wizardry
There's absolutely nothing factual underpinning your speculation.
Mendel
Senior Member.
honestly, have you never heard of balloons?
Why would you expect to be able to pinpoint the origin of a random balloon?
You're operating off a "the government knows everything" theory, with Hollywood plot-like surveillance technology. It's not real.
jackfrostvc
Senior Member.
Really, Douglas Kurth was actually the first to fly over the disturbance in the water. He saw them(Alex and Fravor) on radar/visual I believe.
Alex said she didn't see Kurth at all.
Not sure they even knew he was there given he was vectored away and decided to go there anyway
As we have seen before , a plane can look like a tic tac.
The Haze reported on the day adds another dimension to this, as the cases I have seen where a plane looked like a tic tac, also seemed to have haze about
I'm not saying it was his jet, but I wouldnt rule it out either. It's quite possible IMO.
How did they fly over the same spot with only Douglas spotting them?
I believe there was also some question about Douglas's altitude. Like 2 different alts reported if I remember right.
Lets not forget the report leaked by TheFinalTheory on Above Top Secret along with the Tic Tac video. It stated no weird stuff at all. And that report sounds very different indeed to what the story is today
Last edited:
JMartJr
Senior Member.
If convenient, a link to that would be very helpful.
jackfrostvc
Senior Member.
This one.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/explained-the-navy-ufo-videos.11234/post-249424
For the record , the Above Top Secret forum, where TheFinalTheory first posted the Tic Tac video and this report in 2007, is now defunct. Has been for some time now. Supposedly he also had a powerpoint showing the location of the event. But no one ever seemed to get it.
Perene
Member
Avoid using the word magic in the context of UFOs.
First, remember Arthur C. Clarke's famous quote:
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
If you brough someone as smart as Isaac Newton to the 21st century, you would end up calling him a dumbass, for not understanding how a car works. Let alone more complex stuff...
You are missing the point a bit. No one is saying there's "magic" involved - instead, we are observing phenomena that behave as if they rely on principles not yet understood or demonstrated by us.
That's exactly the context here. The Tic-Tac's performance - instantaneous acceleration, inertia-defying motion, lack of visible propulsion or sonic boom, and a water disturbance far larger than its apparent size - all suggest physics or engineering beyond our known frameworks, but not necessarily impossible ones.
You are right that "propulsion is a local energy effect," but what if the "local energy" isn't jet exhaust or chemical thrust, but spacetime manipulation or field distortion? We know gravity, magnetism, and inertia are all interrelated at a fundamental level. We just haven't mastered them in a way that allows controlled inertial cancellation.
The "white water" patch Fravor saw wasn't behaving like turbulence from a boat or a submerged sub. It appeared stationary, boiling or frothing without any clear cause, then ceased almost immediately when the object left. That doesn't fit with standard hydrodynamics - especially in calm seas.
The more reasonable stance is:
- If the data and witnesses are reliable, the object demonstrates capabilities far beyond conventional tech.
Therefore, either (A) someone has secretly mastered field-based propulsion on Earth, or (B) it's non-human technology.
Neither option requires "magic." It just requires that we admit our current models don't yet explain everything we see.
Nobody is claiming proof of exotic tech; people are proposing a hypothesis that attempts to explain a set of anomalous observations: no visible exhaust or heat plume, near-instantaneous extreme accelerations with no sonic boom, and a water disturbance much larger than the craft. Hypotheses are tested against observations, not invented to mystify.
"Propulsion" in the usual sense (thrust from expelled mass) is indeed a local energy effect, but the point of the field hypothesis is different: it asks whether the object could be changing the local interaction between itself and surrounding space (air/water) - for example, by altering pressure, inertia, or EM properties - rather than pushing mass through the air. That's not the same thing as a conventional propeller or jet.
Cavitation = vapor cavities form when local pressure drops below vapor pressure; their collapse makes noise and whitens water. It is a real, well-documented fluid phenomenon.
"Micro-boiling" was shorthand for cavitation or similar phase-change effects produced by pressure anomalies - not boiling from heat. If a local field depressed pressure briefly over a large area, foam and bubbles would appear without visible mechanical contact.
This is not proven for the Tic-Tac, but it is physically meaningful language, not mystical.
Claims that "gravity fields can't be localized" or "you need huge electromagnets" are true if you mean currently engineered devices. But some theoretical frameworks (metric engineering, warp-bubble concepts) describe localized spacetime or inertial effects in principle. That doesn't mean we have such devices - only that the physics discussion is not vacuous.
The field/gravity/EM hypothesis is an attempt to fit three stubborn facts at once (no heat/exhaust; instant extreme maneuvers; disproportionately large water disturbance). It's speculative and controversial, but it's a scientific attempt to explain anomalous data, not a claim of magic. If you have a simpler physical model that fits all three facts better, that's exactly the kind of alternative scientists want to see.
What proponents mean by "field" effects:
They're asking: what if the object modifies the local physical conditions (pressure, electromagnetic properties, or local spacetime/inertial frame) in its immediate neighborhood?
Two conceptual classes:
- Electromagnetic / plasma interaction: Strong localized ionization or RF/plasma effects can change how air and water interact (ionized gas has different thermal, electrical, and optical behavior). In principle that could cause local bubbling, unusual optical effects, or transient suppression of acoustic coupling.
- Metric/inertial engineering (warp-like ideas): Some theoretical proposals (very speculative) consider altering the metric or inertial properties of a local region. If inertia is effectively reduced in the craft's frame, abrupt accelerations would not produce the high g-forces expected. That's not mainstream engineering - it's theoretical physics research - but it's not logical nonsense either.
Creating strong, macroscopic gravitational fields with current technology would require enormous (currently impossible) mass/energy. That's true.
But theorists discuss metric manipulation (Alcubierre-style metrics, hypothetical engineered stress-energy tensors) as conceptual possibilities. Again: speculative, mathematically framed, not experimentally realized.
The reasonable scientific stance: note the observational anomalies, and consider whether there exist any theoretical mechanisms - even speculative - that could, in principle, explain them. Then look for measurable predictions and tests.
If you think a conventional explanation must exist, propose a concrete mechanism that would (a) produce no IR/exhaust signature, (b) allow near-instantaneous acceleration without large g-forces or sonic booms, and (c) create a transient foamy patch in the water many times larger than the craft - and tell me how we'd test your model. If your mechanism can be tested, we can compare it against the field hypothesis.
As for another jet appearing like this Tic-Tac, it is unlikely. Why?
Both visual and radar data tracked an object moving erratically, not consistent with a known aircraft. Fravor's gun camera (and later, radar tracking from the Princeton) showed instantaneous velocity changes that no F/A-18 could perform.
When it comes to "TheFinalTheory" report, the problem is the document's authenticity was never confirmed. It conflicts with multiple firsthand testimonies (Fravor, Dietrich, Kevin Day, Sean Cahill, Gary Voorhis, etc.) and radar logs described by Princeton crew. It could have been an early draft or a filtered version meant for lower clearance levels.
Last edited:
Harabeck
Senior Member
That's only if we accept Fravor's testimony as completely accurate in every respect. I don't think that's a justifiable position given what we know about our physical world, and the complete lack of evidence for those claims.
So all of the speculating you're doing about speculative technologies is an exercise in science fiction. That can be worthwhile in the appropriate context, but maybe that isn't this discussion.
Ann K
Senior Member.
A "feeding frenzy" of fish or birds requires no "engineering beyond our known frameworks, and no theoretical physics.
JMartJr
Senior Member.
Nor does a submarine.
Mendel
Senior Member.
This is a long post without any sources, so I kinda gave up halfway through. Your support is mostly wishful thinking, and a lack of understanding of fields. The most important property of fields is that fields have no boundary, and they don't fall off sharply.
We understand water and fields. What you propose is impossible with water and fields.
What you are actually proposing is that we understand nothing we see, and that is akin to belief in the supernatural/paranormal, aka magic.
You cannot test anything you proposed here.
Your belief that these limits can be transcended is a belief in magic, akin to the belief that lead can be turned to gold if only we knew how. (I suspect that there did exist an ancient gold-plating technique.)
Nothing of what you propose is testable, or fits within a larger physics framework.
No, they behave as if they contradict principles well understood for over a century. Which means that the "observation" contains unsupported interpretation. I learned in middle school science to clearly separate observation and interpretation, but a fighter pilot is in a different situation and can't always afford to think that way.
We understand water and fields. What you propose is impossible with water and fields.
(A) Hydromagnetic drive exists. It requires magnets to produce a magnetic field. You don't get a field without something producing that field, and you need the kind of field that water will react to.
Two different things. We don't know everything, but the behavior of water at the scales we're talking about is very well understood.
What you are actually proposing is that we understand nothing we see, and that is akin to belief in the supernatural/paranormal, aka magic.
Hypotheses that do not arise from evidence can only mystify.
You cannot test anything you proposed here.
This is impossible without moving a large amount of matter briefly. The pressure of a gas is a function of its density and temperature.
This is not a practical limitation, it's a theoretical limitation.
Your belief that these limits can be transcended is a belief in magic, akin to the belief that lead can be turned to gold if only we knew how. (I suspect that there did exist an ancient gold-plating technique.)
Nothing of what you propose is testable, or fits within a larger physics framework.
Mendel
Senior Member.
No, we don't.
Gravity and inertia are the same thing, i.e. spacetime curvature.
Magnetism takes place in spacetime, like everything else. A closer relation to it (aka "unified field theory") is not known to exist.
so it means you don't understand boiling
what is that? maybe you should start a thread on it
jackfrostvc
Senior Member.
I sort of stumbled on something today .
I think part of the story if a remember right is that the tic tac object out turned Fravors jet.
If the Tic Tac was another jet, say Doiuglas Kurths jet for example. That actually makes sense.
The reason being as I saw today, is that a jet at lower altitude has a higher turn rate than a jet at altitude.
Easier to turn in thicker air than thin air. Plus as a side note more thrust at low alt.
So the thing at lower alt out turning him might have sounded odd to some. It's actually completely normal
I think part of the story if a remember right is that the tic tac object out turned Fravors jet.
If the Tic Tac was another jet, say Doiuglas Kurths jet for example. That actually makes sense.
The reason being as I saw today, is that a jet at lower altitude has a higher turn rate than a jet at altitude.
Easier to turn in thicker air than thin air. Plus as a side note more thrust at low alt.
So the thing at lower alt out turning him might have sounded odd to some. It's actually completely normal
Perene
Member
Low-altitude air is denser and helps an aircraft turn tighter, that's good aerodynamic reasoning. But in the Nimitz case, the Tic-Tac didn't just turn tighter, it instantly reoriented and shot off at impossible acceleration with no visible control surfaces or exhaust.
Even if Kurth's F/A-18 was in the area, it couldn't perform the vertical or horizontal accelerations seen on radar and described by multiple pilots. So, while air density explains some turn performance, it doesn't explain instantaneous acceleration, lack of sonic boom, or the "ping-pong" motion, the very traits that made this case stand out.
In theory, a low-altitude F/A-18 could out-turn one at 20,000 ft. But both jets in the Nimitz case were in roughly the same altitude band during the dogfight portion (Fravor's descent brought him near the Tic-Tac at low level). The reported "out-turning" maneuver occurred after the intercept, when the object rapidly changed orientation and zipped away, vertically and horizontally, without observable acceleration.
Besides, SPY-1 and E-2 Hawkeye radar logs (and even post-event ATFLIR data) showed the object descending from ~80,000 ft to sea level in <10 seconds, then reappearing ~60 miles away almost instantaneously.
Fravor described it as:
"Like a ping-pong ball inside a box - instant direction changes."
No wings, no exhaust, no flight control surfaces. Instant acceleration from near-zero to out of visual range in <1 second. Even if Douglas Kurth's F/A-18 were at lower altitude, it could not perform that type of instantaneous "vector-change" motion.
Even if Kurth's F/A-18 was in the area, it couldn't perform the vertical or horizontal accelerations seen on radar and described by multiple pilots. So, while air density explains some turn performance, it doesn't explain instantaneous acceleration, lack of sonic boom, or the "ping-pong" motion, the very traits that made this case stand out.
In theory, a low-altitude F/A-18 could out-turn one at 20,000 ft. But both jets in the Nimitz case were in roughly the same altitude band during the dogfight portion (Fravor's descent brought him near the Tic-Tac at low level). The reported "out-turning" maneuver occurred after the intercept, when the object rapidly changed orientation and zipped away, vertically and horizontally, without observable acceleration.
Besides, SPY-1 and E-2 Hawkeye radar logs (and even post-event ATFLIR data) showed the object descending from ~80,000 ft to sea level in <10 seconds, then reappearing ~60 miles away almost instantaneously.
Fravor described it as:
"Like a ping-pong ball inside a box - instant direction changes."
No wings, no exhaust, no flight control surfaces. Instant acceleration from near-zero to out of visual range in <1 second. Even if Douglas Kurth's F/A-18 were at lower altitude, it could not perform that type of instantaneous "vector-change" motion.
Mendel
Senior Member.
no they did not
it is much more likely these were 3 separate spurious returns
Ann K
Senior Member.
...is impossible.
...is also impossible, since acceleration is a function of time. Remember, tales become even less believable when described in such exaggerated terms.
jackfrostvc
Senior Member.
@Perene
The Event Summary report which was leaked by TFT on ATS forum which was supposed to be a description of the event just after it happened and therefor you would think the most accurate. It has glaring discrepancies with Fravors later account many years later.
1) There is no ping ponging at all.
2) The object was not initially over the disturbance in the water, it was sighted by Fravor 5Nm away from it
3) The object flew under Fravors Jet and then turned when Fravor turned to acquire.
4) the report mentions the object doing terrestrial speed
5) The report says they lost it in Haze, not that it dissappeared
Another thing to consider, is that if Radar jamming is at play here. Then what confidence can there be on radar pings and the data derived from them.
They said there was jamming. Whats more likely, jamming from other jets in the training area, or from an alien craft that was just so happened to jam the right frequencies we use for radar?
Also, lets say they were both approaching each other in thick Haze at 550 knots each. Ie a closing speed of 1100 knots or 2037 km/h.
That means as the other jet passes Fravors Jet, it is going away from him at 5.6 km every 10 seconds. Think about that. It does not take long before it's out of sight at all, especially in Haze as the report noted. Especially considering that one of the Fa18's blind spots is behind from the pilot perspective. After the initial what the F..k, then trying to see the thing behind them in their blind spot.
For reference , here is the event summary again: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/explained-the-navy-ufo-videos.11234/page-4#post-249424
The Event Summary report which was leaked by TFT on ATS forum which was supposed to be a description of the event just after it happened and therefor you would think the most accurate. It has glaring discrepancies with Fravors later account many years later.
1) There is no ping ponging at all.
2) The object was not initially over the disturbance in the water, it was sighted by Fravor 5Nm away from it
3) The object flew under Fravors Jet and then turned when Fravor turned to acquire.
4) the report mentions the object doing terrestrial speed
5) The report says they lost it in Haze, not that it dissappeared
Another thing to consider, is that if Radar jamming is at play here. Then what confidence can there be on radar pings and the data derived from them.
They said there was jamming. Whats more likely, jamming from other jets in the training area, or from an alien craft that was just so happened to jam the right frequencies we use for radar?
Also, lets say they were both approaching each other in thick Haze at 550 knots each. Ie a closing speed of 1100 knots or 2037 km/h.
That means as the other jet passes Fravors Jet, it is going away from him at 5.6 km every 10 seconds. Think about that. It does not take long before it's out of sight at all, especially in Haze as the report noted. Especially considering that one of the Fa18's blind spots is behind from the pilot perspective. After the initial what the F..k, then trying to see the thing behind them in their blind spot.
For reference , here is the event summary again: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/explained-the-navy-ufo-videos.11234/page-4#post-249424
Last edited:
Mendel
Senior Member.
I wasn't aware that "post-event ATFLIR data" exists that shows this, and I bet that's news to everyone else on the forum as well. Where did you find this claim?
I've seen this claim before, but find it unlikely that any radar operator losing one contact would assume that another contact made some 60 miles away and almost instantaneously after the loss of the intial return was the same object.
That part of the story simply doesn't make sense.
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
Did Fravor have a "gun camera"? Which video is that?
There is the "Nimitz" or more commonly, the "TicTak" video that purportedly shows some intense acceleration, but it appears that is likely an illusion, due the change in zoom levels and the camera moving off the target. That video was recorded with a FILR targeting pod by WSO Underwood from a different aircraft, sometime later and some 60 miles from where Fravor's encounter took place. I don't think Fravor's aircraft even had a FLIR pod.
John J.
Senior Member.
The reported Tic Tac was either viewed on ATFLIR or it wasn't. As far as we know it wasn't.
(my emphasis).
MonkeeSage
Senior Member.
Fravor and Dietrich did not have ATFLIR pods equipped and Fravor specifically requested the next group to bring one and try to capture it, which is the "Nimitz" video.
From the BAASS "Executive Summary" p. 7
This agrees with the 60 Minutes interview with Fravor and Dietrich (aired 2021/05/21).
From the BAASS "Executive Summary" p. 7
p. 9External Quote:
Source: https://cropper.watch.aetnd.com/cdn...REPORT_1526682843046_42960218_ver1.0-copy.pdfExternal Quote:
This agrees with the 60 Minutes interview with Fravor and Dietrich (aired 2021/05/21).
See this post for full transcript and link to source: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/fr...illusion-comparing-accounts.10941/post-297127External Quote:
JMartJr
Senior Member.
I am not familiar with the phrase "terrestrial speed." What does it mean?
Edit Changed "O am not" to "I am not," which makes sense in English!
Last edited:
jackfrostvc
Senior Member.
I mean the report mentions the object being estimated to be going 600-700 knots, which is within the range a FA18 can do, as opposed to zipping of instantaneously which nothing can do
Ann K
Senior Member.
In the dialect of some Englishmen, you could try "Oi am not"
jarlrmai
Senior Member.
Acceleration is not speed though, does it mention instant accleration to 6-700kts or just a speed, as in the object was already moving at that speed when observed?
Perene
Member
There's another complexity for the debunkers: the appendages from this "Tic-Tac" object.
If these were really part of it, I don't think balloons, drones or other proposed flying objects would have them.
In the end, it all comes down whether we believe the eyewitness testimonies or not.
Either they are all very good liars, or this was an alien object (I'll explain this bit in a minute). Unless we are going to claim they are almost blind, too. The pilots saw the object visually - with the naked eye. You cannot hallucinate a white, smooth, uniform capsule because a sensor is glitching.
There is no 3rd hypothesis, such as being victim to parallax, and popping a rogue balloon that happened to be in the area, or perhaps we were hiding an alien tech and testing it. It's always "the government denies knowledge" BS that conspiracy theorists inject in those stories.
Now, even if this was an alien craft / drone, and we recognize it defies all known physics (operating another way), there's just one detail that adds to all that and makes the whole thing more wild:
- If the aliens created the Tic-Tac (or the aliens themselves are the objects, or maybe there is no living being inside them, and it's all drones), we need to answer the most important question of all: from where they came from. And exactly where they went once paid us a visit. No, they didn't come into existence out of nowhere, and didn't vanish for good. We can all agree with both these.
Unless we are proposing they are hiding in the oceans, or among us humans (I don't think so...), that leads to the conclusion they have mastered something far more outlandish - the ability to travel much greater distances. That's because unless they are also invisible, these aliens aren't hiding in orbit, and went to the Moon or the closest planets. If there is a Tic-Tac alien object, it needs to have a home location and builders.
I may try to explain how that object operated all day long, what I can't escape is this other question. And it's even more important to also ask, if the aliens know we exist / are here, when they exactly found out about us, and how. As I said in another thread, you can't travel to empty space in the hope of finding a habitable planet. That's not how it works (don't ever compare outer space with the discovery of America), despite their spaceship capabilities. Because that's not just a waste of resources, you can make a 1000 year trip and find nothing, while also being subjected to being killed/destroyed (in space). There's also not any known tech that can affirm, from great distances, if a planet has living beings or stuff like water.
Since Earth is mostly water, it makes sense the aliens would be already living here for a while or use it as a means to escape detection, or to go somewhere else, perhaps opening a portal or whatever they do in it, while also not being detected by us. The worst realization (if this is all true), is the fact they either consider us irrelevant (as we treat ants), or they know enough about the human species to purposely avoid direct contact. Whatever the Tic-Tac and other objects were doing here, they went back to where they came from, successfully.
Perhaps because they looked at the U.S. military budget and how incompetent we were to intercept them, and anticipate these sightings, and didn't think we could pose any threat...
Of course, all the alien ideas are good sci-fi, not backed by concrete evidence. And this case has none of it, much like all others regarding UFOs. So you either believe they saw an object that is alien (we would not only be able to create something like it, let alone hiding), or not.
That's the end of the story, there is no debunking. No misidentified aircraft or drone, no balloon, missile, optical illusion, and we all know it. I mean, those that don't live in denial.
I am aware there are many of these reports we can explain, there are whole books on what some of the lights in the sky actually are. Hey, until 1989 we didn't even have records of SPRITES, a weather phenomenon. It's just that the proposed explanations for the Tic-Tac incident are no good.
That fuzzy video from the "final" object that was some 60 miles away could be the same object. Or another different altogether. We can't connect the events and say both are the same. PERIOD. If this is the only "good evidence", then I'm sorry, it is no evidence AT ALL for me. If you are trying to debunk this, I agree 100% it doesn't prove any of the claims.
So we get back to eyewitness accounts, AGAIN. Which in a court of law has a lot of weight, not for a scientist, which rightly recognize it as useless.
Last edited:
Ann K
Senior Member.
No, eyewitness accounts are very frequently found to be wrong. That does NOT mean they are liars, of course, but are often simply mistaken.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/External Quote:
Add to that the difficulty of assessing speed, size, or distance of an unfamiliar object in the absence of known items with which to compare it, and you should be able to see why we do not all have great faith in the accounts of eyewitnesses. It doesn't matter if the witnesses are trained pilots; more to the point, there is no such thing as a "trained UFO observer".
John J.
Senior Member.
Similar statements have been made here before. They are incorrect, and an inaccurate (though I'm sure unintentional) characterisation of what what people with sceptical views think.
It is based on a false dichotomy: The eyewitness testimony is a wholly accurate account of what was objectively present, and the likely explanation is extraterrestrial technology, or the eyewitnesses are liars.
It discounts, a priori, any theories involving honest (and sometimes understandable) mistakes, misidentifications or misinterpretation by claimants.
It ignores overwhelming evidence that generally competent, credible (and sometimes highly-skilled, highly motivated and intelligent) eyewitnesses sometimes report things that can later be demonstrated to be incorrect.
(Misidentifications/ misinterpretations are rarely the result of "hallucinations", though of course hallucinations can happen).
There are countless UFO sightings (and other reports of strange phenomena) where it turns out the experiencer misidentified/ misinterpreted what was objectively there. Something similar applies to accounts given e.g. by police officers acting with the best of intentions: sometimes their take on events can be shown to be flawed, their descriptions inaccurate.
From the Colorado Phoenix thread, https://www.metabunk.org/threads/colorado-phoenix-june-21-2017.13717/
External Quote:
From the "UFOs" Cornwall July 12th 2025..." thread https://www.metabunk.org/threads/ufos-cornwall-july-12th-2025-reflections-of-garden-lights.14485/ (cropped picture)
The first is an airliner illuminated by the setting sun. The second shows reflections of ornamental garden lights in a window or patio door (more obvious when you see the whole picture).
Were the claimants lying? No. Did anyone here claim, or even suggest, that they were lying? No.
The claimants were mistaken; people here looked at the evidence, thinking there might be a more likely explanation than a phoenix/ angel or extraterrestrial spacecraft, and found likely answers.
Anyone can be mistaken or misinterpret "the evidence of their senses". Highly-trained professionals, including military aircrew, are not immune, see thread How Can Highly Trained Military Pilots Possibly Misinterpret Things They See?
It discusses the concept of "trained observers", that e.g. pilots or policemen are more reliable witnesses than the average person, better at identifying things (so their accounts are more likely to be correct). But we know trained observers make mistakes, miscalculate speeds/ distances, misidentify and misinterpret things just like everyone else, although they are more proficient in their professional domain.
I would guess the average military pilot is better at estimating distances and speeds than most non-pilots, particularly regarding the relative speeds of other identifiable aircraft, but their trained/ innate proficiencies are reduced when viewing unfamiliar objects (whose size cannot be estimated) and when there are reduced visible cues, e.g. a lack of landmarks in the featureless sky or over the sea. This is partly why they are equipped with radar (radio detection and ranging), laser rangefinders, FLIR etc. etc.
In the "How Can Highly Trained..." thread there is audio and a transcript of two A-10 pilots serving in Iraq, 2003 (post #59). The pilots misidentified "friendly" sand-coloured tracked vehicles as green trucks -tentatively naming a specific model of truck used by opposition forces- and talked themselves into believing that the vehicle's orange air identification panels (carried to show close air support aircraft such as the A-10s that they were "friendlies", a protocol the pilots knew) were in fact orange (!) rockets. The A-10s attacked the vehicles.
There are examples on this forum of commercial pilots misinterpreting Starlink trains/ flares as something extraordinary, even though they are aware of Starlink flares.
Pilots in World War II positively identified some enemy fighters they encountered as Heinkel 100s, a type known to exist and used in German propaganda (German, Italian and Japanese Fighters of World War II, Bill Gunston, Salamander Books 1980) and, early in the war, possibly the fastest aircraft in the world.
This mattered, because air combat tactics varied depending on the known (or suspected) capabilities of enemy aircraft. But the Heinkel 100 never achieved squadron use; a small number at a Heinkel factory were available for test pilots to use as a last-ditch point defence. The factory was beyond the range of Allied air raids at that time, and He-100s never saw combat (Wikipedia Heinkel He 100).
Nonetheless, Allied pilots, whose lives might be endangered by the use of tactics based on mistaken assumptions, saw them over Northwest Europe. They were wrong- but they weren't lying, and I doubt they made their reports lightly.
There are several well-documented accounts of police cars attempting to pursue Venus thinking it to be a UFO/ drone.
If the Tic Tac was a physical object, it was undetectable to Fravor's radar at (an estimated, very brief) minimum range of a half-mile/ 800 metres, and to Dietrich's radar at longer range. yet something in the area of the sighting had been detected by a (possibly glitchy) ship-borne radar, the reason Fravor and Dietrich were sent there. They would have been actively looking for anything unusual.
There is no evidence that the F/A-18s had faulty radar, or that their radars were jammed, or that the radars cut out.
Personally, I have no doubt that Fravor and Dietrich were telling the truth about what they believed they saw. There is no compelling reason to doubt their honesty or professionalism. But their interpretations of what they saw might not be an accurate interpretation of what was physically there to be seen.
Similar threads
