Tic Tac hypothesis simulation

[ninomon]

Hi, great work with addressing the issues regarding the UFOs, really great animation of the gimbal turn!

Are there any, and if not, could someone perhaps simulate the scenario according to David Fravors reporting but with a smaller thingy at closer range, that could be interpreted as Fravor did from a first person perspective and that would show an alternate explanation when also showing the scenario through an outside perspective?

DFs account:
(I know there are more details and observation reported, also from other people in combination of other data collecting instruments, but nevertheless)

• Saw disturbance in the water, 6000(!!) feet up.
• Noticing a fighter jet-sized tic tac.
• Fravor circling downwards.
• Tic tac mirroring, circling upwards.
• Fravor trying to cut through the spiral to catch up with the Tic tac.
• Tic tac shoots away, passing Fravor and vanishes.

Third person perspective:

• One smaller object, closer to Fravor standing relatively still
• When Fravor is circling down, object is still somewhat stationary (showing how it can seem to mirror Favor form his perspective while being still).
• Fravor cutting through the circle, actually flying by the stationary object.
• Object popping or being destroyed by a fighter jet passing it close by, by vibration or jet fuel or whatever, seemingly vanishing.

The important thing is that it should be only one animation, but played from the different perspectives, showing both, emphasizing the difference in interpretation due to perspectives, I think it would weigh enormously if people actually could see this for themselves rather than imagining such scenario.

And that's all I have to say about that.
/n

 

[Fin]

To do this justice the animator would really need to work with Fravor to first get all the details faithful to his account in as much detail as possible. (This would take time and effort so you'd be lucky to find anyone who'd want to do it for free.) Once that's done the animator could then explore the potential illusions that might explain things. I know from experience, through animating people's UFO sightings, that its very easy to take their written account alone and produce a result which misses out important factors, or adds ingredients which weren't actually described. When an animator visualizes and subsequently animates a UFO witness's account without their input it almost inevitably results in the animator adding his own spin, whether he means to or not.

I have a practical example:
I animated the story of Garry Nolan's childhood sighting, based on a couple of interviews where he described it, but without any input or corrections from Garry himself.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUasyQEm_20


Later, I got in contact with Garry and decided to do the animation again, this time in close collaboration with him, to get it as accurate as possible. This involved sending him multiple drafts and adjusting as I went until he was happy with its accuracy.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Aw2saiz8hk


Notably, in the first animation, made without his input, I depicted the object as an unambiguous saucer shaped craft, above some tall trees. But after working with him, the second animation showed no body to the craft and the (much brighter) lights appear significantly lower & closer to him. I was also able to use the correct location so the path he was on is more accurately depicted.

Now, of course, there are always issues: The animator could faithfully recreate what the witness describes with extreme accuracy, but the witness's memory could be faulty to begin with, so all we end up recreating is still an inaccurate rendition of what actually happened. Perhaps the best route would be to accurately recreate the events faithful to the witness memory, then explore how illusions could explain that, then do another animation focusing on exploring illusions that might explain it, without remaining strictly faithful to the witness's memory.

 

[Mick West]

To be really useful, this should be done in VR.

I started a bit of work on it, getting to the stage of looking down at the tic-tac from 20,000 feet (it's really small) but lost interest.

 

[Fin]

Nobody ever asks the tic-tac how it was affected by all this.