David Fravor: UFOs, Aliens, Fighter Jets, and Aerospace Engineering | Lex Fridman Podcast #122

Form whatever idea you will of all this chaff, one thing is indisputable. You yourself can file a FOIA request at the Pentagon requesting "cockpit videos cleared for release to Louis Elizondo in the Fall (September-October) of 2017" and you'll get a copy of those videos directly from the horse's mouth. As an ultra-skeptic who is drawn toward primary sources, I've been following the cluster of these stories closely for years with an eye to their provenance. More I thought about all this, I think the whole thing collapses to two life-changing possibilities, rationalizing my way down directly from the videos: 1) No new physics. Cockpit videos - faked by military for a psyop campaign, coordinated with patriot testimonies by credible individuals. Navy patents filed by the US Navy on behalf of Dr. Salvatore Cezar Pais and document leaks added to effect more confusion. There's a precedent for this type and scale of operation going back to the Star Wars program days, where Reagan himself participated in attempting to drain the Soviet Union's R&D budget. If the videos were planted for personal gain by a soon-to-be-laid-off employee, Elizondo, and then engineered into credibility through the FOIA chain of custody - it explains why and how, but doesn't explain everyone else's participation, unless the military chose to exploit the incident and launch a psyop campaign in its wake. If the Navy patents were entirely unrelated to all this, perhaps an innocent case of fraud, incompetent boss

Here's what one of our Navy pilots that was actually there has to say, in an interview with Lex Fridman at MIT: this video

The original observer of the tic tac defeats Mick West's ideas based on his expert knowledge of the equipment this video

Those explanations are misguided and thunderfoot is just rehashing (badly) the points raised by Mike West. See commentary by David Fravor, one of the jet pilots in the incident this video

See David Fravor's commentary on the videos. He's one of the jet pilots from the Nimitz incident. this video Specifically in the Go fast video: this video The object is shown colder than the ocean; it can't be a bird.

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

We have video from the government that is matched with eye-witness testimony from David Fravor, a pilot who taught at the Navy's Top Gun school. I'm not suggesting this is iron-clad evidence of anything, but nothing about this incident (and others) has been "debunked". The first-hand account of one of the Navy's most accredited naval aviators along with matching video and sensor data more credible than some random person on Youtube who "debunks" it by saying it was the moon. If the evidence points to a phenomenon that doesn't operate inside the laws of physics as we understand them, then we have to adjust our understanding. Perhaps there are very good, mundane explanations for this and another incidents, but its foolish to simply ignore or downplay the significance of things we can't understand. link this video