6 ms·
I worked on stealth aircraft that would occasionally cause civilian UFO reports. It was common for the reports to mention that these UFOs maneuvered unlike any
by runjake 4y ago
I worked on stealth aircraft that would occasionally cause civilian UFO reports.
It was common for the reports to mention that these UFOs maneuvered unlike any man-made aircraft, which was always a good chuckle because they were usually just flying straight or banking normally.
However when seasoned military pilots like Fravor speak on the matter, I listen. When a bunch of them speak about the same incident, I take them at their word.
- dopeboy 4y agoWhat would you say is the most credible incident that everyone should take seriously?
- runjake 4y agoThe Nimitz Incident of 2004(?). Extremely detailed visual and sensor events. Tons of human witnesses. Tons of activity. There was a detailed Reddit thread on the incident from a Seaman many, many years ago long before news of the Tic Tac came out. I’m on mobile but perhaps someone else can paste the thread URL. Could be an elaborate hoax but that’s one heck of a long con game.
- jseliger 4y agoThe original appears to have been deleted, but you may be referring to https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1qyu5i/my_ufo_encounterexposure_while_on_board_an https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1qyu5i/my_ufo_encount...
- belter 4y agoIt starts by saying..."...I am relaying information and supporting circumstances, I did not see a UFO personally. However, it is an interesting story."
- yazantapuz 4y agoThis one? https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1qyu5i/my_ufo_encounterexposure_while_on_board_an/ https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1qyu5i/my_ufo_encount...
- marcusverus 4y agoCheck out Joe Rogan episode 1361 with Commander David Fravor (who witnessed the UFO first-hand). They show the footage and Cmdr. Fravor talks through it around the 24 minute mark. Pretty fascinating stuff. https://open.spotify.com/episode/16If5PVe6ouxeDwNbtu0iC?si=8389a0d111654f43 https://open.spotify.com/episode/16If5PVe6ouxeDwNbtu0iC?si=8...
- jml7c5 4y agoWeren't there only four witnesses? The pilots were the only ones who saw anything with their own eyes. And there's been no release of sensor data or video, so it's hard to judge its quality. (The 'FLIR1' video was taken later, by different pilots who did not see their object visually, and simply shows a distant hot object slowly moving left, with no inexplicable manoeuvers.) That the ship radar was purportedly bouncing between maximum altitude and reasonable altitude suggests a software or hardware issue, or electronic interference.
- godelski 4y ago> The Nimitz Incident of 2004(?). The Tic Tac UFO? That's probably one of the best explained events (debunked). Short answer is that there was sense misreading and a gimbal lock. Some people even simulated it[0]. I wouldn't call this an elaborate hoax, but an optical illusion and an event that took some expertise to understand. Expertise that a pilot wouldn't have. I should add that finding that link was nontrivial. Faster through Google but searching through YouTube just came up with UFO videos and no debunking. This is probably part of the problem. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsEjV8DdSbs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsEjV8DdSbs
- nprateem 4y agoAnd how does a gimbal lock simultaneously show up on multiple sensor systems across warships?
- ricardobeat 4y agoYour retort is phrased poorly, but I don’t understand the downvotes here - the footage from this episode was made by fighter jets who were dispatched to investigate a radar signal, and the pilot said they had visual contact. That’s three distinct records and/or a whole lot of marines fucking with us.
- ddalex 4y agoI mean there is no denial that SOMETHING was out there. The debunking refers to the performance of the target which is being shown to be safely within the capabilities of contemporary human technology and not requiring "aliens" or "unknown technology" to achieve.
- nprateem 4y agoThis is the guy who headed up the AATIP (UAP) task force for the Pentagon. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBtMbBPzqHY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBtMbBPzqHY He lists some pretty amazing capabilities around 2:10.
- ActorNightly 4y agoThe issue with all these reports is that there is a distinct lack of detail surrounding the sighting. At most its visual reports and very blurry IR footage. Zero mention of anything else. Lets take an example of the Tic Tac from the incident, that was supposedly moving very fast. If it had a physical presence, ie could interact with the world, it would seem very likely that pilots would describe the resultant shockwave. Depending on the possibilities of the propulsion system, its highly likely that you would get EM interference, possibly even some physical disturbance if the craft came close to the observing plane. If it didn't have a physical presence, like it was folding space or something and traveling in a bubble, then it seems very, very strange that an advanced civilization can fold space to effectively travel without any impact on the world, but let the EM radiation that is light/heat leak out. You would think they could just be fully invisible.
- jliptzin 4y agoMaybe they are normally fully invisible, but even alien spaceships can have malfunctions every now and then. Perhaps they didn't realize the cloak system was off.
- casperc 4y agoIt’s weird, given the premise of seeing something alien, that you would assume properties of their propulsion or which emmissions they are making. Sure, if the thing is some new earth tech or natural phenomena there are plenty of assumptions you can make. But in the face of something else?
- ActorNightly 4y agoThe point is that you can make any number of stories about aliens trying to explain the phenomenon, and there would be some that would be way more believable then some object breaking pretty well established known physical laws with the only explanation that "aliens have ADVANCED SCIENCE" For example, Aliens living among us for a while, undetected, and having the ability to place false memories in peoples heads because they mapped out how human brain works down to the neuron level (thanks to their massive compute clusters) is way more believable.
- krapp 4y agoWere they really really big, black and triangular?
- runjake 4y agoThe B-2A was. Some other stuff were stealthy cruise missiles. Not too big but they flew so low that they would cause some “shock and awe”.
- DonHopkins 4y agoYellow, Black and Rectangular. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmNfPkdCRf8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmNfPkdCRf8
- spudlyo 4y agoYou know how many time zones there are in the Soviet Union? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDmWYVdN8ug https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDmWYVdN8ug
- mihaaly 4y agoLike the shade of a Star Destroyer?
- themodelplumber 4y agoThere are/were also pilots specifically going for that effect... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6nox5_QStw&t=1082s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6nox5_QStw&t=1082s This despite the existence of people like Rendlesham's Colonel Halt, and so on, is, indeed, a very interesting military-UAP venn-ecosystem. I think it's a fascinating combination to study. Military psychology also naturally disincentivizes "looking into things" (see for example Colonel Halt's thoughts on "what to do about it"[1]) and there's a ping-pong false dichotomy that develops: Did we make it or didn't we; Did we cause it or didn't we. It's the perfect recipe for meaningless distraction from very important questions. This problem also further isolates important aspects of the military role in potentially damming up exploration & science efforts, especially when we examine its comparatively premium level of day-in, day-out access to what are de facto scientifically-capable exploration & discovery tools. Is it any wonder, in that light, that the accompanying de facto "scientists", i.e. pilots, radar operators, and privileged officers, are seeing extraordinary things? No. And that's a huge opportunity wrapped up in a problem, because the chartering mindset interferes. 1. “There’s no doubt it was something beyond anything we know or understand. […] I have concerns, but I don’t think we can do anything about it. I think this is beyond us.” “So: Quit worrying about it.” -- From just after the 8m mark in: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w3cswsp9 https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w3cswsp9 (An example of a rather stunning mindset, given the circumstances, and in comparison to the known-reliable mindset of exploratory effort / scientific learning & exploration)
- cma 4y agoFravor admitted to the same kind of pranks on Joe Rogan.
- runjake 4y agoSuch pranks are very, very common. But they’re not something that would extend beyond the attention these events are getting now. Or even close to the point of.
- simonh 4y agoNone of them would? If they’re very common, over many decades would it really be surprising if a some of them got out of control?
- jackmott 4y ago[dead]
- cma 4y agoFravor admitted to UFO pranks in the 90s (gliding over camp fires and then turning on afterburners). Some were found reported on UFO forums at the time.
- hartator 4y agoYeah, it can undermined his credibility a bit. Maybe a prank from someone else?
- casperc 4y agoI would not say he admitted it. More like told it as a funny anecdote in juxtaposition to what he experienced.
- cma 4y agoPeople went back and found UFO reports on 90s forums for the location he said he did it.
- mikrotikker 4y agoYea I thought it was a hilarious way to debunk UFO reports of the past by civvies on the ground who lack advanced warship and get fighter radar systems.
- ActorNightly 4y ago>seasoned military pilots You mean dudes who are under constant stress, likely sleep deprived, and likely have some health issues due to the physical demands of the job? Those probably would be the last people I listen to.
- nvrmnd 4y agoI had assumed this pilot was mostly discussing observations made during non-combat missions. Training and other enforcement activities in times of peace probably make up the majority of a military pilots career flying hours.
- ActorNightly 4y agoEven during non-combat missions, flying a fighter jet isn't exactly your run of the mill job, ESPECIALLY if you are flying for the Navy and landing on carriers.
- mlindner 4y agoPilots are notoriously bad observers of anything outside their training. They see what they expect to see, just like any other humans.
- ajhurliman 4y agoThings that fly seems to be in-scope with their training
- mlindner 4y agoIdentifying what some aircraft in the distance is by sight, at night, is not in their training. Identifying that it is _something_ so as to avoid it, is, but identifying what it is, is not.
- FredPret 4y agoYes it is? You have to know if it's an enemy aircraft, and which one. You have to study each model so you know what you're up against. WW2 pilots spent a lot of time memorizing enemy aircraft silhouettes and performance details
- mlindner 4y agoYou're not doing that at night though. The human eye isn't capable of that.
- Daz1 4y agoPatently untrue, learning to identify aircraft by shape for both IFF and situational awareness purposes is standard.
- AdamN 4y agoBut wouldn't that lead to more situations where unidentified reports are made by military pilots than civilians? They are supposed to identify all the things in the air so when they see an unidentified one, they are very attuned to the gap between their knowledge and what they observe (often intermediated with sensors). So if they see something visually that is not on the sensors, that's very weird. Also, something with a weird path - very weird. But these could be meteorites, debris from balloons, satellite parts, drones, projectiles (somebody shooting a gun or a laser at them) ... all sorts of stuff that are uncommon enough to be not part of any training or even known phenomena. Civilian just sees something and unless it's really weird presumes that it's outside of their knowledge area but that makes sense because their universe of unknowns is large.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- simonh 4y agoThe now debunked sensor recordings were also reported by seasoned military pilots. You can even hear them discussing their observations on some of the recordings. In one of them they are patently misreading the sensor data displayed in the video. I’m sorry, but if that doesn’t thoroughly and permanently discredit this line of reasoning, I don’t know what will.
- neuronic 4y agoAs long as there are mysterious 1990s era X-Files/Control like stories to be generated for clicks and attention, nothing will. Why are these stories being released primarily on clickbaity media like The Hill, CNN or Fox News? The "whistleblowers" could just open up to related non-profits, respected security blogs or other outlets which aren't driven to squeeze out every possible ad and sponsorship dollar. In the end, there is zero accountability or consequences for these kinds of articles and the sparse "unclassified" information is fuzzy enough to inject all kinds of speculation. This is not to dismiss the topic as a whole, it's the framing that I find weird. I am not leaning in either direction at all. Optical phenomena, sensor artifacts, weather, foreign or compartmentalized tech, or aliens... The point is not to be contrarian - it's important to keep an open mind until proven otherwise. However, this heavy X-Files like framing of mysterious otherworldy tech roaming around military facilities is somewhat over-the-top and doesn't really seem to (!) serve the case. Also, there are probably also projects that are compartmentalized to a degree where part of the military does not know about other parts of the military doing/building/researching specific stuff. What better way to test your capabilities than exposing them to real world scenarios against the arguably most advanced defense systems on the planet? The information is just too sparse to reach any meaningful conclusion so it's ideal clickbait media material, even if the topic itself is serious and important.
- graderjs 4y agoAre they really debunked tho? Hardly. Not conclusive, unless you want it to be.
- simonh 4y agoSee for yourself. This is the most clear case of misidentification. All the data you need is shown in the instrument recording and he takes us through how to interpret it step by step. Of course Mick has the advantage of having plenty of time to work through exactly what all the instrument readings are telling us and perform all the trigonometry to interpret it accurately, and explain it to us step by step, while the pilots just eyeballed it and got their estimates wrong. On the other hand the Pentagon analysts had all the time they could want to do the same analysis and still got it wrong. But you don't need to take anyone's word for it, look at the footage yourself and you can do all the calculations independently with middle school geometry. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLyEO0jNt6M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLyEO0jNt6M
- the6threplicant 4y agoI want a whole group of scientists to investigate the evidence. I don't trust the military or Congress since they're happy to spend money on ESP or telekinesis studies and still not be able to reach a conclusion. Military pilots have mistaken Venus as a UAF. I can't just trust an eyewitness account of something fishy as evidence for exterrestrial beings visiting us with faster than light speed vehicles.
- mikrotikker 4y agoMost of the interviews I've seen have focused on adversaries having new tech rather that ETs