Deny THIS

a reply to: underwerks
It's assumable that whatever it was could have used the color mainly as projected camouflage? But it also could have be some kind of whale or manta we're not sure?
I do think those marines can distinguish both from each other.
I do think it was an exciting story, full of mystery to hear.

So lets say it is true. The navy has found a threat where its weapons are useless. Bummer. Not the first time with reports of nuclear weapon facilities being shut down because of UFO's. We cannot go the UN to sort out some sort of treaty with them can we? If we could would we want too?

So even if there is just a chance, should we do something or just hide under the covers and deny it? Talking about it is a good start.

originally posted by: Visiting ESB
Edit: To clarify for those that don't understand, I say "Deny this" meaning, "deny this story and the fact that it happened." Clear enough?

Navy pilots observe "dark mass" in rescue and recovery efforts. Oh, I just KNOW there's a "rational" explanation, the term "rational" meaning any explanation that conforms to our current knowledge because after all nothing can exist that we don't already know about. LOL. Oh, wait! They didn't supply photos as proof so it didn't happen. Right? Or maybe because this Navy pilot has provided no proof. That's a story killer right there. Right?

Leading with a 'Daily Star' article is too easy for a "Deny THIS" game.

Some of their 'exclusives'...





Of more concern is the seething anger behind your OP - I imagine the keyboard (or phone) was in pieces by the time you'd finished typing. Has someone p#ssed on your chips today?

a reply to: ConfusedBrit

Yeah, pretty hard to even read the article with all the other terrible content floating on that site.

originally posted by: Visiting ESB

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Visiting ESB

I’m sure everybody understands it.

Everybody is pointing out that you’re clearly not interested in discussion, though.

You haven't even tried discussing anything. So how would you possibly know.

It’s hard to discuss anything with somebody who starts off the “discussion” with an attack.

I believe he believes what he said. Your turn to discuss

originally posted by: Visiting ESB

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: Visiting ESB

originally posted by: schuyler
You are taking this story COMPLETELY out of context. This was an aside during a Joe Rogan podcast featuring David Fravor, the F/A-18 pilot who had his own encounter in 2004 off of San Diego while stationed on the Nimitz. Fravor did not see this encounter. It was related to him by the helicopter, perhaps even third hand. As a sighting this is hearsay. Fravor has an excellent reputation and I believe what he says, but f you REALLY are interested in this, go watch the Podcast (Easy Google.) This is really not the best sighting we have. It is nowhere near as noteworthy as the three videos that were recently released: Tic tac, Gimble, and Go fast.

Yes, I was waiting for this one. It doesn't matter that it's "hearsay". He believes it's a credible account and with his training and his own credibility, I believe it.

OK, you believe it. So do I. Now what? What is there to deny? Moreover, what do you have? The story is a "dark mass," i.e.: Nobody actually saw it, after which a torpedo sank. There is no "sighting" per se. Technically, they failed to recover a torpedo. That's all.

You need to learn to distinguish between good sightings with corroborative evidence and bad sightings that offer nothing, such as this one. Gimbal and Tic Tac were excellent sightings. Why? Because they had human witnesses, first hand, who actually saw the things and are talking about them. And not only that, they were observed on radar at the same time by a number of different witnesses, and THEY are talking about what they saw. So you have multiple witnesses in the air coupled with multiple witnesses on he ships, plus the machine-based evidence, i.e.: The film itself. THAT is a Trifecta, an excellent sighting.

Yours is a bad sighting taken out of context. Not a big deal. Don't hang your hat on this one. Sorry.

I don't "need to learn" what you think I need to learn. That's an arrogant statement. This particular aspect of the larger story is a "good sighting". Who determines that? You? You don't have any better ability or qualifications to do that than anyone else. This isn't a "bad sighting". It's a good aspect of the larger story that for some reason you want to relegate to being unimportant. That doesn't show a real effort to understand this, all it shows is a high-brow arrogance. And FYI, this isn't taken out of context. This is an account by a witness that you, yourself, deemed credible. To say this isn't important is frankly ridiculous.

Sigh. No, it isn't, and the fact that you fail to see that is testimony enough that you do not have a lot of experience in the field. If that's too arrogant for you, tough. Spend your energy defending something that is worth defending. In the annals of UFO sightings, this account is worth about as much as a "light in the sky." Other than someone getting called on the carpet for losing a torpedo, this is worthless. Not worth arguing about....

originally posted by: Visiting ESB
Edit: To clarify for those that don't understand, I say "Deny this" meaning, "deny this story and the fact that it happened." Clear enough?

It didn't happen.

I cannot deny there are some interesting things down there.

a reply to: Visiting ESB

That story is the stuff of my nightmares.. imagine hanging over the ocean and a dark shadow emerges under you

a reply to: ConfusedBrit

Do you have the rest of the article on that woman who ate the fridge? I had a similar thing happen with my ex-wife and I want to see if the end result remains the same.

For those interested, this is the original source;

Commander David Fravor is a retired US Navy pilot, who has a close encounter in 2004 with the so-called Tic Tac UFO, and Jeremy Corbell is a contemporary artist and documentary filmmaker.

The podcast is just under two hours, but I watched it earlier today and I can say that, at least in my mind, it's worth the time.



One could do worse, my Missus watches Hollyoaks, 🤷🏻‍♂️

originally posted by: Ophiuchus 13
I cannot deny there are some interesting things down there.

a reply to: Visiting ESB

In the old days, people didn't go swimming in the ocean and tried to stay out of it as much as possible. Because, obviously, monsters.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: Visiting ESB

There's something you don't seem to understand.

I could post a perfectly clear picture of Bigfoot or an alien spaceship and without a body on a slab or other physical, tangible proof, people would still cry fake.

Well , do it then.
Hasn't been done so far.
At least in my 6 decades.

Deny THIS

Ok.
Why should I ?
I believe I read it in one of those magazines while in the checkout line at the grocery store.

Maybe it was a Bait Ball?

a reply to: Visiting ESB

You haven't even tried discussing anything.

What is too discuss?

You have provided nothing to discuss but a short rant and link to a very questionable source.

Deny this?

the story is real, how can anyone deny it is when other ATSers have linked to the video of the actual interview this was mentioned in.

If you don't care, why do you continue posting on this thread?

the poster made one post answering your OP.

No idea why people can't understand that when I say "deny this" and then post an article about UFO incidents, one in particular, observed by military people, the connection can't be made that "oh, it means deny this story..."

So...

are you trying to say that UFOs are aliens and you want people to deny that?

Why not take a breath and start over as you make no sense.

And FYI, this isn't taken out of context. This is an account by a witness that you, yourself, deemed credible. To say this isn't important is frankly ridiculous.

You said before it doesn't matter that its hearsay but now say this pilot is an actual witness meaning its not hearsay.

It doesn't matter that it's "hearsay". He believes it's a credible account and with his training and his own credibility, I believe it.

Do you mean a witness to another person telling them about it, meaning its hearsay or are you now saying the pilot saw this with his own eyes and it wasn't a story they were told by another?

a reply to: Visiting ESB

Arianna Grande once described a black mass in the corner of her bedroom, she then went on to display occult images in her music videos and album art, then play her part in Mass human sacrifice, with number 22 being prevalent.

All true BTW.

originally posted by: 0bserver1
a reply to: schuyler

Gimbal and Tic Tac were excellent sightings. Why? Because they had human witnesses

Not some human witnesses, witnesses that the public deems as credible enough..
There are countless human witnesses that don't have the status of being credible enough because thev'e seen something or even filmed something.

Accurate point here regarding credibility of the witness with Fravor.

Part of me wonders how he’s not suicided. Others have been suicided for simply telling their story - never mind providing a play by play of authentic video from the Navy. Perhaps his pod cast appearances are insurance of sorts.

The downside is Fravor will eventually fade in notoriety unless he has a new story to share. I’m sure he’s making some money off this and my fear is he’ll succumb to that and start making outlandish claims, tell unsubstantiated stories and basically shred his credibility to stay relevant - thus calling into question his legitimate accounts of the tic tac/go-fast events.