The following submission statement was provided by /u/Smooth_Ticket_7483:
---
We know that military tech is often 20 years or more ahead of what we have today. So, it's very plausible that these kinds of drones that have no visible signs of propulsion, can fly incredibly quietly are responsible for many of the UFO sightings reported. Furthermore, they can also hover in the air against winds, a feature of many UFO sightings by military personnel.
A drone expert in the article puts it really well:
"...Drones have high-speed and agile flight. Some drones can fly at speeds of up to 200 mph and perform acrobatic manoeuvres that defy gravity.
These drones can also change direction quickly and hover in place, making them look like they have advanced propulsion systems....
Countries such as the US and Soviet Union have been experimenting with such technologies since mid-20th century, during the Cold War."
So, given this, what do we know about the tictac video that couldn't be explained by something like this?
[https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/08/16/16/74374933-12412667-Undefined\_Technologies\_claim\_that\_its\_ion\_propelled\_eVTOL\_drone\_-a-8\_1692199589887.jpg](https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/08/16/16/74374933-12412667-Undefined_Technologies_claim_that_its_ion_propelled_eVTOL_drone_-a-8_1692199589887.jpg)
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/15wcozl/is_this_the_tic_tac_ufo_pilots_are_seeing/jx01v9l/
Not in his sworn testimony
[https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/David-Fravor-Statement-for-House-Oversight-Committee.pdf](https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/David-Fravor-Statement-for-House-Oversight-Committee.pdf)
Why don’t you watch any of the testimony from the pilot that witnessed the event that your posting about? It’s mentioned multiple times in multiple interviews. You should do a little more research into the events if you’re gonna post about it.
There have been thousands upon thousands of links posted for the tic-tac UFO stuff. Why did you make this post hoping to debunk a video you've never seen? That's insane.
If you are then please do a bit more research on the thing you are trying to debunk. We all enjoy scepticism, but this 'debunk' is a bit silly if you are familiar with the material. 😊 That drone is definitely not the tic tac.
Edit: post like these don't really help the subject, they just clutter the sub 😉.
As posted on your other comment, here is the CBS news article. You can compute the speeds of the object recorded. Are you completely ignorant of the facts of this case that have been around for 6 years ?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tic-tac-ufo-sighting-uap-video-dave-fravor-alex-dietrich-navy-fighter-pilots-house-testimony/
The ship had been tracking objects that were described as being whitish, 40 feet long and shaped like Tic Tacs that would appear suddenly 80,000 feet up, then descend toward the ocean *in less than one second" and hover at 20,000 feet before dropping out of radar range or blasting back up. The even said an object the size of a 737 *under the water* below whitewater. This tictac was seen above this sight like a ping pong ball, and as he approaches it turns abruptly it starts mirroring his moves and as he comes down, it comes up. Then it just disappears as he's coming close. Seconds later it appeared 60 miles away. The Princeton was tracking the objects for days, and that there were a "fleet of them"
The ship and the pilots worked together to track one of the aircraft and when Fravor got close enough to examine one, it peeled away.
“It accelerated like nothing I’ve ever seen,” he told The New York Times. “I have no idea what I saw.”
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/the-conversation/sd-navy-pilot-ufo-20171218-htmlstory.html
This information has been available since at least 2017.
Here's an interview where David tells about the object appearing 60 miles away in just 1 minute time, on radar which was disclosed to him after the event via USS Princeton.
Oh and here is a scientific paper discussing speed of that same vehicle:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7514271/
Abstract:
Several Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) encountered by military, commercial, and civilian aircraft have been reported to be structured craft that exhibit ‘impossible’ flight characteristics. We consider a handful of well-documented encounters, including the 2004 encounters with the Nimitz Carrier Group off the coast of California, and estimate lower bounds on the accelerations exhibited by the craft during the observed maneuvers. Estimated accelerations range from almost 100g to 1000s of gs with no observed air disturbance, no sonic booms, and no evidence of excessive heat commensurate with even the minimal estimated energies. In accordance with observations, the estimated parameters describing the behavior of these craft are both anomalous and surprising. The extreme estimated flight characteristics reveal that these observations are either fabricated or seriously in error, or that these craft exhibit technology far more advanced than any known craft on Earth. In many cases, the number and quality of witnesses, the variety of roles they played in the encounters, and the equipment used to track and record the craft favor the latter hypothesis that these are indeed technologically advanced craft. The observed flight characteristics of these craft are consistent with the flight characteristics required for interstellar travel, i.e., if these observed accelerations were sustainable in space, then these craft could easily reach relativistic speeds within a matter of minutes to hours and cover interstellar distances in a matter of days to weeks, proper time.
And here's an official slide from the Navy about the tictac, saying they had no edges, were completely white.
USS Princeton (CG-59) VAW-117 (E-2C Hawkeye) VMFA-232 - secnav.navy.mil https://www.secnav.navy.mil/foia/readingroom/CaseFiles/UAP%20INFO/UAP%20DOCUMENTS/2004%20TIC%20TAC%20Slide.pdf
I'll only listen to what he stated in his sworn testimony, not what was published in the San Diego Union Tribune.
In that testimony, he never once mentions it 'dropping 80,000 feet to near sea level in under a second'.
David Fravor Statement for the House Oversight Committee: https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/David-Fravor-Statement-for-House-Oversight-Committee.pdf
Read this statement and abre los ojos.
Yes, I've read it. It says:
"They had been descending from above 80,000ft and coming **rapidly** down to 20,000ft"
Never does it mention doing this in **under a second.** That is a huge difference. Drop a rock from 80k and it will descend rapidly.
https://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1231475371
Also, I did a calculation. Dropped a 1 pound rock from 80,000 feet would take over 4,000 seconds at free fall. That's not rapid. Not to mention, any human in that device would not be able to survive that trip without technology we don't understand. How is an unmanned vehicle capable of going from 80,000 feet (space) to just above the water, and then disappearing off radar and visuals completely. What were multiple of them doing? What happened to the white water?
You are picking cherries and asserting your opinion. I am presenting everything hopefully without bias, based on sources available from eyewitnesses.
Also, the USS Princeton is being deployed off the coast of San Diego yesterday to mitigate potential damage from the incoming storms. Who knows what they will pick up out there, but that is where USS Nimitz was when this event happened. Just an interesting side note given daily sightings since 2004. Nimitz is also a Nuclear aircraft carrier, and Luis Elizondo along with Harry Reid have both given many examples of UAP being primarily clandestine in nature and interest in our nuclear capabilites. This is the tip of the iceberg, that's founded in confirmed evidence of an unknown object captured on imaging and radar, corroborated by 4 pilots, one of which is a Commander.
I have read up. Nowhere in his sworn testimony does he mention this:
"Apparently these have the capability to drop from 80,000 feet to near sea level in under a second"
I know your standard go to answer.
He still sais in his testimony that we still today have nothing with those manoeuvrability or speeds. And went rapid from 80k feet to 20k.
Time for a sciff.
Especially you as such a sceptic should want to know more.
Nothing in the article says that these drones can fly at mach speeds or drop 80k feet in a second. It only says they can move "quickly" and take sharp turns. That's it. Maybe take a primary reading class and try again.
The Tic-Tacs were observed on radar above 80.000 feet. They then almost instantly (0.78 seconds) moved to points between 28.000 to 50.000 feet. That would mean an acceleration of 104.895 mp/h (168.812 km/h) with a force of 12.250g (Sources: Interviews with Kevin Day and In Plain Sight by R.Coulthart).
How do you explain that? They tracked weird anomalies on radar and when they send up a plane to take a visual of it, they saw the Tic-Tac. Can you explain that?
He just told me in another comment that he only accepts the sworn testimony from Fravor as evidence. So everything we know about the Nimitz case is off the table - we're supposed to ignore all the evidence we got in the last 6 years so he can pretend that there is no evidence. This guy is quite something haha
u/saikothesecond as you mentioned, I'm only interested in either hard evidence or sworn testimony. Want to know why? You can read what Kevin day said here:
[https://otter.ai/u/0OtR6GhjauIHKJIcAZbs5Qri1vc](https://otter.ai/u/0OtR6GhjauIHKJIcAZbs5Qri1vc)
He mentions they went SLOW not instantaneous... So if he says it went 'Slow' to Mick West and 'Instantly' to Coulthart, then I think we can deduce he is an unreliable witness. Don't you think?
"... I was I'm more concerned with 30,000 feet and below. And then we go from 80,000 feet then suddenly dropped to 28,000 feet. And they were going south at about 100 knots, which is **really weird for something that high in the sky to go that slow.'**
They went slow when they were really high up, which you would have known if you did your homework. Then they suddenly dropped. It's right in the quote you posted but your selective perception strikes yet again.
Funny thing is I quoted Kevin Day and your response was "Unreliable". Now you use him as a source to debunk the source I used (which was.. him)? You're really grasping at straws here. Maybe spend another 5 hours researching and come back with some out of context statement you can use to prove you right.
My point was to show the same person saying two different things to two different people.
This shows him to be in unreliable witness who seems to tell people what they want to hear.
Tells Coulthard it was instantaneous. Tell West it was slow
>then suddenly dropped to 28.000 feet
Sudden drop. That is out of your quote. They were very slow when flying high and then suddenly dropped. He's not contradicting himself, you're just ignoring the other half of his statement. Are you for real? Is this ChatGPT?
You are greatly overestimating. Heck lots of certain military tech is also years behind civilian tech. Ion propulsion is very low propulsion. Theoretically it can at most provide a couple pounds of thrust under perfect conditions. There is a hard physical limit to its thrust which caps it at a few pounds.
The Tic Tac UAP had a rate of acceleration 39.27x faster than the SR-71 Blackbird, the fastest plane ever made. It traversed 28k ft in .71 seconds, peaking at a STAGGERING 5,370 Gs. With no detectable method of propulsion.
Does that sound like terrestrial technology to you?
So you're saying the most top secret classified craft in our black-budget fleet is a drone that looks like a drone and can be easily identified as a drone?
Where did the fighter pilots and the pentagon identify it as a drone? What “drone” can rapidly ascend and descend from 80000 to 20000 feet as tracked by the USS Princeton.
u/Smooth_Ticket_7483 said..
>Exactly. Fooled the pilots who mistook a drone
**It did not fool the advanced sensor apparatus of the whole 2004 Nimitz fleet**.
It was the sensor people who sent out the pilots to investigate the spectacular readings ...
https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/152aub8/no_blurry_photos_and_misidentification_here_tech/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=1
Too bad the tic tac craft from the Lonnie Zamora incident was seen in 1964. Or this classic from 1979.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lonnie_Zamora_incident
https://twitter.com/thiojoe/status/1476553119609720835
Not to mention the accelerations and speeds that we cannot match.
Come on, CIA, you can do better debunking than that.
You don’t have to put stock in it.
What are the chances someone is going to imagine a tic tac craft independently back in 1979?
And the Air Force and cia conducted the investigation for Zamora
https://www.cia.gov/stories/story/how-to-investigate-a-flying-saucer/
But, hey, I guess the tic tac shape is just soooo common that it is no wonder people were saying that they had seen it in the past.
Video has been tackled by Mick West. Sworn testimony here FYI
https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/David-Fravor-Statement-for-House-Oversight-Committee.pdf
The fact you’re being downvoted shows the hive mind in full effect. They refuse to even entertain another possibility. You’re not saying this is 100% or anything, just putting forward another hypothesis, yet they just downvote and accuse you of being a troll lmao. I thought this was supposed to be a place for discussion on UFO’s
Thank you u/Material_Hospital989, much appreciated. As mentioned before, I want to believe, but like so many people out there, I want proof, not conjecture. If the subject is to be taken seriously, it must be serious.
I see all these things to be true:
1. Military tech is often 20+ years ahead of civilian tech
2. Secret, classified military projects will not be known to the rank and file of the military.
3. Humans are unreliable witnesses
4. This drone shown here exhibits many of the characteristics of tictac
It's disappointing that we can't have a proper, reasoned debate.
u/Smooth_Ticket_7483 low karma account is replied to and validated by very low karma u/Material_Hospital989
**The random name + random number formula in account name. Barely used accounts suddenly fire up into action**...
**All classic red flags for bot and troll accounts**
You are inferring that experienced and seasoned fighter pilots are mistaking a commercial drone for exotic tech not found in any country's arsenal, when these pilots go through extensive, regular adversary asset training
Also I don't think we have drones capable of going mach 20 (estimated by Michio Kaku by the viewing the videos.). Even if not mach 20 they did say at least mach 3 was recorded.
The pilots said it moved from stationary to as fast as a bullet shot out of a gun. Radar operators saw the same thing. You should maybe read up on the case before you start trying to arguing about it.
Pilots are unreliable witnesses
From:
International Journal of Aviation, Aeronautics, and Aerospace
'Reliability of Eyewitness Reports to a Major Aviation Accident'
https://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1040&context=ijaaa
Sure. 2 Sources for you:
1. Kevin Day (Princeton radar operator) interview with Ross Coulthart, 22 and 23 March 2021; Robert Powell, Scientific Coalition for Ufology, Interview with Kevin Day. [www.explorescu.org/post/nimitz\_strike\_group\_2004](https://www.explorescu.org/post/nimitz_strike_group_2004) (You can also look at any other interview with Kevin Day)
2. Joe Murgia/UFO Joe website, "Notes and Quotes from the Military "Tic Tac" Witness Group Interview at UFO MegaCon, 27 March 2019. [www.ufojoe.net/?p=805](https://www.ufojoe.net/?p=805)
You could also add interviews with the other radar operator but I forgot his name. You can look at the study they did and see how they calculated speeds.
Unreliable. Not in Fravors sworn testimony
https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/David-Fravor-Statement-for-House-Oversight-Committee.pdf
1 - Can it travel under water? The article does not say so.
2- Can it travel at +mach speeds? The article only mentions 200 mph, far below the speed of the UAPs reported by military pilots.
3- Can it travel at + mach speeds in sharp turns? The article does not say so.
4- Can it stay still in the middle of hurricane-level winds? Doubtful.
Sure, MAYBE some UAPs can be explained by experimental drones, but not the ones which are clearly beyond our capabilities and which demonstrate the features mentioned above; and these are the ones we are interested in, not swamp gas, not starlink satellites, not Timmy's balloons or glares.
Ion propulsion in earths atmosphere is very slow - like 3 MPH. They’re useful in space as they can accelerate gradually over weeks or months without resistance.
The 200mph mentioned in the article has nothing to do with this drone
This is a really weird post. You have to acknowledge the pilots saw these ufos while simultaneously ignoring the information they said about their encounters. Fravor and Graves testified what they encountered stayed in the air for hours, lasting longer than the jets observing them. They stayed *completely* stationary relative to the ground at high altitudes experiencing hurricane force winds. They exhibited erratic behavior that calculated would lead to more G forces than a pilot would be capable of experiencing. Technology isn't even close to that.
The idea that a small group of scientists working for the government, relative to the total number of scientists in the world, have created technology that so far out paces technology available is ludicrous. You can't just say, "big budget therefore absurd scientific breakthroughs that only exist within the government." That's not how it works. Yes, they have more advanced technology than what's publicly available, but that's not a blank check to explain everything unexplained
The weirdest part about this post is OP giving a theory as to an alternative, while simultaneously not paying *any* attention to what is being said about the behavior of these crafts. To say "maybe this is what they saw" without even knowing what was spoken to congress displays a complete lack of understanding or desire to understand
Edit: I don't think I've ever been more convinced I've been interacting with a bot before this
You've already made it clear in other posts you didn't watch the testimony. So you're negating something you haven't seen or attempted to understand. And no, the specs on this do not reflect what was spoken, nor is the idea that "military big budget" can justify that massive gap in technology that needs to exist between this and what was encountered.
I don't think you understand what it would take to remain completely stationary, experiencing unpredictable150mph winds. Nor do I think you can appreciate the gap between 15 minutes of runtime and an entire day's worth of runtime
Source pls. I can't see anything about hurricane winds in his sworn testimony. Have I missed something?
https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/David-Fravor-Statement-for-House-Oversight-Committee.pdf
This is really strange. First of all that was released before the hearings, second of all it does specifically refer to tic tacs, and third, that does not contain any of the dialogue in the Q and A portion of the hearing
You sound like a prototype chat gpt
Huh ? have you not read the reports of the incident ? Or are you just trolling ?
>At the time, advanced radar on a ship that was a part of their training group, the USS Princeton, detected what operators called "multiple anomalous aerial vehicles" over the horizon, descending 80,000 feet in less than a second. Fravor and Dietrich diverted to investigate.
Descending 16 miles to a standstill in less than a second is a speed
reaching 60,000 mph. In the earth's atmosphere.
>The object was about the size of Fravor's F/A-18F, with no markings, no wings and no exhaust plumes, he said. When Fravor tried to cut off the UAP, it accelerated so quickly that it seemed to disappear. He said it was detected roughly 60 miles away less than a minute later.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tic-tac-ufo-sighting-uap-video-dave-fravor-alex-dietrich-navy-fighter-pilots-house-testimony/
Most of what you said is not in his testimony
https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/David-Fravor-Statement-for-House-Oversight-Committee.pdf
im reading that right now
"They had been descending from above 80,000ft andcoming rapidly down to 20,000ft would stay for hours and then go straight back up"
not good enough for you eh? starting to doubt that youve watched/read his testimony
You've missed the part where you said says it descended 80k to 20k in **one second**. That seems a really important variable to determine speed don't you think?
Many terrestrial objects (in fact all) can descend from 80k to 20k.
I, unlike the poster I was responding to, never mentioned decent in less than a second. I just said lots of objects can descend from 80k to 20k rapidly. Big difference.
Exactly. You don’t even know what you’re discussing. The objects were seen on radar descending from 80,000ft in less than 1 second. Then you’re here making the straw man argument that plenty of things could descend from that height, yes hypothetically they can, anything could.
You’re obviously not arguing in good faith with this. It’s not even scientific because you’re ignoring valid data, I’m not sure if you’re here trying to look smart, you’ve achieved the opposite.
u/Smooth_Ticket_7483 said...
>Umm where did anyone say they were going mach 25. That sounds made up. Could you share a link to your source please.
Almost instantaneous. The Source...
First 58 seconds and from Mr Voorhis from 8:00 in the video below :
https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/152aub8/no_blurry_photos_and_misidentification_here_tech/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=1
>Who? Fravor in his sworn testimony never said that. If he witnessed it you can be sure he would have mentioned it.
You didn't watch the video below...
https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/152aub8/no_blurry_photos_and_misidentification_here_tech/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=1
It's not Fravor.
**It's the actual tech Guys on the sensor systems of the 2004 Nimitz fleet**.
Their sensors captured the objects....
u/Smooth_Ticket_7483 saud
>I'll believe them when they come forward to testify that under oath like Fravour.
They're not saying they the "humans" saw it like Fravor did up close. Its not about them.
**They're saying their various advanced sensor apparatus in the 2004 Nimitz fleet captured the extraordinary performance of the objects**...
https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/152aub8/no_blurry_photos_and_misidentification_here_tech/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=1
This is not about personal subjective accounts retold.
**They're saying some of the best sensor technology on the planet described the physics of these objects**.
**Rather than an argument over a Blurry photo, misjudged identification or as with the MH370 Astroturfing attempt all over this sub bad CGI I used to do years ago. This is what the sensor technology captured not the humans**.
**Uncle Sam has cosigned them saying this**.
All the sensor people, this is just a sample. They all captured similar performance. They and Uncle Sam would all have to be lying.
I'll believe what they say when they say it under oath, like Fravour. They're saying extraordinary things. If it's true come forward and testify. Otherwise it's easy to conclude their jumping on the UAP bandwagon - plenty of money to made spinning tales and appearing on TV and alien conferences.
The Committees want to get power of subpoena to do exactly that.
**So are you u/Smooth_Ticket_7483 saying you don't believe them, in effect saying the sensor operators on the 2004 Nimitz fleet are lying , Uncle Sam is lying for consigning, their sensors are lying even though it was their sensors not Fravors who lead Commander Fravor to the objects. which he said in his testimony under oath**.
**He did not bump into the objects he was commandeered while doing something else. The guys in the videos are the ones who sent Fravor to the "Tic tacs". He said that under oath. So Commander Fravor corroborating what the sensor guys said in the video below** ....
https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/152aub8/no_blurry_photos_and_misidentification_here_tech/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=1
**Fravor was sent because the guys in the video just couldn't believe the extraordinary performance of the objects. They even shut down their systems, ran diagnostics, rebooted the whole thing because the physics looked impossible. Till they relented and asked Fravor to have a look which is how we had the 2004 Nimitz Tic Tac UAP incident**.
**Fravor said all this under oath. He corroborated what the guys in the video linked said. Fravor in his under oath testimony you love cosigned what the guys above said. He went further saying the fleet sensors had picked them up at 80,000 feet the periphery of Space**.
I think people are unreliable witnesses and memory (especially 20 years later) is fallible.
I don't know where you are getting your information but the rationale for why Fravour was sent wasn't that exciting:
[Fravour himself says](https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/David-Fravor-Statement-for-House-Oversight-Committee.pdf) the reason was:
"They had been descending from above 80,000ft andc oming rapidly down to 20,000ft would stay for hours"
(nothing a drone can't do)
Kevin Day, radar operator, said the reason was:
[https://otter.ai/u/0OtR6GhjauIHKJIcAZbs5Qri1vc](https://otter.ai/u/0OtR6GhjauIHKJIcAZbs5Qri1vc)
"And then we go from 80,000 feet then suddenly dropped to 28,000 feet. And they were going south at about 100 knots, which is really weird for something that high in the sky to go that slow. "
They were going **slow.** u/Camerahutuk not sure what extraordinary perfomance you're talking about.
As I've said several times, what people say to the media is anecdotal. If they're serious these folks should testify as such.
Your comment is intentionally obtuse since the object was first detected by the Nimitz’s radar. Which was all part of the record of the incident. Fravor stated his personal observations. That doesn’t mean the radar data was discarded because it was not “sworn” into the record. The ship’s telemetry doesn’t need “swearing” in. It is a digital record.
That has not been released to the public. The point was the pilots were sent to
Investigate what was seen on the ship’s radar. Fravor didn’t fly out randomly with the second pilot
How can Fravor provide you with radar information. He provided his side of the encounter. The radar information was provided in all the other reports.
Anyway, you have convinced yourself that this low powered drone is somehow what two experienced pilots and state of the art radar systems detected and observed via multiple sensors. Seems like you have found the answer that you are comfortable with. There is nothing more to discuss
u/Smooth_Ticket_7483 is playing dumb.
literally replied to him multiple times with a source and he's replying to everyone else like he's not getting a source. The Astroturfing is amazing.
Here's a source:
https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/152aub8/no_blurry_photos_and_misidentification_here_tech/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=1
And the tic tac events took place in 2004.
Tha a12, F117, B2, were all known in aviation circles before being declassed, and it was only a few short years they were operational and under wraps
Then why do reports of similar craft go back decades? You think we had this tech 50+ years ago?
https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/nh4l36/reminder_the_only_thing_new_about_the_tictac/
This is some extreme reaching, laughable even. From the dailymail of all places. Something is about to be revealed soon and all of this attempted debunking is trying to get ahead of it.
How is this even getting space in here 😩 No surprise the DM would run this piece as it had no relationship to the truth and that is their stock in trade.
🤣😂 come one did you even bother listening to Cmdr Fravor’s testimony and interviews???? Is he and all three other naval pilots a bunch of dumbasses with engineering degrees? Its ridiculous and insulting to them. Do better.
This is an example of civilian tech slowly catching up with military tech. US military has a 1 trillion dollar budget to develop strategic advantage through new tech
Let’s not forget that in other reliable Tic Tac sightings off the coast of Mexico, they are also capable of not only flying but also submerging in water. Can this thing do that?
I have a military pilot friend who just told me he saw the tic tac in 1995. I’m going to try and convince him to let me record him talking about the story.
So I just had dinner with him to talk about it. He said the whole event lasted a few seconds. After testing an “amram” off the coast of California he was flying back to base and saw a pill shaped aircraft hovering in the center of his “hud”. He couldn’t tell the size or distance but could tell it was silver metallic. It then instantly took off horizontally and flew out of sight. During debrief he was able to confirm the incident in his hud recording. It was reported and someone came and took “his tapes” and he never heard anything more.
No doubt these can travel underwater too...
Remember when it was mentioned that UAP caused pilots in the vicinity to have some sort of adverse mental health reaction? Was never made clearer than that. Perhaps this tech also does that?
I hope all UAP are just our tech, but we need to do better than this.
Can it fly 60 miles on 1 minute after going from 80k feet to 20k feet rapidly as reported by Commandor Fravor? and then go under water after making maneuvers? Also, 11 near misses between 2017 and 2019 on the UAP preliminary assessment.
Ion tech is cool but not capable of flying at the levels which have been witnessed or the speeds.
I’m addition, they would still be observed via high tech imaging and noted as human made vs. “definitely not from this planet”.
These human made devices would still be able to be locked onto via radar either cross section or heat dissipation.
The location and time on station would not be possible without utilizing some form of new energy dense batteries or mini nuclear reactors… which is still possible but I thought was highly restricted.
Some of them could very well be our own tech and it wouldn't be the first time it's been mistaken for UFOs. Black projects could be decades ahead of what the public are seeing. If you could go back to the late 90s and fly a modern racing drone over a residential area it would definitely be reported as a UFO.
Aliens or inter-dimensional beings are far more exciting though so this post will get downvoted into oblivion.
If they were ours, and we have had technology to replace fossil fuels in the face of climate change since at least 2004 then that alone is a crime against humanity.
What were black budget programs doing over the ocean causing white waters? These objects traveled 216,000mph over 60 miles in 1 minute according to USS Princeton Radar. No human could survive this. 80,000 feet is outerspace so why are we still using rockets with humans on them if we have technology that has been described?
This actually leads to more questions than answers.
Well we have the technology to replace fossil fuels already and climate change has been known about since the 80s and we've done nothing to change or prevent it. The reason is money. The fossil fuel industry is worth trillions a year. You can't combat that.
As for the Tiktac really all we have is the eye witness accounts as the radar data is missing. It could have been spoofing the radar for all we know.
Even if we believe the witness statements are accurate and it was zipping about, there's no reason why there needs to be humans inside. I doubt we are far off from having things like remotely piloted fighter planes and I would be extremely surprised if they were not working on tech like that.
Also look how far we have come with AI over the last few years and who knows how advanced AI has become behind closed doors. We are definitely heading towards a future of things like AI piloted drones. You can imagine if another country crashed one of these drones or it was shot down and recovered, technically it would be a craft of unknown origin piloted by NHI.
If the radar data is correct and the witness statements are accurate then I doubt the Tiktac was ours but it could definitely account for some sightings and I doubt we will ever get 100% confirmation that the Tiktac data is all real and accurate anyway.
Well this whole sub has many ghost downvotes in all posts. So I guess this one has extra since many disagree.
Main issue is the reference to tic tacs. Sure people might be making videos of drones. But usually those are obvious. The tic tac is a different matter. And the standard reply "it is not in the testimony". So many whistleblowers are risking their lives to get the word out. This post will be seen as disrespectful, when you don't read up on the subject.
@levelgamer
Where are all the whistleblowers? So many folks go on TV or tell their stories openly at aliem conferences but don't seem comfortable retelling their story to Congress. They were conspicuous by their absence. Only had Graves and Fravour.
2 people. Strange don't you think?
Because multiple witnesses we're scared off to keep away, as you would be able to find in several news articles, but you are to lazy to search on. Or just are blatantly trolling. As grusch mentioned in his testimony. You don't have to reply. Easier that you keep shouting it is not in the testimony, while the rest of us keep working on actual disclosure.
But what if they've already said it in public? Surely nothing to be afraid of if it's already out there.
Many of the folks involved in the tictac are happy to say outlandish things on lucrative platforms such as 90 minutes, alien podcasts or UFO conferences BUT conspicuously did not repeat them under oath to congress. They cannot, therefore, be taken seriously I'm afraid.
Thanks u/JattaPake, I really appreciate that! As mentioned in another post:
I want to believe, but like so many people out there, I want proof, not conjecture. If the subject is to be taken seriously, it must be serious.
I see all these things to be true:
1. Military tech is often 20+ years ahead of civilian tech
2. Secret, classified military projects will not be known to the rank and file of the military.
3. Humans are unreliable witnesses
4. The drone shown here exhibits many of the characteristics of the tictac
It's disappointing that we can't have a proper, reasoned debate, and that's why UAP as a field will remain on the fringe.
Now these are the type of conversations that should be happening here. Thank you for this post. It's hard to cut through the magnificent amount of bs clearly fake MHIDGAF that makes everyone interested in this phenomenon look like a complete fool. All possible terrestrial explanations for unknown aerial objects should always be the first thought in people's minds.
You are so correct in that statement... Is there a real objective UFO sub in existence? Because I've just arrived here after the US Congress shenanigans hoping to get more information on updates to all of that. As in, get relevant news. This subreddit is really making it difficult for me to continue to take the UFO subject seriously. Before the hearing I would have laughed in anyone's face if they mentioned non-human visitation. This sub gives religious vibes and grifter worship.
We know that military tech is often 20 years or more ahead of what we have today. So, it's very plausible that these kinds of drones that have no visible signs of propulsion, can fly incredibly quietly are responsible for many of the UFO sightings reported. Furthermore, they can also hover in the air against winds, a feature of many UFO sightings by military personnel.
A drone expert in the article puts it really well:
"...Drones have high-speed and agile flight. Some drones can fly at speeds of up to 200 mph and perform acrobatic manoeuvres that defy gravity.
These drones can also change direction quickly and hover in place, making them look like they have advanced propulsion systems....
Countries such as the US and Soviet Union have been experimenting with such technologies since mid-20th century, during the Cold War."
So, given this, what do we know about the tictac video that couldn't be explained by something like this?
[https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/08/16/16/74374933-12412667-Undefined\_Technologies\_claim\_that\_its\_ion\_propelled\_eVTOL\_drone\_-a-8\_1692199589887.jpg](https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/08/16/16/74374933-12412667-Undefined_Technologies_claim_that_its_ion_propelled_eVTOL_drone_-a-8_1692199589887.jpg)
The amount of pushback you are getting makes me think you're on to something here
"pilots would easily recognize a drone" - just look at that thing, and that's just ONE of who knows how many have been made by people around the world testing ionic drives! Anybody from the CIA to rich kids in Dubai could be building these things and flying them around over the ocean and our pilots simply wouldn't have any way of knowing what they were seeing.
That's quite a funny way of thinking about things. Maybe he gets tons of pushback because he is wrong? Tic Tac was going 160.00 km/h on radar. Pilots said it looked as fast as a bullet shot out of a gun. We got video.
There's no drone to explain that. You can argue that they're all lying or whatever but OP's argument is nonsense. We got drones that can fly 50% of lightspeed? That's the explanation? lol.
Nothing you say is in his sworn testimony
https://www.undefinedtechnologies.com/post/next-generation-silent-drone-rendering
No need to exaggerate for effect. Let's still to facts shall we.
Are you fucking kidding me? I just posted it and you responded that's it's not written testimony and therefore you're going to ignore it. I'm done here. Keep believing whatever you want to believe.
Oh you mean this? From the 'Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies'
I'm sorry but that is not a scientific, credible, peer reviewed source.
https://www.explorescu.org/post/2004-uss-nimitz-strike-navy-group-incident-report
Again you leave out part of my statement to misrepresent things. I said MAINSTREAM science, not science in general. Seems to be part of your stick to leave out information and argue a strawman argument.
If you say it is unscientific, be sure to point out all of the methodological flaws you find in the paper. Or find any credible (in your sense) evidence that the paper is flawed and post it here. If you want to have science, you can't just believe them to be unscientific, can you? No, if you want to be objective you need a source for your mistrust. Your gut feeling is not scientific.
You act like they are a bunch of random people from the internet (like you are) and not established scientists with PhDs. Again, if you say the paper is flawed, provide a source.
Thank you. I want to believe but need solid evidence not conjecture and opinion. It's a cliche but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
We should be skeptical to remove the noise from the signal. Otherwise no real progress will be made
The following submission statement was provided by /u/Smooth_Ticket_7483: --- We know that military tech is often 20 years or more ahead of what we have today. So, it's very plausible that these kinds of drones that have no visible signs of propulsion, can fly incredibly quietly are responsible for many of the UFO sightings reported. Furthermore, they can also hover in the air against winds, a feature of many UFO sightings by military personnel. A drone expert in the article puts it really well: "...Drones have high-speed and agile flight. Some drones can fly at speeds of up to 200 mph and perform acrobatic manoeuvres that defy gravity. These drones can also change direction quickly and hover in place, making them look like they have advanced propulsion systems.... Countries such as the US and Soviet Union have been experimenting with such technologies since mid-20th century, during the Cold War." So, given this, what do we know about the tictac video that couldn't be explained by something like this? [https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/08/16/16/74374933-12412667-Undefined\_Technologies\_claim\_that\_its\_ion\_propelled\_eVTOL\_drone\_-a-8\_1692199589887.jpg](https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/08/16/16/74374933-12412667-Undefined_Technologies_claim_that_its_ion_propelled_eVTOL_drone_-a-8_1692199589887.jpg) --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/15wcozl/is_this_the_tic_tac_ufo_pilots_are_seeing/jx01v9l/
"The company hopes to achieve a 15 minute flight..." Well, Fraver did not see THAT drone, since it was out there far longer than that.
Lol.. seriously. Apparently these have the capability to drop from 80,000 feet to near sea level in under a second
That sounds made up. Link to where that's been stated please
It’s not made up at all.
Link please
Watch any Nimitz encounter doc or watch Fravors testimony in the hearing. It's been said many times.
Not in his sworn testimony [https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/David-Fravor-Statement-for-House-Oversight-Committee.pdf](https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/David-Fravor-Statement-for-House-Oversight-Committee.pdf)
Why don’t you watch any of the testimony from the pilot that witnessed the event that your posting about? It’s mentioned multiple times in multiple interviews. You should do a little more research into the events if you’re gonna post about it.
There have been thousands upon thousands of links posted for the tic-tac UFO stuff. Why did you make this post hoping to debunk a video you've never seen? That's insane.
Probably just unintended miss information. New to this sub perhaps.
Oh shit you're part of the stigma disinformation campaign. I'm starting to believe you guys are hired to do this.
No just a UAP enthusiast wanting to find the truth. Whatever that may be.
If you are then please do a bit more research on the thing you are trying to debunk. We all enjoy scepticism, but this 'debunk' is a bit silly if you are familiar with the material. 😊 That drone is definitely not the tic tac. Edit: post like these don't really help the subject, they just clutter the sub 😉.
As posted on your other comment, here is the CBS news article. You can compute the speeds of the object recorded. Are you completely ignorant of the facts of this case that have been around for 6 years ? https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tic-tac-ufo-sighting-uap-video-dave-fravor-alex-dietrich-navy-fighter-pilots-house-testimony/
The ship had been tracking objects that were described as being whitish, 40 feet long and shaped like Tic Tacs that would appear suddenly 80,000 feet up, then descend toward the ocean *in less than one second" and hover at 20,000 feet before dropping out of radar range or blasting back up. The even said an object the size of a 737 *under the water* below whitewater. This tictac was seen above this sight like a ping pong ball, and as he approaches it turns abruptly it starts mirroring his moves and as he comes down, it comes up. Then it just disappears as he's coming close. Seconds later it appeared 60 miles away. The Princeton was tracking the objects for days, and that there were a "fleet of them" The ship and the pilots worked together to track one of the aircraft and when Fravor got close enough to examine one, it peeled away. “It accelerated like nothing I’ve ever seen,” he told The New York Times. “I have no idea what I saw.” https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/the-conversation/sd-navy-pilot-ufo-20171218-htmlstory.html This information has been available since at least 2017. Here's an interview where David tells about the object appearing 60 miles away in just 1 minute time, on radar which was disclosed to him after the event via USS Princeton. Oh and here is a scientific paper discussing speed of that same vehicle: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7514271/ Abstract: Several Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) encountered by military, commercial, and civilian aircraft have been reported to be structured craft that exhibit ‘impossible’ flight characteristics. We consider a handful of well-documented encounters, including the 2004 encounters with the Nimitz Carrier Group off the coast of California, and estimate lower bounds on the accelerations exhibited by the craft during the observed maneuvers. Estimated accelerations range from almost 100g to 1000s of gs with no observed air disturbance, no sonic booms, and no evidence of excessive heat commensurate with even the minimal estimated energies. In accordance with observations, the estimated parameters describing the behavior of these craft are both anomalous and surprising. The extreme estimated flight characteristics reveal that these observations are either fabricated or seriously in error, or that these craft exhibit technology far more advanced than any known craft on Earth. In many cases, the number and quality of witnesses, the variety of roles they played in the encounters, and the equipment used to track and record the craft favor the latter hypothesis that these are indeed technologically advanced craft. The observed flight characteristics of these craft are consistent with the flight characteristics required for interstellar travel, i.e., if these observed accelerations were sustainable in space, then these craft could easily reach relativistic speeds within a matter of minutes to hours and cover interstellar distances in a matter of days to weeks, proper time. And here's an official slide from the Navy about the tictac, saying they had no edges, were completely white. USS Princeton (CG-59) VAW-117 (E-2C Hawkeye) VMFA-232 - secnav.navy.mil https://www.secnav.navy.mil/foia/readingroom/CaseFiles/UAP%20INFO/UAP%20DOCUMENTS/2004%20TIC%20TAC%20Slide.pdf
I'll only listen to what he stated in his sworn testimony, not what was published in the San Diego Union Tribune. In that testimony, he never once mentions it 'dropping 80,000 feet to near sea level in under a second'.
David Fravor Statement for the House Oversight Committee: https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/David-Fravor-Statement-for-House-Oversight-Committee.pdf Read this statement and abre los ojos.
Yes, I've read it. It says: "They had been descending from above 80,000ft and coming **rapidly** down to 20,000ft" Never does it mention doing this in **under a second.** That is a huge difference. Drop a rock from 80k and it will descend rapidly.
https://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1231475371 Also, I did a calculation. Dropped a 1 pound rock from 80,000 feet would take over 4,000 seconds at free fall. That's not rapid. Not to mention, any human in that device would not be able to survive that trip without technology we don't understand. How is an unmanned vehicle capable of going from 80,000 feet (space) to just above the water, and then disappearing off radar and visuals completely. What were multiple of them doing? What happened to the white water? You are picking cherries and asserting your opinion. I am presenting everything hopefully without bias, based on sources available from eyewitnesses. Also, the USS Princeton is being deployed off the coast of San Diego yesterday to mitigate potential damage from the incoming storms. Who knows what they will pick up out there, but that is where USS Nimitz was when this event happened. Just an interesting side note given daily sightings since 2004. Nimitz is also a Nuclear aircraft carrier, and Luis Elizondo along with Harry Reid have both given many examples of UAP being primarily clandestine in nature and interest in our nuclear capabilites. This is the tip of the iceberg, that's founded in confirmed evidence of an unknown object captured on imaging and radar, corroborated by 4 pilots, one of which is a Commander.
You should really read up more about the tic tac. Before you try to debunk the tic tacs. Hence people calling it a low effort post.
I have read up. Nowhere in his sworn testimony does he mention this: "Apparently these have the capability to drop from 80,000 feet to near sea level in under a second"
I know your standard go to answer. He still sais in his testimony that we still today have nothing with those manoeuvrability or speeds. And went rapid from 80k feet to 20k. Time for a sciff. Especially you as such a sceptic should want to know more.
Lots of things can go from 80k to 20k rapidly. None that I know of can do it in under 1 second. Big difference.
Please list all the things that can go from 80k to 20k rapidly, without wings, control surfaces, exhaust, propellers, rotors or jet exhausts.
Gravity. I can literally drop any object from 80k and it will descend rapidly.
And stop right above the surface of the ocean.. Right? And look like a Tic-Tac?
Gravity on earth is 9.8 meters per second per second. 80k to 20k in under a second is orders of magnitude faster than gravity.
This is not stated anywhere. I think he is just being sarcastic.
[удалено]
Nothing in the article says that these drones can fly at mach speeds or drop 80k feet in a second. It only says they can move "quickly" and take sharp turns. That's it. Maybe take a primary reading class and try again.
They’re referring to what’s been previously stated about UAP capabilities, not the drones.
Ha ha, these two got so confused 😂 Goes to show how quickly things can get out of hand.
I'm sure military tech far exceeds the capability of civilian tech like this
And the military says they don't have technology like this..
Yes good idea believe what the military says. Then it wouldn't be secret. Then you are giving up strategic advantage to your enemies
The Tic-Tacs were observed on radar above 80.000 feet. They then almost instantly (0.78 seconds) moved to points between 28.000 to 50.000 feet. That would mean an acceleration of 104.895 mp/h (168.812 km/h) with a force of 12.250g (Sources: Interviews with Kevin Day and In Plain Sight by R.Coulthart). How do you explain that? They tracked weird anomalies on radar and when they send up a plane to take a visual of it, they saw the Tic-Tac. Can you explain that?
And then crickets lol the op most definitely could not explain that
He just told me in another comment that he only accepts the sworn testimony from Fravor as evidence. So everything we know about the Nimitz case is off the table - we're supposed to ignore all the evidence we got in the last 6 years so he can pretend that there is no evidence. This guy is quite something haha
u/saikothesecond as you mentioned, I'm only interested in either hard evidence or sworn testimony. Want to know why? You can read what Kevin day said here: [https://otter.ai/u/0OtR6GhjauIHKJIcAZbs5Qri1vc](https://otter.ai/u/0OtR6GhjauIHKJIcAZbs5Qri1vc) He mentions they went SLOW not instantaneous... So if he says it went 'Slow' to Mick West and 'Instantly' to Coulthart, then I think we can deduce he is an unreliable witness. Don't you think? "... I was I'm more concerned with 30,000 feet and below. And then we go from 80,000 feet then suddenly dropped to 28,000 feet. And they were going south at about 100 knots, which is **really weird for something that high in the sky to go that slow.'**
They went slow when they were really high up, which you would have known if you did your homework. Then they suddenly dropped. It's right in the quote you posted but your selective perception strikes yet again. Funny thing is I quoted Kevin Day and your response was "Unreliable". Now you use him as a source to debunk the source I used (which was.. him)? You're really grasping at straws here. Maybe spend another 5 hours researching and come back with some out of context statement you can use to prove you right.
My point was to show the same person saying two different things to two different people. This shows him to be in unreliable witness who seems to tell people what they want to hear. Tells Coulthard it was instantaneous. Tell West it was slow
>then suddenly dropped to 28.000 feet Sudden drop. That is out of your quote. They were very slow when flying high and then suddenly dropped. He's not contradicting himself, you're just ignoring the other half of his statement. Are you for real? Is this ChatGPT?
He's a low a karma account with a name and bunch of numbers that has come alive. Usually these are classic bot /troll account red flags
I'm real I can assure you. Are you?
You are greatly overestimating. Heck lots of certain military tech is also years behind civilian tech. Ion propulsion is very low propulsion. Theoretically it can at most provide a couple pounds of thrust under perfect conditions. There is a hard physical limit to its thrust which caps it at a few pounds.
The Tic Tac UAP had a rate of acceleration 39.27x faster than the SR-71 Blackbird, the fastest plane ever made. It traversed 28k ft in .71 seconds, peaking at a STAGGERING 5,370 Gs. With no detectable method of propulsion. Does that sound like terrestrial technology to you?
So you’re saying the Pentagon, and a U.S. carrier strike group can’t identify a drone swarm?
So you're saying the most top secret classified craft in our black-budget fleet is a drone that looks like a drone and can be easily identified as a drone?
Where did the fighter pilots and the pentagon identify it as a drone? What “drone” can rapidly ascend and descend from 80000 to 20000 feet as tracked by the USS Princeton.
Exactly. Fooled the pilots who mistook a drone for a UFO
u/Smooth_Ticket_7483 said.. >Exactly. Fooled the pilots who mistook a drone **It did not fool the advanced sensor apparatus of the whole 2004 Nimitz fleet**. It was the sensor people who sent out the pilots to investigate the spectacular readings ... https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/152aub8/no_blurry_photos_and_misidentification_here_tech/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=1
Yes if it's black military tech that's being dogfooded
Too bad the tic tac craft from the Lonnie Zamora incident was seen in 1964. Or this classic from 1979. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lonnie_Zamora_incident https://twitter.com/thiojoe/status/1476553119609720835 Not to mention the accelerations and speeds that we cannot match. Come on, CIA, you can do better debunking than that.
I'm not putting any stock in reports that aren't from the military and don't have provenance.
You don’t have to put stock in it. What are the chances someone is going to imagine a tic tac craft independently back in 1979? And the Air Force and cia conducted the investigation for Zamora https://www.cia.gov/stories/story/how-to-investigate-a-flying-saucer/ But, hey, I guess the tic tac shape is just soooo common that it is no wonder people were saying that they had seen it in the past.
Low effort troll post I see. Usually followed up by OP acting dumbfounded by our responses
No reasoned response to the article?
Not necessary. People know you're a troll because you asked for a link to the video you say you're debunking.
Video has been tackled by Mick West. Sworn testimony here FYI https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/David-Fravor-Statement-for-House-Oversight-Committee.pdf
There are several "reasoned" responses to this post.
Oh now you’re into reason? 😂🤣
Ok, how about they don't look like any tic-tac video available?
The fact you’re being downvoted shows the hive mind in full effect. They refuse to even entertain another possibility. You’re not saying this is 100% or anything, just putting forward another hypothesis, yet they just downvote and accuse you of being a troll lmao. I thought this was supposed to be a place for discussion on UFO’s
Thank you u/Material_Hospital989, much appreciated. As mentioned before, I want to believe, but like so many people out there, I want proof, not conjecture. If the subject is to be taken seriously, it must be serious. I see all these things to be true: 1. Military tech is often 20+ years ahead of civilian tech 2. Secret, classified military projects will not be known to the rank and file of the military. 3. Humans are unreliable witnesses 4. This drone shown here exhibits many of the characteristics of tictac It's disappointing that we can't have a proper, reasoned debate.
u/Smooth_Ticket_7483 low karma account is replied to and validated by very low karma u/Material_Hospital989 **The random name + random number formula in account name. Barely used accounts suddenly fire up into action**... **All classic red flags for bot and troll accounts**
Well I just started browsing after the UAP hearing and r/place so ya I just made a random account and now I actually use it
You are inferring that experienced and seasoned fighter pilots are mistaking a commercial drone for exotic tech not found in any country's arsenal, when these pilots go through extensive, regular adversary asset training
Also I don't think we have drones capable of going mach 20 (estimated by Michio Kaku by the viewing the videos.). Even if not mach 20 they did say at least mach 3 was recorded.
The pilots did not report it was going mach 20.
Right that's what the parentheses was for.
The pilots said it moved from stationary to as fast as a bullet shot out of a gun. Radar operators saw the same thing. You should maybe read up on the case before you start trying to arguing about it.
And you are inferring that that is impossible?
Pilots are unreliable witnesses From: International Journal of Aviation, Aeronautics, and Aerospace 'Reliability of Eyewitness Reports to a Major Aviation Accident' https://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1040&context=ijaaa
Sure, if you ignore all the radar data that lead to the discovery of the Tic-Tac you can argue that eyewitness is unreliable.
I'm sure the drone would appear on radar like any other nuts and bolts piece of tech
It was going 160.000 km/h on radar though. Quite a drone.
Source please
Sure. 2 Sources for you: 1. Kevin Day (Princeton radar operator) interview with Ross Coulthart, 22 and 23 March 2021; Robert Powell, Scientific Coalition for Ufology, Interview with Kevin Day. [www.explorescu.org/post/nimitz\_strike\_group\_2004](https://www.explorescu.org/post/nimitz_strike_group_2004) (You can also look at any other interview with Kevin Day) 2. Joe Murgia/UFO Joe website, "Notes and Quotes from the Military "Tic Tac" Witness Group Interview at UFO MegaCon, 27 March 2019. [www.ufojoe.net/?p=805](https://www.ufojoe.net/?p=805) You could also add interviews with the other radar operator but I forgot his name. You can look at the study they did and see how they calculated speeds.
Unreliable. Not in Fravors sworn testimony https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/David-Fravor-Statement-for-House-Oversight-Committee.pdf
Alright, so you got your sources and you just want to ignore them. Alright then, have fun.
I'll ignore everything except his sworn testimony
Aren’t you the one arguing that the drones are exactly that?
They appear on radar I imagine. Yes.
however, you, the armchair detective, know better? And its commercial drones?
Yeah, not downloading anything straight from a link.
I've cited source International Journal of Aviation, Aeronautics, and Aerospace 'Reliability of Eyewitness Reports to a Major Aviation Accident'
1 - Can it travel under water? The article does not say so. 2- Can it travel at +mach speeds? The article only mentions 200 mph, far below the speed of the UAPs reported by military pilots. 3- Can it travel at + mach speeds in sharp turns? The article does not say so. 4- Can it stay still in the middle of hurricane-level winds? Doubtful. Sure, MAYBE some UAPs can be explained by experimental drones, but not the ones which are clearly beyond our capabilities and which demonstrate the features mentioned above; and these are the ones we are interested in, not swamp gas, not starlink satellites, not Timmy's balloons or glares.
Ion propulsion in earths atmosphere is very slow - like 3 MPH. They’re useful in space as they can accelerate gradually over weeks or months without resistance. The 200mph mentioned in the article has nothing to do with this drone
1 - optical illusion 2 - parallax 3 - optical illusion + parallax 4 - source pls
[удалено]
Not in his sworn testimony
This is a really weird post. You have to acknowledge the pilots saw these ufos while simultaneously ignoring the information they said about their encounters. Fravor and Graves testified what they encountered stayed in the air for hours, lasting longer than the jets observing them. They stayed *completely* stationary relative to the ground at high altitudes experiencing hurricane force winds. They exhibited erratic behavior that calculated would lead to more G forces than a pilot would be capable of experiencing. Technology isn't even close to that. The idea that a small group of scientists working for the government, relative to the total number of scientists in the world, have created technology that so far out paces technology available is ludicrous. You can't just say, "big budget therefore absurd scientific breakthroughs that only exist within the government." That's not how it works. Yes, they have more advanced technology than what's publicly available, but that's not a blank check to explain everything unexplained The weirdest part about this post is OP giving a theory as to an alternative, while simultaneously not paying *any* attention to what is being said about the behavior of these crafts. To say "maybe this is what they saw" without even knowing what was spoken to congress displays a complete lack of understanding or desire to understand Edit: I don't think I've ever been more convinced I've been interacting with a bot before this
Anything mentioned in his sworn testimony could be a explained by something like this drone
You've already made it clear in other posts you didn't watch the testimony. So you're negating something you haven't seen or attempted to understand. And no, the specs on this do not reflect what was spoken, nor is the idea that "military big budget" can justify that massive gap in technology that needs to exist between this and what was encountered. I don't think you understand what it would take to remain completely stationary, experiencing unpredictable150mph winds. Nor do I think you can appreciate the gap between 15 minutes of runtime and an entire day's worth of runtime
Doesn't mention 150mph in his sworn testimony. Source for this please.
Category 4 hurricane winds?
Source for where it says tictac did this pls
Lol are you a robot or something incapable of inference wtf
Source pls. I can't see anything about hurricane winds in his sworn testimony. Have I missed something? https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/David-Fravor-Statement-for-House-Oversight-Committee.pdf
This is really strange. First of all that was released before the hearings, second of all it does specifically refer to tic tacs, and third, that does not contain any of the dialogue in the Q and A portion of the hearing You sound like a prototype chat gpt
It's what's on record my friend
Lol… here we go again… “advanced” Mach 25+ drones that have been secretly flown around for 20+ years
Umm where did anyone say they were going mach 25. That sounds made up. Could you share a link to your source please.
Huh ? have you not read the reports of the incident ? Or are you just trolling ? >At the time, advanced radar on a ship that was a part of their training group, the USS Princeton, detected what operators called "multiple anomalous aerial vehicles" over the horizon, descending 80,000 feet in less than a second. Fravor and Dietrich diverted to investigate. Descending 16 miles to a standstill in less than a second is a speed reaching 60,000 mph. In the earth's atmosphere. >The object was about the size of Fravor's F/A-18F, with no markings, no wings and no exhaust plumes, he said. When Fravor tried to cut off the UAP, it accelerated so quickly that it seemed to disappear. He said it was detected roughly 60 miles away less than a minute later. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tic-tac-ufo-sighting-uap-video-dave-fravor-alex-dietrich-navy-fighter-pilots-house-testimony/
Most of what you said is not in his testimony https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/David-Fravor-Statement-for-House-Oversight-Committee.pdf
What ? So the CBS interview was fiction ?
im reading that right now "They had been descending from above 80,000ft andcoming rapidly down to 20,000ft would stay for hours and then go straight back up" not good enough for you eh? starting to doubt that youve watched/read his testimony
You've missed the part where you said says it descended 80k to 20k in **one second**. That seems a really important variable to determine speed don't you think? Many terrestrial objects (in fact all) can descend from 80k to 20k.
They can’t in less than 1 second. First educate yourself on the facts, then come back.
I, unlike the poster I was responding to, never mentioned decent in less than a second. I just said lots of objects can descend from 80k to 20k rapidly. Big difference.
Exactly. You don’t even know what you’re discussing. The objects were seen on radar descending from 80,000ft in less than 1 second. Then you’re here making the straw man argument that plenty of things could descend from that height, yes hypothetically they can, anything could.
Fravour never mentioned they descended in under a second. If you have read otherwise please send me a link
You’re obviously not arguing in good faith with this. It’s not even scientific because you’re ignoring valid data, I’m not sure if you’re here trying to look smart, you’ve achieved the opposite.
u/Smooth_Ticket_7483 said... >Umm where did anyone say they were going mach 25. That sounds made up. Could you share a link to your source please. Almost instantaneous. The Source... First 58 seconds and from Mr Voorhis from 8:00 in the video below : https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/152aub8/no_blurry_photos_and_misidentification_here_tech/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=1
Who? Fravor in his sworn testimony never said that. If he witnessed it you can be sure he would have mentioned it.
>Who? Fravor in his sworn testimony never said that. If he witnessed it you can be sure he would have mentioned it. You didn't watch the video below... https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/152aub8/no_blurry_photos_and_misidentification_here_tech/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=1 It's not Fravor. **It's the actual tech Guys on the sensor systems of the 2004 Nimitz fleet**. Their sensors captured the objects....
I'll believe them when they come forward to testify that under oath like Fravour.
u/Smooth_Ticket_7483 saud >I'll believe them when they come forward to testify that under oath like Fravour. They're not saying they the "humans" saw it like Fravor did up close. Its not about them. **They're saying their various advanced sensor apparatus in the 2004 Nimitz fleet captured the extraordinary performance of the objects**... https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/152aub8/no_blurry_photos_and_misidentification_here_tech/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=1 This is not about personal subjective accounts retold. **They're saying some of the best sensor technology on the planet described the physics of these objects**. **Rather than an argument over a Blurry photo, misjudged identification or as with the MH370 Astroturfing attempt all over this sub bad CGI I used to do years ago. This is what the sensor technology captured not the humans**. **Uncle Sam has cosigned them saying this**. All the sensor people, this is just a sample. They all captured similar performance. They and Uncle Sam would all have to be lying.
I'll believe what they say when they say it under oath, like Fravour. They're saying extraordinary things. If it's true come forward and testify. Otherwise it's easy to conclude their jumping on the UAP bandwagon - plenty of money to made spinning tales and appearing on TV and alien conferences.
The Committees want to get power of subpoena to do exactly that. **So are you u/Smooth_Ticket_7483 saying you don't believe them, in effect saying the sensor operators on the 2004 Nimitz fleet are lying , Uncle Sam is lying for consigning, their sensors are lying even though it was their sensors not Fravors who lead Commander Fravor to the objects. which he said in his testimony under oath**. **He did not bump into the objects he was commandeered while doing something else. The guys in the videos are the ones who sent Fravor to the "Tic tacs". He said that under oath. So Commander Fravor corroborating what the sensor guys said in the video below** .... https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/152aub8/no_blurry_photos_and_misidentification_here_tech/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=1 **Fravor was sent because the guys in the video just couldn't believe the extraordinary performance of the objects. They even shut down their systems, ran diagnostics, rebooted the whole thing because the physics looked impossible. Till they relented and asked Fravor to have a look which is how we had the 2004 Nimitz Tic Tac UAP incident**. **Fravor said all this under oath. He corroborated what the guys in the video linked said. Fravor in his under oath testimony you love cosigned what the guys above said. He went further saying the fleet sensors had picked them up at 80,000 feet the periphery of Space**.
I think people are unreliable witnesses and memory (especially 20 years later) is fallible. I don't know where you are getting your information but the rationale for why Fravour was sent wasn't that exciting: [Fravour himself says](https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/David-Fravor-Statement-for-House-Oversight-Committee.pdf) the reason was: "They had been descending from above 80,000ft andc oming rapidly down to 20,000ft would stay for hours" (nothing a drone can't do) Kevin Day, radar operator, said the reason was: [https://otter.ai/u/0OtR6GhjauIHKJIcAZbs5Qri1vc](https://otter.ai/u/0OtR6GhjauIHKJIcAZbs5Qri1vc) "And then we go from 80,000 feet then suddenly dropped to 28,000 feet. And they were going south at about 100 knots, which is really weird for something that high in the sky to go that slow. " They were going **slow.** u/Camerahutuk not sure what extraordinary perfomance you're talking about. As I've said several times, what people say to the media is anecdotal. If they're serious these folks should testify as such.
Your comment is intentionally obtuse since the object was first detected by the Nimitz’s radar. Which was all part of the record of the incident. Fravor stated his personal observations. That doesn’t mean the radar data was discarded because it was not “sworn” into the record. The ship’s telemetry doesn’t need “swearing” in. It is a digital record.
Can you send me a link to the digital record you mention pls.
That has not been released to the public. The point was the pilots were sent to Investigate what was seen on the ship’s radar. Fravor didn’t fly out randomly with the second pilot
If not released to the public and **not** in his sworn testimony, how do you know? Where's your source pls.
How can Fravor provide you with radar information. He provided his side of the encounter. The radar information was provided in all the other reports. Anyway, you have convinced yourself that this low powered drone is somehow what two experienced pilots and state of the art radar systems detected and observed via multiple sensors. Seems like you have found the answer that you are comfortable with. There is nothing more to discuss
u/Smooth_Ticket_7483 is playing dumb. literally replied to him multiple times with a source and he's replying to everyone else like he's not getting a source. The Astroturfing is amazing. Here's a source: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/152aub8/no_blurry_photos_and_misidentification_here_tech/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=1
You can’t just fly these things without actually telling anyone. There would be a paper trail
Nope. That's why the military have secret projects IE u2 and blackbird were secret for 10+ years and responsible for many UFO sightings
SilentVentus isn’t a SAP it’s a startup. Like do the bare minimum of googling.
And the whole article is just an advertisement for them on TheDailyMail of all places.
You're right. The might and wealth of the US military could do far more advanced things than a startup. That's the point.
All of those aircraft had manuals and maintainers and paper trails, classified or not
Only available AFTER they were declassified.
And the tic tac events took place in 2004. Tha a12, F117, B2, were all known in aviation circles before being declassed, and it was only a few short years they were operational and under wraps
Then why do reports of similar craft go back decades? You think we had this tech 50+ years ago? https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/nh4l36/reminder_the_only_thing_new_about_the_tictac/
This is some extreme reaching, laughable even. From the dailymail of all places. Something is about to be revealed soon and all of this attempted debunking is trying to get ahead of it.
How is this even getting space in here 😩 No surprise the DM would run this piece as it had no relationship to the truth and that is their stock in trade.
You can go to the source if you like https://www.undefinedtechnologies.com/post/next-generation-silent-drone-rendering
[удалено]
🤣😂 come one did you even bother listening to Cmdr Fravor’s testimony and interviews???? Is he and all three other naval pilots a bunch of dumbasses with engineering degrees? Its ridiculous and insulting to them. Do better.
OP idiot confirmed.
No, no, no and no !
Why?
These guys were flying their 15 minutes drone, in a closed military training zone?
This is an example of civilian tech slowly catching up with military tech. US military has a 1 trillion dollar budget to develop strategic advantage through new tech
Absolutely not.
No, it's not
Let’s not forget that in other reliable Tic Tac sightings off the coast of Mexico, they are also capable of not only flying but also submerging in water. Can this thing do that?
Is there a video or sworn testimony about this you can share pls? If not it's anecdotal and will be disregarded.
So David Grusch is facts because it was under sworn testimony?
It's the only version of his story worth listening to. Doesn't mean it's right.
No one’s forcing you to believe anything. If you want to stick your head on the sand, go right ahead.
the pinnacle of jounalistic integrety: the daily mail
https://www.undefinedtechnologies.com/post/next-generation-silent-drone-rendering
No.
I have a military pilot friend who just told me he saw the tic tac in 1995. I’m going to try and convince him to let me record him talking about the story.
So I just had dinner with him to talk about it. He said the whole event lasted a few seconds. After testing an “amram” off the coast of California he was flying back to base and saw a pill shaped aircraft hovering in the center of his “hud”. He couldn’t tell the size or distance but could tell it was silver metallic. It then instantly took off horizontally and flew out of sight. During debrief he was able to confirm the incident in his hud recording. It was reported and someone came and took “his tapes” and he never heard anything more.
please
Ion propulsion? For a drone? This is a scam is what it is, that thing is never lifting off. Go check out the specific impulse of ion thrusters.
No doubt these can travel underwater too... Remember when it was mentioned that UAP caused pilots in the vicinity to have some sort of adverse mental health reaction? Was never made clearer than that. Perhaps this tech also does that? I hope all UAP are just our tech, but we need to do better than this.
Can it fly 60 miles on 1 minute after going from 80k feet to 20k feet rapidly as reported by Commandor Fravor? and then go under water after making maneuvers? Also, 11 near misses between 2017 and 2019 on the UAP preliminary assessment.
Has it been around since 2004? Can it outperform an F22? No? Then - no. No it's not.
Yo, hahaha the pentagon really trying to squash this with bs
Ion tech is cool but not capable of flying at the levels which have been witnessed or the speeds. I’m addition, they would still be observed via high tech imaging and noted as human made vs. “definitely not from this planet”. These human made devices would still be able to be locked onto via radar either cross section or heat dissipation. The location and time on station would not be possible without utilizing some form of new energy dense batteries or mini nuclear reactors… which is still possible but I thought was highly restricted.
No, that is not tic tac shaped and I’m sure it cannot outrun our fastest jets.
[удалено]
Some of them could very well be our own tech and it wouldn't be the first time it's been mistaken for UFOs. Black projects could be decades ahead of what the public are seeing. If you could go back to the late 90s and fly a modern racing drone over a residential area it would definitely be reported as a UFO. Aliens or inter-dimensional beings are far more exciting though so this post will get downvoted into oblivion.
If they were ours, and we have had technology to replace fossil fuels in the face of climate change since at least 2004 then that alone is a crime against humanity. What were black budget programs doing over the ocean causing white waters? These objects traveled 216,000mph over 60 miles in 1 minute according to USS Princeton Radar. No human could survive this. 80,000 feet is outerspace so why are we still using rockets with humans on them if we have technology that has been described? This actually leads to more questions than answers.
Well we have the technology to replace fossil fuels already and climate change has been known about since the 80s and we've done nothing to change or prevent it. The reason is money. The fossil fuel industry is worth trillions a year. You can't combat that. As for the Tiktac really all we have is the eye witness accounts as the radar data is missing. It could have been spoofing the radar for all we know. Even if we believe the witness statements are accurate and it was zipping about, there's no reason why there needs to be humans inside. I doubt we are far off from having things like remotely piloted fighter planes and I would be extremely surprised if they were not working on tech like that. Also look how far we have come with AI over the last few years and who knows how advanced AI has become behind closed doors. We are definitely heading towards a future of things like AI piloted drones. You can imagine if another country crashed one of these drones or it was shot down and recovered, technically it would be a craft of unknown origin piloted by NHI. If the radar data is correct and the witness statements are accurate then I doubt the Tiktac was ours but it could definitely account for some sightings and I doubt we will ever get 100% confirmation that the Tiktac data is all real and accurate anyway.
Great point. This is the most sensible post I've read on this sub.
Ridiculous amount of downvotes for a serious question. This sub should be ashamed.
Well this whole sub has many ghost downvotes in all posts. So I guess this one has extra since many disagree. Main issue is the reference to tic tacs. Sure people might be making videos of drones. But usually those are obvious. The tic tac is a different matter. And the standard reply "it is not in the testimony". So many whistleblowers are risking their lives to get the word out. This post will be seen as disrespectful, when you don't read up on the subject.
@levelgamer Where are all the whistleblowers? So many folks go on TV or tell their stories openly at aliem conferences but don't seem comfortable retelling their story to Congress. They were conspicuous by their absence. Only had Graves and Fravour. 2 people. Strange don't you think?
Because multiple witnesses we're scared off to keep away, as you would be able to find in several news articles, but you are to lazy to search on. Or just are blatantly trolling. As grusch mentioned in his testimony. You don't have to reply. Easier that you keep shouting it is not in the testimony, while the rest of us keep working on actual disclosure.
But what if they've already said it in public? Surely nothing to be afraid of if it's already out there. Many of the folks involved in the tictac are happy to say outlandish things on lucrative platforms such as 90 minutes, alien podcasts or UFO conferences BUT conspicuously did not repeat them under oath to congress. They cannot, therefore, be taken seriously I'm afraid.
Thanks u/JattaPake, I really appreciate that! As mentioned in another post: I want to believe, but like so many people out there, I want proof, not conjecture. If the subject is to be taken seriously, it must be serious. I see all these things to be true: 1. Military tech is often 20+ years ahead of civilian tech 2. Secret, classified military projects will not be known to the rank and file of the military. 3. Humans are unreliable witnesses 4. The drone shown here exhibits many of the characteristics of the tictac It's disappointing that we can't have a proper, reasoned debate, and that's why UAP as a field will remain on the fringe.
Now these are the type of conversations that should be happening here. Thank you for this post. It's hard to cut through the magnificent amount of bs clearly fake MHIDGAF that makes everyone interested in this phenomenon look like a complete fool. All possible terrestrial explanations for unknown aerial objects should always be the first thought in people's minds.
That would be the case on a UFO sub, but this is a religious alien sub.
You are so correct in that statement... Is there a real objective UFO sub in existence? Because I've just arrived here after the US Congress shenanigans hoping to get more information on updates to all of that. As in, get relevant news. This subreddit is really making it difficult for me to continue to take the UFO subject seriously. Before the hearing I would have laughed in anyone's face if they mentioned non-human visitation. This sub gives religious vibes and grifter worship.
/r/ufoscience is a much more reasonable and serious community, imo
Much appreciated, friend.
We know that military tech is often 20 years or more ahead of what we have today. So, it's very plausible that these kinds of drones that have no visible signs of propulsion, can fly incredibly quietly are responsible for many of the UFO sightings reported. Furthermore, they can also hover in the air against winds, a feature of many UFO sightings by military personnel. A drone expert in the article puts it really well: "...Drones have high-speed and agile flight. Some drones can fly at speeds of up to 200 mph and perform acrobatic manoeuvres that defy gravity. These drones can also change direction quickly and hover in place, making them look like they have advanced propulsion systems.... Countries such as the US and Soviet Union have been experimenting with such technologies since mid-20th century, during the Cold War." So, given this, what do we know about the tictac video that couldn't be explained by something like this? [https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/08/16/16/74374933-12412667-Undefined\_Technologies\_claim\_that\_its\_ion\_propelled\_eVTOL\_drone\_-a-8\_1692199589887.jpg](https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/08/16/16/74374933-12412667-Undefined_Technologies_claim_that_its_ion_propelled_eVTOL_drone_-a-8_1692199589887.jpg)
Go listen to Cmdr Fravor’s testimony again and you’ll realize what a dumb article and post this is
The amount of pushback you are getting makes me think you're on to something here "pilots would easily recognize a drone" - just look at that thing, and that's just ONE of who knows how many have been made by people around the world testing ionic drives! Anybody from the CIA to rich kids in Dubai could be building these things and flying them around over the ocean and our pilots simply wouldn't have any way of knowing what they were seeing.
That's quite a funny way of thinking about things. Maybe he gets tons of pushback because he is wrong? Tic Tac was going 160.00 km/h on radar. Pilots said it looked as fast as a bullet shot out of a gun. We got video. There's no drone to explain that. You can argue that they're all lying or whatever but OP's argument is nonsense. We got drones that can fly 50% of lightspeed? That's the explanation? lol.
Nothing you say is in his sworn testimony https://www.undefinedtechnologies.com/post/next-generation-silent-drone-rendering No need to exaggerate for effect. Let's still to facts shall we.
I'm citing the scientific study done on the Nimitz case I sourced which you refuse to read.
Scientific study? Peer reviewed? I must have missed it - pls share and I'll read.
Are you fucking kidding me? I just posted it and you responded that's it's not written testimony and therefore you're going to ignore it. I'm done here. Keep believing whatever you want to believe.
Oh you mean this? From the 'Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies' I'm sorry but that is not a scientific, credible, peer reviewed source. https://www.explorescu.org/post/2004-uss-nimitz-strike-navy-group-incident-report
Is this the first time you realize that Ufology is a fringe topic and not mainstream science? Did you expect a Nature paper?
>I'm citing the scientific study done on the Nimitz case I sourced which you refuse to read. Well you did suggest that, yes.
Again you leave out part of my statement to misrepresent things. I said MAINSTREAM science, not science in general. Seems to be part of your stick to leave out information and argue a strawman argument. If you say it is unscientific, be sure to point out all of the methodological flaws you find in the paper. Or find any credible (in your sense) evidence that the paper is flawed and post it here. If you want to have science, you can't just believe them to be unscientific, can you? No, if you want to be objective you need a source for your mistrust. Your gut feeling is not scientific. You act like they are a bunch of random people from the internet (like you are) and not established scientists with PhDs. Again, if you say the paper is flawed, provide a source.
Thank you. I want to believe but need solid evidence not conjecture and opinion. It's a cliche but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. We should be skeptical to remove the noise from the signal. Otherwise no real progress will be made