5 ms·

something smells fishy. He never looked at the object with his own eyes. C'mon. How can you not verify with your own eyes whether this thing was real or not?

something smells fishy. He never looked at the object with his own eyes. C'mon. How can you not verify with your own eyes whether this thing was real or not? He says he was trying to capture the best video for later analysis. He couldn't have just glanced at the object for a second to make visual confirmation?

electrograv 7y ago
These military jets use what are effectively stabilized infrared telescopes, capable of tracking flying objects many miles away — long before human biological vision has any hope of seeing them. This is crucial because modern aerial warfare involves missile armaments effective at these distances, so much of it is a game of who can find and acquire a target lock on their enemy first. These phenomena are interesting because (1) multiple sensor systems from multiple platforms/locations consistently tracked the object in ways that corroborate each other, and (2) other pilots have actually flown close enough to report visual contact.
ComputerGuru 7y ago
He explained that. > No. I was more concentrated on looking at the FLIR. It was inside of 20 miles. You’re not going to see it with your own eyes until probably 10 miles, and then you’re not going to be able to visually track it until you’re probably inside of five miles, which is where Dave Fravor said he saw it. These are trained military pilots. Our eyes can’t see an object like that twenty miles out. If the system has a lock and it tells you it’s that far away, you don’t waste time and lose focus by trying to see for yourself something you already know you won’t be able to make out with the naked eye. Additionally, it’s not as if no one saw it with their naked eye. Fravor’s word is as as good as his, and he says saw it. The value here is in the fact that this pilot is telling you he was watching the machines confirm what his colleague had seen. I take man + machine as a harder proof than two men, and not much less than 2 men + machine. Edit: also seen by the squadron commanding officer: > And it was also seen, via eyeballs, by both my commanding officer, Dave Fravor, and the Marine Corps Hornet squadron commanding officer who was out there as well. So, yeah. Two men + machine, rather than three men + machine. What I find more interesting is that NORAD didn’t debrief him, which means they either knew who was behind it or were already tracking it separately and knew what they needed to know (both very possible). Or perhaps since everything he saw and all his maneuvers were better documented in the real-time system logs dump and FLIR capture than he would be able to reliably recall, there was literally nothing he could add.
- seiferteric 7y ago
  This is why I believe what they saw was some sort of test of a FLIR defeating tech. Like an IR laser projection from a sub launched drone. It explains why it could move so fast and have no propulsion, it was just a laser dot moving around the sky and he was the cat chasing it around.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - fortran77 7y ago
    Or simply some FOD on the FLIR lens or sensor that bounced around a bit as the plane was moving.
    - derefr 7y ago
      Multiple planes saw it from different angles at the same time.
  - ComputerGuru 7y ago
    I’m not sure how you can project anything into space that would be seen with continuity by both man and machine to look and act the same (keep in mind IR and visible light have different properties). If you’ve ever played with a laser pointer you’ll know what I mean: it drives the cat crazy when it jumps/skips/disappears because now it’s being projected on a different plane of surface (in the air: a different cloud or haze). It’s the continuity of movement (rather than many other “UFO” sightings reporting an object “suddenly appearing somewhere else in the sky”) that makes this all the more intriguing. An explanation Must take all this into account, and whatever it is, alien or terrestrial, it’s really cool tech, much more exciting than what you describe.
    - whatshisface 7y ago
      Take a look at the Bragg curve. This explains it: https://www.otherhand.org/home-page/area-51-and-other-strange-places/bluefire-main/bluefire/particle-beams-and-saucer-dreams/ https://www.otherhand.org/home-page/area-51-and-other-strang...
davidandgoliath 7y ago
These are multi-million dollar machines built on billions in R&D for explicitly this purpose, with highly trained operators that spend thousands of hours in a simulator / live flight: Let them do their job.
godelski 7y ago
It's really hard to see other flying objects when you're flying. Any pilot can confirm this. It can even be hard to see something within a mile! But at 20 miles, good luck finding it. Better to just trust the instruments.

electrograv 7y ago

These military jets use what are effectively stabilized infrared telescopes, capable of tracking flying objects many miles away — long before human biological vision has any hope of seeing them. This is crucial because modern aerial warfare involves missile armaments effective at these distances, so much of it is a game of who can find and acquire a target lock on their enemy first. These phenomena are interesting because (1) multiple sensor systems from multiple platforms/locations consistently tracked the object in ways that corroborate each other, and (2) other pilots have actually flown close enough to report visual contact.

ComputerGuru 7y ago

He explained that. > No. I was more concentrated on looking at the FLIR. It was inside of 20 miles. You’re not going to see it with your own eyes until probably 10 miles, and then you’re not going to be able to visually track it until you’re probably inside of five miles, which is where Dave Fravor said he saw it. These are trained military pilots. Our eyes can’t see an object like that twenty miles out. If the system has a lock and it tells you it’s that far away, you don’t waste time and lose focus by trying to see for yourself something you already know you won’t be able to make out with the naked eye. Additionally, it’s not as if no one saw it with their naked eye. Fravor’s word is as as good as his, and he says saw it. The value here is in the fact that this pilot is telling you he was watching the machines confirm what his colleague had seen. I take man + machine as a harder proof than two men, and not much less than 2 men + machine. Edit: also seen by the squadron commanding officer: > And it was also seen, via eyeballs, by both my commanding officer, Dave Fravor, and the Marine Corps Hornet squadron commanding officer who was out there as well. So, yeah. Two men + machine, rather than three men + machine. What I find more interesting is that NORAD didn’t debrief him, which means they either knew who was behind it or were already tracking it separately and knew what they needed to know (both very possible). Or perhaps since everything he saw and all his maneuvers were better documented in the real-time system logs dump and FLIR capture than he would be able to reliably recall, there was literally nothing he could add.

seiferteric 7y ago
This is why I believe what they saw was some sort of test of a FLIR defeating tech. Like an IR laser projection from a sub launched drone. It explains why it could move so fast and have no propulsion, it was just a laser dot moving around the sky and he was the cat chasing it around.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- fortran77 7y ago
  Or simply some FOD on the FLIR lens or sensor that bounced around a bit as the plane was moving.
  - derefr 7y ago
    Multiple planes saw it from different angles at the same time.
- ComputerGuru 7y ago
  I’m not sure how you can project anything into space that would be seen with continuity by both man and machine to look and act the same (keep in mind IR and visible light have different properties). If you’ve ever played with a laser pointer you’ll know what I mean: it drives the cat crazy when it jumps/skips/disappears because now it’s being projected on a different plane of surface (in the air: a different cloud or haze). It’s the continuity of movement (rather than many other “UFO” sightings reporting an object “suddenly appearing somewhere else in the sky”) that makes this all the more intriguing. An explanation Must take all this into account, and whatever it is, alien or terrestrial, it’s really cool tech, much more exciting than what you describe.
  - whatshisface 7y ago
    Take a look at the Bragg curve. This explains it: https://www.otherhand.org/home-page/area-51-and-other-strange-places/bluefire-main/bluefire/particle-beams-and-saucer-dreams/ https://www.otherhand.org/home-page/area-51-and-other-strang...

davidandgoliath 7y ago

These are multi-million dollar machines built on billions in R&D for explicitly this purpose, with highly trained operators that spend thousands of hours in a simulator / live flight: Let them do their job.

godelski 7y ago

It's really hard to see other flying objects when you're flying. Any pilot can confirm this. It can even be hard to see something within a mile! But at 20 miles, good luck finding it. Better to just trust the instruments.