4 ms·

I'm an extreme sceptic, but the Tic Tac encounter of 2004 was memorable, and the most recent significant one to hit the news after it gained real traction in 20

I'm an extreme sceptic, but the Tic Tac encounter of 2004 was memorable, and the most recent significant one to hit the news after it gained real traction in 2017. An interview with one of the pilots: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/12/tic-tac-ufo-video-q-and-a-with-navy-pilot-chad-underwood.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/12/tic-tac-ufo-video-q-... His colleague, Cmdr Fravor memorably said: I don't know what it is. I don't know what I saw. I just know it was really impressive, really fast - and I would like to fly it. https://abcnews.go.com/US/navy-pilot-recalls-encounter-ufo-unlike/story?id=51856514 https://abcnews.go.com/US/navy-pilot-recalls-encounter-ufo-u...

ianai 6y ago
It seems like really intriguing stuff. But I just need something more to go off of. How are some encounters with odd looking and acting things that otherwise never interact with us supposed to be treated? If all they ever do is accelerate and maneuver in ways we can’t, well, my cat does the same thing all the time. He also makes me look like an idiot at all yoga. But that doesn’t do anything for my joints and circulation.
Zealotux 6y ago
I've seen a lot of comments on this one being a probable experimental plane, most-likely nuclear-powered, which would explain its incredible performances.
- LyndsySimon 6y ago
  How would nuclear power do anything other than make it much heavier than it would otherwise be and let it stay aloft much longer?
sstanie 6y ago
This is the best possible mundane explanation of a similar video, claiming it's camera glare. Good take down of the NYT story on the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Btns91W5J8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Btns91W5J8
- acqq 6y ago
  Yes, and Mick West made more on that and similar topics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7jcBGLIpus https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7jcBGLIpus
- BobbyJo 6y ago
  This ignores the fact that they had radar lock as well, as detailed by pilots and Radar operators. Radar data is always classified unfortunately.
  - giarc 6y ago
    Toward the end of the video he says that it's likely a jet engine far in the distance.
    - BobbyJo 6y ago
      If it's moving very quickly orthoginal to it's engine, then sure: https://www.reddit.com/r/ufo/comments/e9hu6k/cool_perspective_of_the_gimbal_ufo/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ufo/comments/e9hu6k/cool_perspectiv...
- tgflynn 6y ago
  Would you still consider it a "good take down" if he turns out to be wrong ? Or are you 100% certain that he's right ?
  - sstanie 6y ago
    It would still be a good takedown of the questionable parts of the NYT article, but no, I don't think it's "100% certainty" about the actual event, despite his YouTube title. It just has the benefit of having a strong prior than the UFO theory
- grillvogel 6y ago
  seems like this video mainly just shows that it wasnt rotating as much as it looks like in the video, not sure how it proves/disproves anything else about the UFO
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

ianai 6y ago

It seems like really intriguing stuff. But I just need something more to go off of. How are some encounters with odd looking and acting things that otherwise never interact with us supposed to be treated? If all they ever do is accelerate and maneuver in ways we can’t, well, my cat does the same thing all the time. He also makes me look like an idiot at all yoga. But that doesn’t do anything for my joints and circulation.

Zealotux 6y ago

I've seen a lot of comments on this one being a probable experimental plane, most-likely nuclear-powered, which would explain its incredible performances.

LyndsySimon 6y ago
How would nuclear power do anything other than make it much heavier than it would otherwise be and let it stay aloft much longer?

sstanie 6y ago

This is the best possible mundane explanation of a similar video, claiming it's camera glare. Good take down of the NYT story on the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Btns91W5J8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Btns91W5J8

acqq 6y ago
Yes, and Mick West made more on that and similar topics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7jcBGLIpus https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7jcBGLIpus
BobbyJo 6y ago
This ignores the fact that they had radar lock as well, as detailed by pilots and Radar operators. Radar data is always classified unfortunately.
- giarc 6y ago
  Toward the end of the video he says that it's likely a jet engine far in the distance.
  - BobbyJo 6y ago
    If it's moving very quickly orthoginal to it's engine, then sure: https://www.reddit.com/r/ufo/comments/e9hu6k/cool_perspective_of_the_gimbal_ufo/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ufo/comments/e9hu6k/cool_perspectiv...
tgflynn 6y ago
Would you still consider it a "good take down" if he turns out to be wrong ? Or are you 100% certain that he's right ?
- sstanie 6y ago
  It would still be a good takedown of the questionable parts of the NYT article, but no, I don't think it's "100% certainty" about the actual event, despite his YouTube title. It just has the benefit of having a strong prior than the UFO theory
grillvogel 6y ago
seems like this video mainly just shows that it wasnt rotating as much as it looks like in the video, not sure how it proves/disproves anything else about the UFO

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]