UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

[James R]

Forget what? You are fantasizing or simply outright lying as usual. Point to your supposed 'in depth' review. Bluffing.

This thread has 260 pages and 5200 posts at the time of writing.

I told you previously that I will not be doing your homework for you. Go look through the thread for yourself. I have already read the whole sorry thing through once. That's quite enough.

Oh, and by the way, don't think I didn't notice where you failed to show that anything I wrote was incorrect. Again.

 

[Q-reeus]

The truth is that in any incident like this there are lots of sensible people who realise they don't have access to information to support the wackier claims being made, so they wisely keep their heads down and stay out of the public eye. At the same time, the most publicised of these kinds of incidents are the ones where a minority of the people who might potentially have useful information to offer disproportionately come to occupy the majority of the media space or attention. Usually, it turns out that those people are self-promoters, for whatever reason. Monetary gain and 15 minutes of fame are motivation enough for some. Some have separate (or additional) ideological motivations.

Certainty, having your ego stroked by lots of people in fringe groups who keep sending you invitations to be a keynote speaker at their conventions or on their TV shows/podcasts/youtube channels, is flattering enough for some that they are willing to spin their story to make it sound more interesting and exciting than it would be if it were "just the facts, ma'am".

You know this is all true, but you will bluff and bluster about how I'm insulting fine upstanding individuals until your cows come home, rather than acknowledge a simple and obvious truth. Faux outrage is part of the stock in trade of the conspiracist nut.

Best to just leave that post as is. A monument to James R's signature style. Ditto for the next one.

 

[James R]

Detail and background can be all important in forming a truly informed, objective viewpoint re reality of nonmundane UFO/UAP etc. phenomena and reliability of reported/recorded encounters.
Here is a two-part recorded interview with David Fravor that imo well fulfills those criteria...

I took at look at the interview with Fravor. There are two parts, amounting to about 80 minutes of talk time. Fravor's eyewitness account takes up, I'd say, approximately 10 minutes of that 80 minutes, with the rest of the interview talking about other incidents in which Fravor wasn't personally involved, background information about Fravor himself and other stuff.

Fravor's story, boiled down to what he actually saw himself, amounts to a report of seeing an object that he couldn't identify, accompanied by some guesswork as to how far it was away from his plane he thought it was at various times. He says that the object never appeared on the radar or any of the other instruments in his plane.

There's really no way to tell what Fravor actually saw, as opposed to what he thinks he saw.

And that's about it.

Fravor himself comes across in the interview as reasonably level-headed, although it is clear that he believes that the object he saw was intelligently controlled and exhibited extremely unusual flight characteristics. Both of those beliefs are based on inferences that he has obviously drawn about what he was looking at. Since there's no independent evidence about what he saw that we can compare and contrast with, that's about as far as we can go with Fravor's account of the incident itself.

Overall then, Fravor's account should not convince anybody who is thinking critically about it that the "tic tac" he reports seeing was an alien spacecraft, ghosts from Mars, or something controlled by extradimensional pixies.

The fact that Fravor's account has been blown up into this major thing by UFO nuts really says more about the UFO nuts themselves than it says about the incident in question.

One interesting titbit is that Fravor says in the interview that he has only personally talked to around 20 journalists or other people directly about his experience. In other words, everything you see online about Fravor is based on one or more of those 20-or-so interviews Fravor did - most of which took place years ago and which concerned an incident that he is no longer able to remember clearly, having take place 15 or more years ago.

 

[James R]

Best to just leave that post as is. A monument to James R's signature style. Ditto for the next one.

You didn't leave it, though, did you? You felt like it was important to post your personal review of it. Why? You had nothing useful to add, as usual, and - as usual - you could find nothing you could refute in it.

 

[Q-reeus]

...Since there's no independent evidence about what he saw that we can compare and contrast with, that's about as far as we can go with Fravor's account of the incident itself....

Brazen lying as usual. At the very start of Fravor's recounting, Part 1 at ~ 8:25 mark, he makes it clear FOUR of them had first-hand, (later - mutually corroborated), visual contact with the tic tac on the day. Pilot and navigator in each of the two FA-18 Super Hornets scrambled to the tic tac anomalous radar signature location, via the AEGIS equipped Princeton radar operator Kevin Day. Who has given his own corroborative testimony more than once.
Two of those aircrew were as of that 2019 interview, still US Navy personnel thus understandably reticent to come forward and testify publcly. The other aircrew member who has, once out of the navy, given corroborative evidence was the female pilot of the FA-18 that remained in a ~ 20,000 ft holding pattern thus affording a separate, elevated vantage point to that of Fravor and navigator.

Lt cmdr Alex Dietrich was the other FA-18 pilot who visually witnessed the 2004 tic tac incident, and has come forward after retiring from the navy. Start ~ 6:30 mark here:

Earlier, Lt. Ryan Graves gave testimony re the 2014-15 incidents off the US East Coast. Both him and fellow FA-18 pilot Lt. Danny Accoin responded to interviews here:
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...os-encounters-new-radar-tech-key-in-detection

But just go on lying your head off. Zero responsibility, zero repercussions here at SF. James R's very own patch of 'paradise'.

 

[Magical Realist]

You know this is all true, but you will bluff and bluster about how I'm insulting fine upstanding individuals until your cows come home, rather than acknowledge a simple and obvious truth. Faux outrage is part of the stock in trade of the conspiracist nut.

When your whole argument against a ufo sighting comes down to slandering without evidence an eyewitness that you don't even know, then you're pretty much done.

 

[DaveC426913]

When your whole argument against a ufo sighting comes down to

Again: It is not on the skeptic to have to show it didn't happen; it is on the claimant to show it did.

slandering without evidence

Again: It is an incontrovertible fact that people do misidentify things. Yes, even trained pilots. Your claim of "slander" is silly.

... an eyewitness that you don't even know

Again:
You sure you don't believe in God? There are lots of complete strangers who will tell you he exists. You can trust them. Heck, some of them are trained pilots. They're not lying, by the way. They really believe what they're saying.

For the rest of us - we re not so gullible as to take the accounts of complete strangers as unassailable gospel. Gospel is not part of rational analysis.

 

[Magical Realist]

Again: It is not on the skeptic to have to show it didn't happen; it is on the claimant to show it did.


Again: It is an incontrovertible fact that people do misidentify things. Yes, even trained pilots. Your claim of "slander" is silly.


Again:
You sure you don't believe in God? There are lots of complete strangers who will tell you he exists. You can trust them. Heck, some of them are trained pilots. They're not lying, by the way. They really believe what they're saying.

For the rest of us - we re not so gullible as to take the accounts of complete strangers as unassailable gospel. Gospel is not part of rational analysis.

See Q-reeus' post #5205 for evidence and eyewitnesses corroborating Favor's account.

 

[DaveC426913]

See Q-reeus' post #5205 for evidence and eyewitnesses corroborating Favor's account.

I didn't say there wasn't corroborating evidence. His account is one piece of evidence, and eyewitness evidence is known to be problematic.
Your puffery about "slandering" complete strangers flies in the face of objective analysis.

 

[Q-reeus]

Erratum: Sorry to have confused anyone reading my post #5205 where somehow I linked to wrong vid below the following line there:

"Lt cmdr Alex Dietrich was the other FA-18 pilot who visually witnessed the 2004 tic tac incident, and has come forward after retiring from the navy. Start ~ 6:30 mark here:"

The intended vid was this one

 

[Magical Realist]

I didn't say there wasn't corroborating evidence. His account is one piece of evidence, and eyewitness evidence is known to be problematic.
Your puffery about "slandering" complete strangers flies in the face of objective analysis.

Making up shit about someone just to dismiss their account of a ufo isn't "objective analysis". It's smearing their reputation in order to damage their credibility. It's malicious, and trollish, and won't pass muster here.

 

[DaveC426913]

Making up shit about someone just to dismiss their account of a ufo isn't "objective analysis". It's smearing their reputation in order to damage their credibility. It's malicious, and trollish, and won't pass muster here.

Don't be ridiculous. It's analysis of an event, not an award ceremony.

More to the point, if you, MR, set your bar at "argument by authority" then you have stopped analyzing, have made your personal judgment and have nothing more to analyze.
Which is fine for you. Now sit down and let the adults talk.

 

[James R]

Brazen lying as usual.

Wrong and insulting, as usual.

At the very start of Fravor's recounting, Part 1 at ~ 8:25 mark, he makes it clear FOUR of them had first-hand, (later - mutually corroborated), visual contact with the tic tac on the day.

I accept that Fravor says that 4 people saw something that day.

Pilot and navigator in each of the two FA-18 Super Hornets scrambled to the tic tac anomalous radar signature location, via the AEGIS equipped Princeton radar operator Kevin Day. Who has given his own corroborative testimony more than once.

The radar operator cannot confirm Fravor's visual description of the UFO, so he's out. The issue of what he saw on his radar screen is a separate one.

Two of those aircrew were as of that 2019 interview, still US Navy personnel thus understandably reticent to come forward and testify publcly.

Right. Got it. Two of the alleged witnesses have said nothing publically in support of Fravor's story.

The other aircrew member who has, once out of the navy, given corroborative evidence was the female pilot of the FA-18 that remained in a ~ 20,000 ft holding pattern thus affording a separate, elevated vantage point to that of Fravor and navigator.

Where can we find a record of her evidence? What's her name?

Lt cmdr Alex Dietrich was the other FA-18 pilot who visually witnessed the 2004 tic tac incident, and has come forward after retiring from the navy. Start ~ 6:30 mark here:

The video you linked has a length of 5:41, so there is no "6:30" mark!
Is Alex Dietrich the female pilot you mentioned, or somebody else?

Earlier, Lt. Ryan Graves gave testimony re the 2014-15 incidents off the US East Coast. Both him and fellow FA-18 pilot Lt. Danny Accoin responded to interviews here

That was a separate incident. I don't know why you're bringing it up in the context of the Fravor tic tac. I guess you want to pretend they all saw the same thing, despite having zero evidence for that.

But just go on lying your head off.

About what?

 

[James R]

When your whole argument against a ufo sighting comes down to slandering without evidence an eyewitness that you don't even know, then you're pretty much done.

Maybe so. Good thing that hasn't been my "whole argument". Nor, by the way, have I ever argued against the "ufo sighting". UFO=unidentified. Remember?

Or have you identified it?

 

[James R]

Erratum: Sorry to have confused anyone reading my post #5205 where somehow I linked to wrong vid below the following line there:

"Lt cmdr Alex Dietrich was the other FA-18 pilot who visually witnessed the 2004 tic tac incident, and has come forward after retiring from the navy. Start ~ 6:30 mark here:"

She says almost nothing in that video. Basically just backs up what Fravor says, but talks very little about what she personally saw (if anything).

 

[James R]

Making up shit about someone just to dismiss their account of a ufo isn't "objective analysis".

Are you accusing me of "making shit up" about somebody? Fravor, perhaps?

Tell me, what shit did I make up about Fravor, specifically?

If you're going to make accusations, better be ready to back them up with evidence.

 

[river]

Accusation that JamesR , and his gang have read next to nothing on UFOs .

One point for me .

 

[Magical Realist]

Are you accusing me of "making shit up" about somebody? Fravor, perhaps?

Tell me, what shit did I make up about Fravor, specifically?

If you're going to make accusations, better be ready to back them up with evidence.

Did you not say Fravor was making alot of money at speaking gigs and getting his lunches paid for by audience members? Where did you get that information?

 

[Magical Realist]

Basically just backs up what Fravor says, but talks very little about what she personally saw (if anything).

If she backs up what Fravor says he saw, then that IS what she personally saw. The same thing he saw. What's so hard to understand about that?

 

[DaveC426913]

If she backs up what Fravor says he saw, then that IS what she personally saw. The same thing he saw. What's so hard to understand about that?

If she is simply confirming what he saw, then her account is effectively worthless. We need her account unpolluted by what she heard from someone else.