Joe Rogan Experience #1361 - Cmdr. David Fravor & Jeremy Corbell

I was watching Roe Rogan's podcast with one of the Tic-Tac incident jet pilot, in particular this part: this video [A cube floating into a spherical force field] It made me thought of Salvatore Pais other patents on the subject.

What blows my mind is that we have recorded evidence of UFOs with seemingly advanced space flight technology (on camera!) that has been recorded by the Navy. What do people make of this? I'm super curious. Aliens? Skunkworks style deep-state secret stuff? The Russians? What? Personally, the only thing I can think of is aliens. I mean...come on! this video

Is this a submarine[1] article? Honestly reads like CIA agitprop regarding UFOs and the like. I mean, he quite literally says in the subtitle: > should remind us that seeing shouldn't mean believing. It's clear to anyone who has done research into UFOs that the whole phenomena was a US military psyop (I can provide sources if anybody asks). However , the new stuff coming out from the community may finally reveal the truth: [2][3] [1] link [2] link [3] this video

There is a Joe Rogan podcast with David Fravor, a pilot who also saw it. I believe he explains it's all visual locking but there are a lot if different camera types. this video

A slow reply... but I didn't read that article, I was assuming it was the same one from this pilot's testimony on joe rogen: this video The pilot was saying that the ship had been picking up unknown objects on radar for a while before that experience.

The theory that this is US-controlled drone tech does not jive with the claims made with regards to aerodynamic performance by David Fravor: this video Basically, skeptics need to embrace the idea that such an off-the-cuff, obvious theory like "it's drone tech" or "it's Chinese or Russian tech" like the one you mention is well outside the realm of things that should be taken seriously, given the current up-to-date evidence and claims. Such a theory would have to additionally claim that the existing evidence is completely fabricated, and those involved going on record are complete frauds or disinformation agents. Theories that at least include those aspects would have much more credibility, given that they at would at least fit the evidence, but would require a high degree of assumptions. Frankly, a much less reaching theory at this point is that we simply don't know what these things are, have completely failed to determine it, and can't safely conjecture anymore they are human created or purely natural phenomena. This is a perfectly suitable place to be given our place in the universe and our current level of understanding, and doesn't require any further leaps to explaining their origin beyond "we just don't know." Its fair to speculate, but we should recognize most of such speculations are probably unfalsifiable. In terms of action, it does mean we should try to find out more if we haven't yet fully exhausted our ability to do so. Hard to say, given the evidence, if our gover

And here's the pilot of that encounter in an interview: Joe Rogan Experience #1361 - Cmdr. David Fravor & Jeremy Corbell ( this video )

Joe Rogan interviewed David Fravor, a retired Navy pilot, alongside a documentary maker who was interested in UFOs. The conversation was cautious but not particularly skeptical. It sounded like Mr. Fravor saw something in his airspace with his own two eyes. I don't know what it was (blimp, foreign aircraft, whatever), though I doubt it was extraterrestrial. (Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence) I couldn't spot anything obviously wrong with Mr. Fravor's story by itself. On the other hand, if the DoD wanted to nudge their pilots to report things they see, and had a story like David Fravor's to put out there in order to encourage current pilots to report what they see, that would be a propaganda event to encourage, so to speak, at least by declassifying harmless footage and not squashing the story. this video

Posting the Mick West explanation is the go-to response for critics who have done the bare minimum research. And I have to give him credit -- his explanation of parallax as it pertains to Go-Fast is compelling and probably accurate. We don't have a whole verified narrative with multiple angles/witnesses (besides the two pilots) to enrich that incident. I'm referring to the Nimitz incident. I don't mean to offend you, but I can say confidently there is information you have yet to consume on that incident. Taken alone and with no context, the IR video isn't convincing proof of anything, and West points that out, while ignoring that there is other information. But there is more verified info from the original NYT piece that makes this case special [0]. How do you explain the fact that passive radar from the ship was tracking this object on and off for two weeks before they finally deployed a squadron to investigate it? How do you explain the fascinating pilot testimony (they had multiple angles, by the way) of the white round object flying around erratically, then mirroring their descent, then shooting off into the sky [1]? Or the fact that their primary radars were being jammed (technically an act of war)? Any of these pieces of information taken alone could be inconclusively explained away, but as you compound them, forcing a "normal" explanation looks more and more like the Catholic church telling Galileo that the cosmos orbit around the Earth. [0] link [1] this video

Check out these patents currently assigned to US Secretary of Navy and invented by "Salvatore Cezar Pais" link Then think about the tic tac ufo UFO reports from US Navy fighter pilots [1] What's going on here? Disinformation campaign from US Navy? Actual patents? Maybe the downloadbal PDFs are malware vectors for espionage? Seems highly unlikely that this tech actually exists AND is publicly available information, right? [1] this video

For one thing, first-person accounts, which are notoriously inaccurate to begin with, don’t provide enough information for an empirical investigation. Scientists can’t accurately gauge distances or velocity from a pilot’s testimony: “It looked close” or “It was moving really fast” is too vague. What a scientist needs are precise measurements from multiple viewpoints provided by devices that register various wavelengths (visual, infrared, radar). That kind of data might tell us if an object’s motion required engines or materials that we Earthlings don’t possess. It's true that first-person accounts are sometimes inaccurate, but in the Nimitz case, we have, I believe, eight pilots in total who actually saw the object. The first incursion by David Fravor and his co-pilot Alex Dietrich and a second plane; and the second incursion - by other pilots which I don't know the names of - on which there's brief footage of the object[0]. Not only there's first-person accounts there's also devices which registered these objects. Nimitz caught these objects, in fact, they not only caught several of them, the incursions were made in order to check out what was going on. I wish these "devices can be faulty," (knowing that people actually looked at the object in loco ) "people can be bad first-person accounts" memes actually died once and for all in this particular case. It feels like people don't actually go out and do their due diligence. I feel people either aren't listening or paying atten

The author ignores what many find most compelling about those videos. Namely, the domain experts (navy pilots) who filmed the videos and discussed them at length[1]. [1] this video

The context of the story in that JRE episode ( this video at about the 49:30 point) is "some things are explainable, here is an example" But, if Fravors story isn't credible because of that, to me it doesn't change much: - The "tic tac" video recorded from that encounter wasn't recorded when Fravor was in the air, he was back at the carrier. It was a follow on flight that had their aircraft equipped with targetting pods. - Fravor's aircraft had a backseat WSO who witnessed what Fravor saw, to my knowledge that officer hasn't spoken in public or denied Fravor's story - There was a second aircraft in the air when Fravor had that encounter, also with a pilot and WSO. The pilot of that second aircraft has interviewed confirming Fravor's story. - Radar operators from the Princeton operating the AEGIS radar have interviewed saying that they also saw the objects. - To my knowledge no one, either in the air, on the carrier, or in the air wing has stepped forward and claimed that Fravor, or anyone else was lying, or making up stories.