jarlrmai
Senior Member.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3keF8rf7Ig
This thread is for any discussion that arises from this videoExternal Quote:
Mick West interview with Naval Aviator and F/A-18 pilot Brian Burke
- Thread starter jarlrmai
- Start date
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3keF8rf7Ig
jarlrmai
Senior Member.
It was established that yes there were WSOs, but that might more relevant to the threads discussing Favor's experience.
Lu Ann Lewellen
Active Member
I thought Burke was choosing his words very carefully when speaking of Fravor. His explanation of what goes on during exercises was very informative. Of course they weren't going to drop everything to investigate a "dogfight" with a "UFO" that was already gone.
Edward Current
Senior Member.
One big takeaway from that interview is that the Navy doesn't have the time or resources to chase down UFOs and investigate them. UFO zealots seem to think that's all that Navy pilots do, and that after Gimbal for example, that there was a perfect record of who was flying where within a 100-mile radius. Thus the Navy naturally would have known* if the object were another F-18 at 30 miles. Also, that since the "war on terror," the Navy is underfunded compared to other branches.
The stories about the financial shenanigans were informative. My sister is a Gulf War veteran on 50% disability. A bandmate of mine's wife worked for the VA, processing disability claims, and she told me, "Have her give me a call — I'll get her up to 100%." Consistent with "Just say you have hearing loss."
*I call this kind of construction the "would-pecker fallacy," i.e., an argument from incredulity in the form of a naïve thought experiment. ("The building would have toppled over")
The stories about the financial shenanigans were informative. My sister is a Gulf War veteran on 50% disability. A bandmate of mine's wife worked for the VA, processing disability claims, and she told me, "Have her give me a call — I'll get her up to 100%." Consistent with "Just say you have hearing loss."
*I call this kind of construction the "would-pecker fallacy," i.e., an argument from incredulity in the form of a naïve thought experiment. ("The building would have toppled over")
DavidB66
Senior Member.
It is understood that Fravor had a WSO. His name has not been publicly released. (I say 'he' because documents use that word.) It has been said by various people that he is still a serving officer, and for that reason does not wish to go on the public record. In the so-called 'Executive Summary' his rank is given as Lieutenant but his name is redacted. He gave a similar description to Fravor's of the appearance of the 'tic tac', but
(Fravor described it as 'holding like a Harrier', which is taken to imply 'hovering'.)
There are many online copies of the 'Executive Summary'. I have used this one:
https://embed.documentcloud.org/documents/20743466-nimitz-unredacted/?embed=1&responsive=1&title=1
Incidentally, I note that the Executive Summary in one place expands the abbreviation WSO as 'Weapon Systems Operator' but in another as 'Weapons and Sensors Officer'. Wikipedia uses the term 'Weapon Systems Officer'.
Edward Current
Senior Member.
I feel like we need to move on from the three Pentagon videos at some point. How many times do we need to re-litigate JFK or the curvature of the Earth? It's not going to move the needle with the few remaining die-hards who have selected themselves as being totally uninterested in counter-evidence.
jarlrmai
Senior Member.
These videos are still playing an active part of convincing senators in congress that "something is going on."
JMartJr
Senior Member.
Maybe, @Mick West, what is needed now is a "Primer for Members of Congress" as your next video -- compiling what we know about the various Navy videos and images that are out there?
jarlrmai
Senior Member.
@Mick West I wonder if we could have a more in-depth follow-up on the ATFLIR ranging question, I know he didnt use it and as suspected they mostly use the targeting pods for A/G. He seemed convinced that the laser is used in A/A, I think that is probably not correct but talking it through with him would be helpful.
Once thing that has stood out so far from the pilots we have interacted with are not really sure how the tech they use works, not that they need to really but it still demonstrates that only really Raytheon engineers and possibly some Navy engineers probably know.
Once thing that has stood out so far from the pilots we have interacted with are not really sure how the tech they use works, not that they need to really but it still demonstrates that only really Raytheon engineers and possibly some Navy engineers probably know.
ManInBlack
Active Member
Thoroughly enjoyed this interview some great theories. It was mentioned that there are tethered balloons in certain zones, it would be good to have follow up questions about these zones and where they are located.
One part of the interview that I thought was utterly ridiculous, was when Brian Burke mentioned that AARO should reach out to @Mick West. No offence to Mick West but data should be sent to scientists that have all the resources at their disposal. For example Nasa, which I've read is happening right now.
Edward Current
Senior Member.
What scientists would those be, who are sitting around without better things to do (that they are funded for), and have broad expertise on optics, camera technology, 3D motion analysis, and the history of UFO documentation? How much taxpayer money should be spent on flying saucers? IMO, more involvement by government officials clueless on UFOs is not what's needed here.
Why not both? I think there's an advantage to lay practitioners such as myself in that we have a lot of spare time to dedicate to specific cases we find interesting. I think we can at least augment more official investigation where the practitioners are not really that into it, and don't have time to get familiar with all the details.
For example, here's the head of NASA's UAP panel describing the Gimbal video, and getting it incredibly wrong.
ManInBlack
Active Member
@Mick West that's one scientists view from Nasa, on a pod cast. Not a whole team of scientists putting forward a theory. I don't believe Nasa have officially released any peer reviewed papers.
Why not join the Galileo project?
They haven't asked me.
Nemon
Active Member
Judging by the embarrassing performances of prominent physicists, I would think that Michio Kaku is currently pushing himself for the chairmanship of the erratic college. He is so extremely embarrassing that one really has to wonder what is going wrong here.
But that would certainly be a thread of its own....
But that would certainly be a thread of its own....
ManInBlack
Active Member
I believe you have to volunteer however it seems they have enough (see below).
https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/galileo/volunteer
almost 20 years later, i dont think this makes a lot of sense
i fear without additional evidence in forms of classified reports or testimony from the uss louisville or e2 spy plane we wont make any progress.
its really just a single story coming from fravor.
because something is going on.
be it pilots seeing things they cant explain or that there really are crafts with weird behavior.
iirc ryan graves admitted on a podcast that the gimbal might be glare but thats only a single part of the whole puzzle. he also said hes on the prosaic explanation spectrum until hard data comes forward to convince him otherwise.
he seems very reasonable as well and i think he is also a credible voice when he says that "these things" show weird characteristics, even if the rotation is glare.
we shouldnt dismiss this.
so far not a single fighter pilot said that the tic tac video or gimbal looks like an engine. not even Burke.
who are we to say that they are probably all wrong? i would suggest they are probably right until other pilots suggest the opposite or we have hard evidence to support Micks assumption of it being a F18 and airliner.
if we neglect these statements in order to force a piece into a puzzle then we are not better than the average believer
Ann K
Senior Member.
"We" (alas, I'm not one of them) include pilots, mathematicians, computer whizzes, photography experts, engineers, and physicists. I align most strongly with the last, and if the description of an object's behavior breaks the known laws of physics, my first assumption is that it's probably wrong. The other experts can often tell us all just HOW the mistakes were made.
There's also the problem of "other pilots suggesting the opposite". First, the investigators concentrate on the people who DID say they saw something, not the ones who say they didn't see it. That's as it should be, because unless it's something huge and unmistakeable, "I didn't see it" is hardly evidence one way or another. As for the tictac, I understand that two pilots gave differing testimony, others did not wish to speak on the record, so it's not as if there was unanimity. And then there's hierarchy and group cohesion; nobody wants to contradict the guy in charge.
Mendel
Senior Member.
Because normally, they'd lock on aircraft much closer than 30 nm, and those images have much less glare, and thus the engines do look different.
Remember, these experts are good in a specific area, and in the case of pilots, it's looking at other aircraft that are actually in range of their weapon systems. That's probably >99% of their experience with the system, and for these situations, their statement is fairly reliable.
But engine glare at 30 nm wouldn't be trained for, would occur rarely, and it wouldn't usually be important when it does, hence it wouldn't be debriefed on, wouldn't imprint in memory, etc.
oh i fully agree here. i was only talking about what is seen on flir and if multiple people that did this for a living say it doesnt look like an airplane they know of then i would take that into consideration and dont dismiss it the same way as if they said it disappeared in a wormhole.
doesnt rule out f18s and jetliners but makes it a little more likely to be some sort of other craft or EW spoof or similar
do you have examples or is this just an assumption? its a valid hypothesis but if multiple pilots, even those not pushing aliens, tend to dismiss it as likely then i would propose to weight these insights a little bit higher
Mendel
Senior Member.
We had ATFLIR images of jet exhausts on metabunk previously, possibly on the thread about the temperature.
Mendel
Senior Member.
this thread: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/re...nd-range-and-temp-to-of-the-gimbal-uap.12486/ , be sure to see page 2!
more at
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/gi...lines-of-bearing-and-or-dcs.11836/post-262578
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/gi...lines-of-bearing-and-or-dcs.11836/post-262598
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/gi...lines-of-bearing-and-or-dcs.11836/post-262621
showing typical distances
Lu Ann Lewellen
Active Member
At 1:03:15 in the video Burke says it's more likely an airliner in answer to Mick's question.
There's nothing to wonder here. Kaku has been the go-to "smart physics man who will entertain any woo" for a buck for a long time. Before UFOs, it would be time travel, wormholes, quantum woo, whatever. But the UFO scene is perfect because it is seemingly unending opportunities for attention and speaking fees. He hasn't done any important real physics in years (like publishing important papers).
NDT is similar in that he doesn't do much original research anymore but he chose the path of popularizing legitimate science to the masses, similar to Sagan.
FatPhil
Senior Member.
If things like this were actually considered potential security/safety risks to the US, one might even think that perhaps training the pilots on exactly these kinds of situations would be useful. But they aren't (the latter), so perhaps they aren't (the former)?
Maybe the US armed forces no longer have any fighter jets with FLIRs so they can't perform a recreation of our model in order to show us how completely different it would look.
MrXopher
New Member
Besides all of the technical information above, a notable moment for me was when the subject of Fravor being involved in a dogfight seemed to be passed over as "cool", with seemingly no further discussion which suggests to me that these sightings and claims of multiple engagements may be somewhat of an exaggeration.
That, and staff on active duty being able to lean over and film what could be sensitive information on their mobile devices!
Edited to remove erroneous emoticon.
That, and staff on active duty being able to lean over and film what could be sensitive information on their mobile devices!
Edited to remove erroneous emoticon.
Similar threads
