4 ms·

You should check the interviews (there are several, including a 60 minutes) with the pilot David Fravor (1). There are two pilots and two wizards that saw the

You should check the interviews (there are several, including a 60 minutes) with the pilot David Fravor (1). There are two pilots and two wizards that saw the same with their own eyes (even I have only see the other pilot confirming it). That's an UFO. That doesn't mean that it's extraterrestrial. To say that it's extraterrestrial at this point, is, in my opinion, so ridiculous like to say that there is nothing to explain (like the author of the article seems to believe). (1) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aB8zcAttP1E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aB8zcAttP1E (this is a great interview interesting in its own right, even without the UFO part)

dau 5y ago
How ridiculous the ET assumption is depends on the amount of plausible alternatives. And for the Nimitz encounter to be something mundane, several very different things must have glitched or been missinterpreted and one has to put how ridiculous THAT would be into perspective.
- jamesdmiller 5y ago
  Yes, if it's aliens or a 1 in 10,000 glitch it's the glitch. But if it's either aliens or three such independent glitches, it's likely aliens.
  - thaumasiotes 5y ago
    > But if it's either aliens or three such independent glitches, it's likely aliens. That's still not true. It's more likely to be one glitch you haven't thought of than three successive glitches that you have thought of.
vehemenz 5y ago
It's not a UFO. If you don't know what something is, and equipment/sensors are a possible explanation, it makes more sense to say "UAP" (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena) rather than "UFO". This is not pedantry but an important distinction. What the pilots saw were images in their retinas that they interpreted as an object. Claiming the unidentified phenomenon is an object is begging the question; we need to prove what the phenomenon is before we can rightly categorize it as an object.
pmoriarty 5y ago
Judging by that video alone, there's just one guy telling a story. He says there were others who saw the same thing, but this interview alone does not prove that. Some other things that don't gel about his account: 1 - He says during his encounter he didn't turn on his helmet cam because he didn't think of it. Yet much of the rest of the interview is him talking about how highly trained he was (giving the impression that he's one of the best pilots the US has) and yet he made a critical mistake here exactly at the point where a video would be most useful in corroborating his testimony. I'd also like to know under what circumstances he's been trained to turn that camera on. If he went against his training by keeping that camera off, that would be a red flag. But we just don't know and the interviewer didn't even ask. There was also no discussion about whether the other person in the plane had a camera of his own, and if he did have one why he didn't turn it on, or if he did turn it on where that video is. 2 - No one on the ship or any of his commanding officers said anything about the anomaly or did anything about it, and neither did he. The pilot says this is because they were all too busy and because the object didn't have another country's flag on it, but that doesn't seem credible. If you see something that seemingly defies physics and flies faster than any known technology, it seems very unlikely that no one investigated it or even talked about it... for 16 years. He said he had debriefings and that's where they learn things. What was the debriefing for this mission like? Did they talk about this anomaly? If not, why not? At the beginning of his story he said he was actually ordered to investigate the anomaly. You'd think there'd be some discussion afterwards at the briefing about what he and the other people he claims saw it actually saw, and the people who ordered him to check it out would want to hear about what he saw first hand. But he said no one talked about it. Unbelievable.

dau 5y ago

How ridiculous the ET assumption is depends on the amount of plausible alternatives. And for the Nimitz encounter to be something mundane, several very different things must have glitched or been missinterpreted and one has to put how ridiculous THAT would be into perspective.

jamesdmiller 5y ago
Yes, if it's aliens or a 1 in 10,000 glitch it's the glitch. But if it's either aliens or three such independent glitches, it's likely aliens.
- thaumasiotes 5y ago
  > But if it's either aliens or three such independent glitches, it's likely aliens. That's still not true. It's more likely to be one glitch you haven't thought of than three successive glitches that you have thought of.

vehemenz 5y ago

It's not a UFO. If you don't know what something is, and equipment/sensors are a possible explanation, it makes more sense to say "UAP" (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena) rather than "UFO". This is not pedantry but an important distinction. What the pilots saw were images in their retinas that they interpreted as an object. Claiming the unidentified phenomenon is an object is begging the question; we need to prove what the phenomenon is before we can rightly categorize it as an object.

pmoriarty 5y ago

Judging by that video alone, there's just one guy telling a story. He says there were others who saw the same thing, but this interview alone does not prove that. Some other things that don't gel about his account: 1 - He says during his encounter he didn't turn on his helmet cam because he didn't think of it. Yet much of the rest of the interview is him talking about how highly trained he was (giving the impression that he's one of the best pilots the US has) and yet he made a critical mistake here exactly at the point where a video would be most useful in corroborating his testimony. I'd also like to know under what circumstances he's been trained to turn that camera on. If he went against his training by keeping that camera off, that would be a red flag. But we just don't know and the interviewer didn't even ask. There was also no discussion about whether the other person in the plane had a camera of his own, and if he did have one why he didn't turn it on, or if he did turn it on where that video is. 2 - No one on the ship or any of his commanding officers said anything about the anomaly or did anything about it, and neither did he. The pilot says this is because they were all too busy and because the object didn't have another country's flag on it, but that doesn't seem credible. If you see something that seemingly defies physics and flies faster than any known technology, it seems very unlikely that no one investigated it or even talked about it... for 16 years. He said he had debriefings and that's where they learn things. What was the debriefing for this mission like? Did they talk about this anomaly? If not, why not? At the beginning of his story he said he was actually ordered to investigate the anomaly. You'd think there'd be some discussion afterwards at the briefing about what he and the other people he claims saw it actually saw, and the people who ordered him to check it out would want to hear about what he saw first hand. But he said no one talked about it. Unbelievable.