The strange objects, one of them like a spinning top moving against the wind, appeared almost daily from the summer of 2014 to March 2015, high in the skies over the East Coast. Navy pilots reported to their superiors that the objects had no visible engine or infrared exhaust plumes, but that they could reach 30,000 feet and hypersonic speeds.
“These things would be out there all day,” said Lt. Ryan Graves, an F/A-18 Super Hornet pilot who has been with the Navy for 10 years
|The so-called "Tic Tac" UFO video, much hyped by "To The Stars," and now by the media.|
The NYT story is previewing and promoting material from TTSA's show "Unidentified," not making news of its own. The story is getting spread far and wide, but so far just other sites quoting from it, not verifying or reporting anything else.
We knew the History Channel had put this series together, and we watched that and give them credit in the piece, and saw what they said in the series and went after them (witnesses) because obviously we weren’t going to take it from the TV; we wanted to conduct our own interview...
We really try to keep our distance from To The Stars because we think it helps our credibility to be separate...
we have no proof of any [official Pentagon] release, let alone what is being touted [the videos] is even the same evidence connected to this DD Form 1910. If we see a blatant disregard for the truth by Mr. Elizondo on display with this DD Form 1910, and we see the same disregard for the truth by To The Stars Academy as they have touted documents proving a public release – how can we believe everything or anything else from the same sources?If TTSA expects to be taken seriously by anyone other than credulous reporters of the New York Times and the Washington Post, they will have to do better than this.
Fravor spoke at the recent UFO Fest in McMinnville, Oregon (held annually to honor the famous Trent UFO Photos, taken just outside that town). Reporter George Knapp and documentary filmmaker Jeremy Corbell were also on the panel. Fravor sharply criticized the accounts of certain other people who were involved and have been speaking about the incident. He seemed to be singling out the account of the radar operator, Kevin Day, as being non-factual. He dismissed claims of Air Force personnel coming on board the Nimitz and confiscating evidence as being untrue. Fravor also referred to Dave Beaty's "Nimitz UFO Encounters" documentary as a "cartoon." This prompted Knapp to say to Fravor, "I guess you're being diplomatic, but some of the stories and claims that have been made by people, who may have been on those ships, are just bullshit." When people began commenting about these remarkable disagreements, Corbell pulled the video off YouTube.
We have seen this happen before with major UFO cases. What starts out as a tiny acorn of an unexplained sighting or incident gradually becomes a mighty oak tree of misinformation. That process is obviously well underway with the Tic Tac UFO incident.
Yes! I saw an ABC story yesterday much like the Tucker Carlson bit from before. And then another Carlson bit today much like his first congratulating himself for promoting this nonsense from the first NYT piece two years ago. Oh, the ufoolishness!ReplyDelete
He suggests keeping an "open mind" on the topic when if he knew anything about this ongoing AATIP/Bigelow/Reed/Delonge/Elizondo SCAM and transparent hoax he might have a clue and might actually do his job as a reporter and advocate of truth and rationality.
Greenewald's conclusion: "...we have no proof of any release, let alone what is being touted is even the same evidence connected to this DD Form 1910. If we see a blatant disregard for the truth by Mr. Elizondo on display with this DD Form 1910, and we see the same disregard for the truth by To The Stars Academy as they have touted documents proving a public release – how can we believe everything or anything else from the same sources?"ReplyDelete
An important enough quote for me to move into the main text.Delete
> David Fravor, the pilot who was vectored to the supposed location of the Tic Tac UFO but didn't see it, spoke at the recent UFO Fest in McMinnvilleReplyDelete
Minor correction, David Fravor (at least by his own account, and 2 of the other 3 pilots in planes flying with him at the time) saw the tic-tac UFO with their own eyes for a few minutes.
I should have written that more clearly. He didn't see anything in the air, but he did see a disturbance in the water. I've updated the text.Delete
It is still not clear enough. As reported, Fravor actually saw the white Tic Tac object in the air above the sea level. He vectored his airplane towards it. Object "reacted" and started to fly in the circular fashion. Fravor chased it and at certain moment tried to intercept it cutting the circle in half. Tic Tac object quickly outmanoeuvre Fravor and left the area with the high speed. Witnesses: 2 pilots and 2 WSOs. Keeping the narration of the incident only with the water disturbance is a serious omission of the main counter-arguments.Delete
"with their own eyes " -- clarify, was it out the window in visible light, or was it on an instrument screen?ReplyDelete
The '5 observables' allegedly demonstrated by the bizarre events reported by Navy pilots are NOT ‘observations’, they are INTERPRETATIONS of what the raw obervations might mean. What IS ‘observable’ is that the author of the list knows less than zero about the proper function of a military intelligence officer or any investigator of unknown causes of eyewitness perceptions, which is to observe and record, NOT to interpret or explain. To jump to such interpretations preemptively is a notorious intellectual fallacy that REAL invesigators knowhave learned must be avoided because once formulated, an explanatory theory can subconsciously flavor the interpretation of new evidence, and even skew the direction of follow-on research, and through lines of questioning, even skew the memories of direct witnesses. As NTSB accident investigators know, pilots are among the MOST susceptible witnesses to memory editing, probably because of their entirely proper professional instinct to reach fast assessmsnts of unusual observations in terms of potential hazard to themselves. This is a very valuble bias in terms of flight safety, at the cost of dispassionate intellectual curiosity.ReplyDelete
So what was really observed?
Anti-gravity lift. [objects] have been sighted overcoming the earth’s gravity with no visible means of propulsion.
This would be ‘observable’ only through its effect on the motion of the object, or more precisely, on changes in its measured azimuth/elevation relative to Earth horizon [not to a viewscreen]. With objects of unknown size, any eyeball estimate of range is worthless.
Sudden and instantaneous acceleration. The objects may accelerate or change direction so quickly that no human pilot could survive the g-forces
Effective acceleration determination requires knowledge of a time history of the object’s angular rate, observer-to-object range rate, and accurate range value. There seems to be no description of reliable capture of any of these parameters, so ‘acceleration’ CANNOT be observed.
Hypersonic velocities without signatures. If an aircraft travels faster than the speed of sound, it typically leaves "signatures," like vapor trails and sonic booms
Determination of raw velocity requires these same parameters, so without them the ‘velocity’ is not observable.
Low observability, or cloaking. Even when objects are observed, getting a clear and detailed view of them—either through pilot sightings, radar or other means—remains difficult.
‘Observability’ can be observed qualitatively but needs more details about which sensors are involved, from human eyeball [under what attenuation/illumination conditions] to visual sensors [visible light, IR, etc] to ground or airborne skin-track radar, lidar, or other technology. Without time history of quantifiable measurments in an environment of potentially rapidly changing range and aspect angle, the ‘observation’ observability is a dubious characteristic.
Trans-medium travel. Some UAP have been seen moving easily in and between different environments, such as space, the earth’s atmosphere and even water.
This is yet another INTERPRETATION of low-observable imagery, involving a target of unknown size and range.
Some of these interpretations may well be validated by investigation of the actual raw observables, but beginning an investigation based on pre-existing conclusions [and then selecting the evidence that fits] is a recipe for confusion and frustration and dead-ended detours. It demonstrates the sad unsuitability of such confused methodology to attempting to make sense of these undeniably interesting reports.
I like Jim Oberg's take on this, for his view is good scientific reasoning, not flights of fancy. I've seen many people ruin and confuse the UFO field for others, because they want to believe in UFOs as ETs, hence all the baloney they print. And just some of them are mentioned here: Elizondo, Tom De Longe, Leslie Kean, Blumenthal - it's sad really. And for serious investigators, their silly actions have muddied up the field for them. But as long as they get a buck for their written UFO nonsense, it will continue! BUT, who really has the power here? WE do, for we don't have to be dummies and buy their books and videos as they come out, instead, we can be smart, and not buy them. Once they see that their pure speculations is not providing them an income...they might go away, and leave the field for serious people!ReplyDelete
"Fravor spoke at the recent UFO Fest in McMinnville, Oregon... When people began commenting about these remarkable disagreements, Corbell pulled the video off YouTube."ReplyDelete
Corbell's version from Facebook:
"About the interview with Cmdr. Fravor that George Knapp and I conducted. Please have patience for the release. You should let the McMenamins UFO Festival and me put the video out on our own timeline. The premature leak of the footage was an accident by the McMenamis editor who was exporting a TEST export in LOW-RES and accidentally had the settings to automatically publish to the McMenamins YouTube page."
I finally got around to reading the NY times article. I guess it is a case of priming the pump for the TTSA show. Some points I think need to be considered:ReplyDelete
1)The Navy pilots never saw anything from what I can tell. All they have are radar contacts. These radar contacts did not appear until the new radar system was installed. Every time they closed to where they could supposedly see the targets, there was nothing there. Sound familiar (Think about all the other radar UFOs from the 1950s)? Either the targets were very small such they could not be seen by the pilots or the targets are something else. Maybe the new system is registering ice particles or some other atmospheric phenomenon. Without more data it is hard to say. I bet the developers of the radar are examining this since they probably have this data. It is too bad we won’t be privy to the communications regarding their analyses. I suspect the radar will be modified in the future if these are false returns or atmospheric in nature.
2)None of these pilots claimed to have been involved in the “Gimbal” or “Go fast” videos. Correct me if I am wrong here.
3)The one time anybody reported seeing something, it was reported second hand when a pilot had a near collision with an object that flew between him and his wingman. He described it as a transparent sphere with a cube in it. It did not sound large since the two planes were only 100 feet apart. In the case of a near collision, the best the pilot could have had was a brief glance at the object (maybe a second or two?). I don’t care what kind of pilot you are; this is little more than a blur and could have been anything airborne and not some form of exotic craft. I have to wonder if it weren’t some kind of balloon.
The rest is just fluff. Kean et. al. pontificating about UFOs and the government’s cover-up while promoting the TTSA’s program. Is there anything I am missing here? A whole lot of noise but nothing really significant IMO.
Your correct, Kean, Pope, Elizondo and, their close friends are always promoting TTSA, as if they are doing important things. BUT, what have they done so far? NOTHING that I can see and know. Of course, they are still begging for money from the common folks, instead of MIT, NASA, et. al. for their "research"?!Delete