TicTac UFO Pilot Cmdr. David Fravor New Interview on JRE

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

I haven't listened to the interview as yet so no specific questions.

In lieu of that, please refer to my second post in this thread.

So you're just trolling the thread then. I'm still waiting for the deep and insightful questions you are going to pose.

Fravor dismantle's the ass clown Mick West's claims regarding the gimbal video. That was funny to listen to. I love it when people who actually know what they're talking about disprove ass clowns like Mick West.

Regale us with your insight as an F18 fighter pilot and your ability to ID aerial craft. LOL

Waiting....

originally posted by: chrismarco
a reply to: ADAMandEVIL
dismiss it if you will but this has galvanized the idea that we are either being visitied by someone else or that it's new warp drive technology that drones are using..the latter is more plausible.

The ships tracking it from 80,000ft to the ocean in seconds feels like jamming/spoofing. But people visually seeing it & locking it up with IR I just don’t know. Super advanced electronic warfare complete with holographic decoys sounds more plausible than anti-gravity craft if we’re saying it’s made in the USA.

originally posted by: PhantomTwo

originally posted by: chrismarco
a reply to: ADAMandEVIL

dismiss it if you will but this has galvanized the idea that we are either being visitied by someone else or that it's new warp drive technology that drones are using..the latter is more plausible.

The ships tracking it from 80,000ft to the ocean in seconds feels like jamming/spoofing.

Less than a second. It it were mechanical jamming then there would be no physical ID such as what Fravor and the other 3 crew members witnessed for 5 minutes. If it were electronic jamming then the RADAR operators would not even see it on their screens.

But people visually seeing it & locking it up with IR I just don’t know. Super advanced electronic warfare complete with holographic decoys sounds more plausible than anti-gravity craft if we’re saying it’s made in the USA.

I might be inclined to believe we have advanced systems we were testing except that this same aerial phenomena (as in same visual appearance and flight characteristics) have been reported by military fighter pilots for more than 60 years. I find it hard to believe we would have anything close to this capability 60 years ago or have been "testing" the same systems for 60 + years.

a reply to: 1point92AU

I'm certainly not an expert, but I don't believe that holographic decoys would work in such a wide open, brighlty lit area.

The nature of holographs requires some medium to project light onto to form the picture doesn't it?

Amazing to get the story first hand.

As I have mentioned in another thread it is quite obvious they were dealing with something vastly superior to the aircraft they were flying and for that matter the aircraft of today and likely that of the next hundred years or so (complete speculation on my part). I find it odd although possible that the U.S. is testing superior tech against their own military although why would you when the craft they saw was so far advanced an F/A 18 Super Hornet might as well be a hot air balloon. As for foreign countries doing the same in U.S. military training areas...doubtful, if anything went wrong with the craft that tech may fall into the enemies hands, risky business with your insanely advanced spy drone to say the least. Although the story about the Constellation during work-up’s being shadowed by a Russian sub shows that it does and can happen. China even got within 5 miles of the Kitty Hawk without being detected in 2006 until they surfaced.
Someone mentioned Holograms...I don’t know, the flight crew that took the video were being actively jammed.
What I find strange (as if this whole thing wasn’t strange enough) was when the tic-tac disappears and then reappears 30 seconds later at Commander Fravor’s original CAP point 60 miles away , a very specific destination to be randomly showing up...weird.

This whole thing is very real and whatever these things west coast and east coast are there is no doubt they are at a completely different level x1000 than us. The fact the Navy is taking this seriously says a lot for me. There seems to be a genuine concern by the pilots of flight crew safety and I think that is why more are being vocal with their experiences.

Oh, the story he tells about the CH-53 that one is easy....Kraken!

a reply to: Ezekiel

The nature of holographs requires some medium to project light onto to form the picture doesn't it?

No.

But a hologram does require that the viewer be looking through a holographic plate and that a specific light source be used. The image is not projected onto anything.
www.integraf.com...

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: Riffrafter

I saw a UFO 11 years ago, one of them stood, I've seen others maybe a dozen times

Wow - you've certainly got some experience in seeing these craft.

I'm a little confused by your comment "one of them stood". What do you mean by that?

a reply to: Slyder12

You made a good point I forgot that it went back to original CAP point like even though this thing has been buzzing around along the surface with whatever was in the water it like knew where the CAP point was. That right there should raise some eyebrows as it does suggest this thing was shadowing and keeping an eye and spying on the battle group probably long before they spotted the bunch of them. They definitely showed a lot of abilities that day and the pilots was in the Top notch jets in the world. I have had my share of sightings up close and I can't rationalize any of it other than ET or Gov/ET joint relationship. Nothing fits the picture. Back then or even now our technology can't touch this. Scientists don't want to even talk about it or speculate what it might be. All they say is that UFO's doesn't mean aliens. That holds true to a certain extent and this event is exempt of that for sure. Well I seen one in orbit around the moon in 87. A object dropping 80k ft down to Sea level in .7 seconds and even entering the Sea level from the air and back again at high speeds? I would like a scientist to tell me how that fits into our paradigm of physics and current technology if ain't Aliens. lol

Yup Slyder, I agree with you regarding a foreign military object. Why would they test it off the U.S. coast, during a U.S. military exercise? You are just begging to have your advanced tech stolen, and possibly create an international incident as well. There is a reason the U.S. military tests their aircraft safely over our own country, in a restricted area.

I also don't think we'd test what would have to be expensive tech over the ocean, for one - and risk both that tech and our own military in unannounced tests or exercises. Also it was more than one technology seen at the same time. Were we testing both a massive underwater craft -and- some new high-tech drone? hmm.. probably not.

Hey.. it could be a super villain! I could totally see a Bond or cartoon villain with a super-sub and anti-gravity drones. : )

As far as the craft disappearing and then showing up at their CAP point, unless they tracked it on radar the entire trip back, it could have been another object, not necessarily the same one. They already stated there were multiple objects, it could have been another.

For those who feel it might have been mistaken identify on the part of the pilots, what do you think it possibly could have been instead? Assuming they are telling the truth, if a pilot says he sees a tic-tac object darting haphazardly over a huge object under the water - what alternative could it have been?

"Whether it's real or not"

Seems to say enough about this being disclosure, or not. Wanting to see disclosure so badly you're willing to discount this being real or not, and support it as full disclosure? Why jump the gun here?

I see a pilot with a cool story trying to get a little fame and attention playing off of people's hopes.

Can you give a reason proving the footage to not be terrestrial in origin? I have yet to hear one from any "official source" or otherwise, leaving only speculation... Motion from the object moving out of the bounds of publicly known tech doesn't discount unknown tech from governments or perhaps other parties.

Disclosure, if there is something to disclose, I agree could come in less than direct ways, but this sure isn't it.

a reply to: ADAMandEVIL

Agreed, but I think this sledge hammer has taken a large chunk out of the wall of secrecy.
a reply to: Rob808

Interestingly just a read an article about Britain’s Tempest stealth fighter jet. Among other things it can carry a weapons payload of killer drones. Although not supposed to go into service until 2030 it sounds familiar to the “gimble” video where the one larger craft was being tracked with the “fleet” visible on the SA. I doubt these drones can exhibit the type of performance witnessed by these flight crews but it shows countries seem to be working on this sort of stuff.

I know these events took place in 2004 I think and 2015 and this thing is supposedly going in to service in 2030 so a huge technological gap...but just saying.

Also the Navy's MQ-4C Tritan. This is stuff we know about...what about the stuff we don't. At 3 1/2 miles you probably wouldn't see the wings, just a tic-tac. It obviously doesn't have the performance observed but again shows we have stuff that would be doing what these things are doing.

Not trying to debunk (personally leaning towards stuff not of this planet) just saying there are other possibilities. I think we have stuff that mimics these things to an extent but like Jeremy Corbell says I think we don't have the material science and propulsion side worked out because these things are seemingly demonstrating insane aerial maneuvers far beyond anything we are currently using.

originally posted by: Bigburgh

Could be a big fish tail or a genuine sighting of something not previously known.

Quite a few similar cases known about Bigburgh (especially from the aviation / USO angle) and always found this case pretty fascinating.

"As we approached this glow it turned to a monstrous circle of white lights on the water. Then we saw a yellow halo, small, much smaller than whatever it was launched from, about 15 miles away. As the UFO approached my plane and flew alongside it, we could see the domed craft which had a corona discharge." 

Commander Graham Bethune, U.S. Navy -sighting from military flying from Iceland to Newfoundland, February 10, 1951. 

Post

The area in question (discussed in the podcast) is also pretty notorious for unexplained UFO/USO activity going way back to the 1950's and there's a pretty similar 'water disturbance' incident described below from February, 1989 where an unknown object emerged from the ocean and released other unknown objects before submerging (see 2:40).

link

Cheers.

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: 1point92AU

It probably the usual.."it's unidentified, doesnt mean aliens"...and just leave it at that. Sleep soundly at night knowing...it's just unidentified. That''s all.

They call it healthy skepticism.

Thanks for that, did give me a chuckle.

Here's a nice quote about healthy skepticism from astrophysicist Bernard Hatch - particularly important when unknown objects are reported performing highly unusual flight characteristics like instant acceleration; instant stop; vertical acceleration, reverses in direction; right angle turns, pendulum motion, separating and merging together etc..

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f350ba959054.gif[/atsimg]

"I propose that true skepticism is called for today: neither the gullible acceptance of true belief nor the closed-minded rejection of the scoffer masquerading as the skeptic.
One should be skeptical of both the believers and the scoffers. The negative claims of pseudo-skeptics who offer facile explanations must themselves be subject to criticism. If a competent witness reports having seen something tens of degrees of arc in size (as happens) and the scoffer -- who of course was not there -- offers Venus or a high altitude weather balloon as an explanation, the requirement of extraordinary proof for an extraordinary claim falls on the proffered negative claim as well. That kind of approach is also pseudo-science. Moreover just being a scientist confers neither necessary expertise nor sufficient knowledge.

Any scientist who has not read a few serious books and articles presenting actual UFO evidence should out of intellectual honesty refrain from making scientific pronouncements. To look at the evidence and go away unconvinced is one thing. To not look at the evidence and be convinced against it nonetheless is another. That is not science."

Dr. Bernard Haisch
Director for the California Institute for Physics and Astrophysics

Cheers.

a reply to: sean

Hey! A fellow ATSer from the early days!

Man I wish this site would drop all the political BS and stick to UFOs! Don’t you?

What secret do you see being exposed by this "sledgehammer"?

Now I need to watch some stop motion...

a reply to: Slyder12

No specific secret, just that instead of covering up or saying it was nothing that the Navy officially came out and said these three videos we have seen are of real genuine uap's and that they are a small fraction of the incursions of uap's in their training areas.

I don't think the significance of this can be downplayed (not saying anyone here is doing that) but the Navy in their official statement is basically telling the world they do not have air superiority in their own airspace dealing with unknown objects flying around 150 miles west of Disneyland on the west coast and 5min flight time from the capital on the east coast...they are telling the world they can do nothing about this.
a reply to: Rob808