Former Navy Pilot Ryan Graves on His UFO Encounter

a reply to: QueensOwnHighlander

Many intelligent and ambitious military pilots don’t see themselves having a career in the media. Well not today’s media anyway. They love to fly, and nothing says ‘distrust’ more than a crazy UFO sighting claim.

I want to hear more pilots coming forward, I like everyone else want to know more. But we still haven’t reached a level where people that make these claims aren’t ridiculed or thought crazy. The mild claims made by Graves are opening a door.

How do we know this isn’t disinformation though? How do we know the radar systems aren’t purposely manipulated? Would it be easier for a rival to meddle with our technology or for them to break the laws of physics?

I have an open mind on it all, and hope we hear more and see more from pilots and other trustworthy people that aren’t in it to make money from a book or Netflix deal.

originally posted by: Tortuga
a reply to: QueensOwnHighlander

How do we know the radar systems aren’t purposely manipulated?

We don’t.

Perhaps the squadron had not had enough experience with the newer retrofitted AN/APG-79 radar systems … they only way to achieve that, was to get experienced on the training range.

Aspects of the AN/APG-79 vs AN/APG-73……”Raytheon's AN/APG-79 radar with its AESA antenna has been developed for the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, for new builds, and as a retrofit replacement for the mechanically scanned AN/APG-73. With more power than the APG-73, the APG-79 will have two or three times the air-toair detection range and will allow tracking of significantly more targets. It will also have a much better ability to identify targets and break out those that are closely spaced.”……

Wouldn’t it be reasonable to think that training programs with simulated targets would be active in a military training range area?

Remember…..Graves seen these “everyday”. If you see “on radar” targets in a racetrack pattern for hours…wouldn’t that kind of point to, there’s a training program being used?

Couldn’t both training programs simulated targets show up on pilot’s radars as well as airborne Radar Reflectors be used as well? It’s a training exercise area, correct?

Wasn’t it Cdr. Trevor who said “look at the AESA, there’s a “fleet” of them?

A fleet?…..how about a training simulation to use with the latest AN/APG-79

Your right….”How do we know the radar systems aren’t purposely manipulated?”….

👽

a reply to: chris_stibrany

Christopher Mellon talks about this same black cube inside of a sphere in this other recent interview, linked below.

Fascinating stuff.

Joe Rogan is hot.

Thanks for the post!

a reply to: Arbitrageur

That doesn't explain how it could stand stock still in 100 MPH+ winds though?

originally posted by: chris_stibrany
a reply to: Arbitrageur

That doesn't explain how it could stand stock still in 100 MPH+ winds though?

I invited you to post any data showing that to be the case and I see you still have not done so. Speed estimates of UFOs are notoriously unreliable so I wouldn't try too hard to explain a claim for which data should be available but is lacking. We have seen other Navy pilots provide data in the form of videos to "back up" their claims, and find their speed estimates to be completely wrong, in for example the GoFast video:



So first we need some data to back up the claim which I still haven't seen, and second, are you saying balloons can't be tethered to a submarine?

Here's another example of how unreliable speed estimates of UFOs can be, in the Nimitz incident. David Fravor said the UFO wasn't moving but his WSO said it was moving at 500 knots, so at least one of them has to be wrong, and anybody with any sense wouldn't take such speed estimates as being too reliable (though sensor data might be more reliable):

thenimitzencounters.com...

CDR Fravor stated that the object was “holding like a Harrier.” (Referring to the AV-8l3 jet aircraft, which is capable of hovering...

His report differs from CDR Fravor in that he reported the object traveling level at approximately 500-1000 feet at approximately 500 knots.

Their stories are not exactly the same, so I wish people would stop saying they are. Hovering is not the same thing as traveling at 500 knots, and it's entirely possible that neither speed estimate is correct.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

The way I understand Ryan Graves description of the stationary object is that he wasn't seeing a velocity vector on the contact displayed on his SA page...I could be way off base though.

Also something I didn't think about to much initially is his description on how some of the objects are flying. He describes them as flying somewhat erratic as if not coupled to an autopilot using an FMS or "flight navigation computer". Seems unlikely that at these altitudes and wind speeds, if drones, one would operate these craft manually.

Additionally he describes the progression of interacting with these objects. At first they were seeing anomalies on their screens and thought their radars were broken, they upgraded radars and started getting better returns. Then they were able to get Flir imagery and finally visually see an object confirming something was out there sometimes doing unexplainable things.

a reply to: chris_stibrany

sounds like a solar powered drone of some sort and in IR the black panels might look cooler depending if it was using IR/heat as a power source.

that or super advanced decoys

Who knows...they have me all confused (doesn't take much). This could easily be some new EW tech being tested to spoof their radars and confuse them into thinking there are airborne targets were there really are none, the flight crews are now sensitive to this and start seeing the random balloons floating around and now we have an alien invasion.

...or it really is an alien invasion.