But it's like you haven't listened to his encounter. The object didn't look or behave like what you have suggested.
More proof of aliens
- Thread starter Lysander
- Start date
- Status
But it's like you haven't listened to his encounter. The object didn't look or behave like what you have suggested.
As if the US Navy isn't going to be aware of NASA tests in the area, what if they shot it down accidently? The X43-A is dropped from a B-52 so they would definitely be aware of that being in the area. The X43-A also flies at 110,000ft then drops into the ocean, it doesn't hover over the ocean and then shoot off, it's engines don't even work at low altitude.
All he does is reiterate what current aviation technology is capable of.
Fravor: "You would see a plume if that were an airplane" - only if it was an airplane using current technology that he knows about.
It just gets farcical when one of the guys in the video says (regarding the design, speed and anti-radar tech of the object)"...we don't have in our inventory and no other nation does" - really? Does he have access to secret military projects in China or Russia? But hey, because this guy says so, it must be true.
Rogan: "How fast is that going?"
Fravor: "I would say pretty fast"
Rogan: "Like nothing we have?"
Fravor: "No..." then uses an F-22 as a basis for comparison "...airplanes don't work that way."
Fravor: "this was performance beyond-" he doesn't complete that sentence but I guess it could be "performance beyond what I know current tech is capable of"
Fravor isn't the fountain of all knowledge with regard to cutting edge aviation/propulsion tech. Without being patronising to the guy he doesn't design engines or fuel, he isn't a chemist or physicist, he hasn't been involved in the testing of new aviation technology - he is just a pilot that follows orders and is only told what he needs to know at any given time.
The F-18s were unarmed, this was confirmed by the radar operator talking to the pilots before sending them off to investigate. Seems a prudent step for the Navy commanders to take, even Fravor admitted in the video that incidents with live ammo happen all the time.
Why is there this assumption that the US Navy wasn't aware of a test in the area? Because Fravor didn't know? Because the US Navy hasn't publicly admitted it? So what? They are under no obligation to tell anyone anything, especially if it involves new technology.
I've listened to it, I'm just not willing to believe 100% in everything he says as being 100% gospel truth, accurate and correct and hasn't distorted or changed over time, or due to monetary gain.
Think of it the other way around.
What better way, to test the reactions and systems of the battlegroup, by subjecting them to something that moves so fast, you'd get very interesting telemetry that might dictate how future radar and targeting systems are designed to track objects that move at that speed.
But the X-43a cannot operate at any speed close to Mach 10 near sea level. It doesn't work like that. It essentially travels very fast in a straight line at a very high altitude. They would also 100% know that a NASA B-52 is in the area so could be conducting test flights. You're ignoring the context. It quite obviously wasn't a rocket plane because it acted nothing like a rocket plane and the description is nothing like a rocket plane, he saw it from 1/2 mile away which is very close. He didn't describe something with conventional engines like a rocket, they take time to accelerate and visibly have thrust and a rocket burn, surely you understand this is not what he saw? He isn't selling anything or promoting a book, he's also said he's having serious conversations with high level government officials about it. People are taking this seriously.
They don't do surprise tests where they pit an experimental NASA rocket plane against a battle group conducting operations lmao, just stop please
Well, it's actually a matter of fact that they did.
Because the battlegroup was conducting exercises in the same area (off the US west coast) and at the same time, where the X43-A was tested, so whether you like it or not, the X43-A was in that area, at that time.
If you wanted to know how the Navy would react to something moving at mach 10, it makes no logical sense whatsoever to tell them about it, if they''re sat there waiting for it - what use is it as a test? Just fly it over an area in their vicinity and see and record how they react. It makes perfect sense.
Feelings vs facts rofl?
You're taking the words of someone as absolute gospel truth, to a degree of 100%, to rule out any reasonable or down to earth explanation for what he saw.
On the contrary, I'm offering a totally down-to-earth, non-extraordinary explanation, which does line up in some ways with what *might* have been seen, which isn't aliens, or some crazy form of anti-gravity technology, or alien technology. Quite simply, something new being tested in that area by Nasa, which moved so fast and behaved in ways previously unseen, which probably gave weird readings on their instruments, rattled them and ended up resulting in a whole load of nonsense coming out.
It jammed their instruments. The X-43a, and I cannot stress this enough, DOES NOT WORK AT THAT ALTITUDE.
It doesn't matter what altitude it was, it doesn't matter whether or not it was jamming their instruments, or whether they *thought* it was jamming their instruments.
What matters, is there was a unique and very fast moving aircraft in the vicinity of the battlegroup, at roughly the same time as the reported sighting, all the other stuff doesn't really matter, what matters, is the X43-A was in the area, at the time. Which is a very good explanation for what they might have seen, and might explain the confusion and bewilderment, which may also have led to incorrect conclusions being made.
Do you have a better explanation for what else it could have been?
It’s interesting, I wonder what proportion of the population would react like this. I wonder what the spectrum of responses would be. It’s a shame the details can’t be conveyed quickly, it doesn’t fit into a tweet or a sound bite which seems to be the necessary criteria to disseminate public information these days.
Here’s a record or a conversation that confirms a lot of this, reverse engineering, the disturbing part is the inability of the general to obtain oversight. The really interesting stuff is locked away with an American defence contractor, probably Lockheed Martin and they are telling American generals to go away! That’s more frightening than the revelation of where the tech comes from!
https://richarddolanmembers.com/art...chard-dolan-analyzes-the-admiral-wilson-leak/
Warning more time consuming than reading a tweet!
Here’s a record or a conversation that confirms a lot of this, reverse engineering, the disturbing part is the inability of the general to obtain oversight. The really interesting stuff is locked away with an American defence contractor, probably Lockheed Martin and they are telling American generals to go away! That’s more frightening than the revelation of where the tech comes from!
https://richarddolanmembers.com/art...chard-dolan-analyzes-the-admiral-wilson-leak/
Warning more time consuming than reading a tweet!
Last edited:
I'm not trying to explain it, I can only tell you that based on what we know the X-43a doesn't fit what the US Navy pilot has seen. You seem keen to debunk it being anything other than a conventional plane. I could at least get on board if you were saying it was something like a Lockheed Martin black project with advanced technology we don't yet know about, but a rocket plane is literally dumb.
how does it not matter if the speed and altitude they're describing is NOT the speed and altitude of the X43-A? How could the X43-A be what they saw, if it wasn't at that altitude, and doing a different speed?
It's not even just the altitude or speed, the X43-a is basically a firework, it travels in a straight line, you can't turn at that speed, let alone make the types of manoeuvres described.
This is not an X-43.
Show me or give me links.
I will give you a clue. It's called refractive index of the medium and is usually greater than one.
Can't wait to see you stuff
Light can only travel at the speed of light. It might take it more time to bounce it's way through other mediums but it's still going at light speed afaik.
I'm not claiming it was the X-43a.
The only point of contention I'm raising is a pilot that isn't an expert in chemistry or physics (that I'm aware of), nor does he have access to top secret innovations in aviation technology, is claiming that what he saw wasn't possible with currently known aviation technology. So what. He is just a pilot who has no knowledge of what NASA are working on in private, or the JPL, or Lockheed or any other organisation.
His knowledge of current aviation technology is limited to what he knows and what he's allowed to know - he isn't the world's leading authority on aviation tech and as such the only conclusion we' can reasonably establish from the events he saw was that he witnessed something that he can't explain and that's it. I'm quite happy to admit he saw a UFO, but anything he claims about technological advances in airplane design and propulsion is limited to his pay grade and security clearance. No one at NASA is going to divulge multi-billion dollar intellectual property rights to some Joe Bloggs pilot.
Or it's aliens....
Associate
- Joined
- 6 Apr 2011
- Posts
- 459
This forum is full of people acting like experts on subjects they know nothing about.
I don't believe the US Navy pilot's account, or elements of it, I don't believe he saw a tic-tac shaped thing, or that it was there, nor do I believe he saw something hovering above the water, moving about in ways in which he described - it's worth reminding you that there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever of this.
I believe he saw *something* though, and he's either modified his story to make it sound like there's more to it, or he was confused and ended up fooling himself into believing what he saw was something far more elaborate.
It's clear *something* was going on in the area, and it's clear that somebody saw something, because multiple ships saw an object, or objects, so I'm not doubting that there was nothing there, I am however doubting the account of the pilot.
I'm doubting the account of the pilot, because what he claims he saw had performance characteristics that would probably require physics and material breakthroughs which 15 years later, show no sign of existing, anywhere. No conceptually, not experimentally. Nowhere does anything exist that can do what the pilot says he saw.
So, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and unfortunately there is none whatsoever, other than a recording from the TGP on the F18, which shows what appears to be the TGP losing it's track on the object due to it being at it's limits, rather than the object flying off at a tremendous speed, so I cast doubt on that too. (that's not my opinion, that's the opinion of another pilot)
It seems reasonable to speculate, that because Nasa were testing the X43-A in the same area at the same time (because that is definitely true) that it caused an element of confusion, to the point where what we seen was interpreted as something else. Combined with perhaps instrumentation error or operator error - could offer an explanation for what happened. Add to that, the Navy pilot spinning his story for attention, and it might explain it.
I certainly don't think you can rule out the X43-A, because it was traveling at around Mach 10 in the vicinity of the group at the same time (regardless of altitude, or rocket plume), that fact alone should raise concerns as to whether it could actually be the culprit, in the absence of any other theory (because there aren't any really)
The alternative to UFO's (as in piloted by people not of this world) is that the government already has advanced technology and its them that are test flying these craft.
This would also explain why the governments don't officially see them as a threat. Because they already know about them. But they can't acknowledge they know about them so purposely leave a silence when asked a direct question which leads people to speculate.
There would be some legitimate questions to be asked, like; when this jump in technology advancement happen? and how did it happen?
There were similar questions asked when the stealth fighter first came in to public. Then it was discovered that quite a few sightings were the US government testing the craft. But the question back then was how did they discover stealth technology?
This would also explain why the governments don't officially see them as a threat. Because they already know about them. But they can't acknowledge they know about them so purposely leave a silence when asked a direct question which leads people to speculate.
There would be some legitimate questions to be asked, like; when this jump in technology advancement happen? and how did it happen?
There were similar questions asked when the stealth fighter first came in to public. Then it was discovered that quite a few sightings were the US government testing the craft. But the question back then was how did they discover stealth technology?
- Status