Had you referred to him earlier as Mr. Fravor, instead of 'guy', there wouldn't have been a problem. Instead, you chose to discount his story by disrespecting him. What makes your earlier response seem even worse is that, you wrote that last response as though you were not totally ignorant of Fravor's incident. If you weren't, then shame on you for pretending that you were just so that you could be dismissive.
As I watched the interview, I was struck at just how removed from the many aspects an individual within the military must possess. He immediately brought about a lack of an "air" of command, structure, discipline...lending a perception of "just another wacko guy". The fact that he chose to wear his old uniform did nothing to instill "respect" especially considering the large gap in time, as it seemed a feeble attempt to the "appeal to authority". Thru out the interview, I found it highly unlikely, I would "follow him into battle". Discovering those FA-18s were unarmed on their sortie...So, just what good is a warplane if it isn't armed?...a soldier without a weapon is?...maybe they could have countered a threat if they collided with it?
To me, "this guy" is a "broken man", kinda sad.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------Rick...
THAT ^^^^^^^^^It's hard to believe that the Navy can be fooled by simple flying birds or conventional drones or weather balloons. If it were conventional crafts, it wouldn't be that hard for the F18 to fly up to them to have a good look. Anyway not having any hard data, the only thing we can do is to speculate.
NO hard data, so 855 posts of speculations with no base.
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
Really, an assertion is truth? Good thing there’s no money in medicine.
Typical re-direct. Medicine has nothing to do with my comment. You just don’t like to face the fact that there are plenty of folk out there making $ by peddling UFO nonsense. Sure, there are other motivations, some more acceptable, some just ‘sad’ as pointed out already. But when you have folk just trying to ride the trend for $ you can see why we end up with so much dross with little credibility.
Typical mindreading.
I don’t care that there are people making money talking about paranormal topics, what I find annoying is that smooth-brained folks think of this as some sort of “gotcha” regarding the topic at hand. I’m well aware the pseudoskeptical community has its own conventions and public figures to trot out on tv. Asserting that any of these rackets are the prime motivation for any of this stuff is just a smear.
I don’t care that there are people making money talking about paranormal topics, what I find annoying is that smooth-brained folks think of this as some sort of “gotcha” regarding the topic at hand. I’m well aware the pseudoskeptical community has its own conventions and public figures to trot out on tv. Asserting that any of these rackets are the prime motivation for any of this stuff is just a smear.
Attachments
Last edited:
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
The point? when somebody making up a documentary of ‘evidence’ is doing it for a buck, they are designing it for maximum returns which means encouraging people to believe and to consume more of it. That’s not impartial or balanced. I thought that would have been really obvious to most people. Believers may call it a smear as they are vested.
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
Steven Greer is a “problematic” part of UFO culture (to put it lightly) and as such, most of us have no time for him. By all means, have at him.
I agree with general contours of your point here as it is applicable to Critical Viewing 101. However, basic media literacy is that “fair and balanced” is a bit of a unicorn as bias detection certainly applies just as readily to a Neil deGrasse Tyson program as it does to anything I may have recommended on the topic.
The point? when somebody making up a documentary of ‘evidence’ is doing it for a buck, they are designing it for maximum returns which means encouraging people to believe and to consume more of it. That’s not impartial or balanced. I thought that would have been really obvious to most people. Believers may call it a smear as they are vested.
I agree with general contours of your point here as it is applicable to Critical Viewing 101. However, basic media literacy is that “fair and balanced” is a bit of a unicorn as bias detection certainly applies just as readily to a Neil deGrasse Tyson program as it does to anything I may have recommended on the topic.
Last edited:
Not having any claim to quote, the only thing one can do is to demand proof.THAT ^^^^^^^^^
NO hard data, so 855 posts of speculations with no base.


It's hard to believe that the Navy can be fooled by simple flying birds or conventional drones or weather balloons. If it were conventional crafts, it wouldn't be that hard for the F18 to fly up to them to have a good look. Anyway not having any hard data, the only thing we can do is to speculate.
Surely it would be very hard for an F18 to fly up to an object like a balloon, moving at a very slow speed? F18s can't hover, and I would guess it's stall speed isn't low?
You have a point there.gpauk said:
Surely it would be very hard for an F18 to fly up to an object like a balloon, moving at a very slow speed? F18s can't hover, and I would guess it's stall speed isn't low?
FWIW this is a beautiful picture of a pair of Super Hornets from VFA something (so fully comparable to Tic Tac incident planes) , presumably taken from a third one, all travelling at roughly the same speed.
Notice the excellent sharpness of ground objects, which are static ... and they are not even trying.
I bet if they want to they can take excellent pictures of static or slow motion objects such as ships, helicopters, tanks and even ..... Tic Tacs 🙂

Fully expand it to see detail.
Remember Tic Tac pilots mentioned UFO submerged and "waves breaking over it"
Suppose UFOs have some "advanced Alien Technology"| (boooooo!!!!) that "makes them invisible or blurry" (I have read sillier excuses to "explain" why there are NO usable pictures) .... surely the pilots could have photographed .... seawaves?????
Above picture shows they CAN do that at least ... so?
EDIT:Bonus picture.
Again, without even trying:

Last edited:
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
Perhaps, someone would explain why they assume that Naval Intelligence/Reconnaissance is not in possession of sharper videos.
Maybe it’s like plugging in a usb cable for them? 😀
Since they designed us, I'm sure they put a diagnostic port.... somewhere.
Again asking proof (or at least explanation) that something does NOT exist 🙄Perhaps, someone would explain why they assume that Naval Intelligence/Reconnaissance is not in possession of sharper videos.
Can anybody prove/explain why Navy Pilots eat Burgers but very very deep in their hearts they actually prefer Sushi, only don´t want to be labelled as un-American?
Same thing.
Plastic models look more and more like the real thing.That last one looks like a plastic model
Not only planes, check this 😎

Looks real, huh? ... but I assembled it myself, it´s a Revell Scale Plane model.
From their Spaceship series.

Sadly, it´s a fake.
Easy to recognize because it´s well illuminated and in sharp focus

The ones approved by the UFO Believers Association MUST be fuzzy,even if pictured from 50 yards away under sunlight by 5 Million dollar Military cameras:

Perhaps, someone would explain why they assume that Naval Intelligence/Reconnaissance is not in possession of sharper videos.
1. Infrared frequency are lower compared to visible light hence lower resolution.
2. At high speed, it's hard for the targeting pod to take high res picture.
3. These were taken a quite a long distant.
4. The Navy may have taken high res pics but they won't release them.
5. Lue Elizondo did say the three vid that were released were some of the least convincing.
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
The ones approved by the UFO Believers Association MUST be fuzzy,even if pictured from 50 yards away under sunlight by 5 Million dollar Military cameras:
LOL
That model spaceship is great. Love it.
I haven't built one of those scale models since I was 12. If I remember correctly, it was almost all cars that I built; maybe a couple planes.
Is it OK for big boys to build model aircraft? 😀
I haven't built one of those scale models since I was 12. If I remember correctly, it was almost all cars that I built; maybe a couple planes.
Is it OK for big boys to build model aircraft? 😀
The ones approved by the UFO Believers Association MUST be fuzzy,even if pictured from 50 yards away under sunlight by 5 Million dollar Military cameras:
😀😛
- Home
- Member Areas
- The Lounge
- US Naval pilots "We see UFO everyday for at least a couple of years"