Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
Followers 5

# Navy pilot saw object 'not of this world'

## 422 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

It seems likely that a military pilot should and would be able judge distances in the air with reasonable accuracy, especially one with 16 years of experience, at the time of the incident. In addition, he had already seen the object at varying close ranges, allowing him to reasonably judge its size.

Commander Fravor stated that the object accelerated away from him, starting from a comparatively low speed, which would have a small effect on this calculation. An object starting to fall to Earth will travel 32 feet in the first second, because it is subject to Earth's gravity. (1 g. )  I'm not a mathematician, but it appears to me that  an object covering 165 times that distance ( 1 mile ) from a standing start, in the same second, is subject to 165 times the force of gravity, hence 165 g s.

If the objection is that the object was not stationary up to the point it began accelerating, but keeping pace with the jet, let's knock a reasonable 360 mph off the increase in speed. That reduces the speed increase during one second's acceleration by 10 percent.  This would, it appears, result in a g force of about 149. Still over 16 times the acceleration reported possible with military jets.

Edited by bison

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bison said:

It seems likely that a military pilot should and would be able judge distances in the air with reasonable accuracy, especially one with 16 years of experience, at the time of the incident. In addition, he had already seen the object at varying close ranges, allowing him to reasonably judge its size.

Commander Fravor stated that the object accelerated away from him, starting from a comparatively low speed, which would have a small effect on this calculation. An object starting to fall to Earth will travel 32 feet in the first second, because it is subject to Earth's gravity. (1 g. )  I'm not a mathematician, but it appears to me that  an object covering 165 times that distance ( 1 mile ) from a standing start, in the same second, is subject to 165 times the force of gravity, hence 165 g s.

If the objection is that the object was not stationary up to the point it began accelerating, but keeping pace with the jet, let's knock a reasonable 360 mph off the increase in speed. That reduces the speed increase during one second's acceleration by 10 percent.  This would, it appears, result in a g force of about 149. Still over 16 times the acceleration reported possible with military jets.

No your math is incorrect. An object falls 16 feet in the first second, not 32. It appears that you are confusing acceleration with velocity. Covering a distance in a period of time is velocity. Acceleration is the change in velocity. Forces are due to acceleration. Remember F=ma

The problem is that there is an assumption that the pilot's estimates are correct. Is there corroboration from the instruments, the other person on board the plane, and the other plane? There are ways to double check what the pilot asserts is the case.

1 person likes this

##### Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

15 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Area201, in case you hadn't noticed (or couldn't give a ****), we don't go much here on 'Youtube arguments'.

It's a DISCUSSION forum.  Please explain exactly how the debunkers got this wrong, in your very own grownup words.

We have already covered this in some detail, and if anything is wrong in that information, please point it out.  Posting youtube videos as if they are reference documents is lazy and gives a good indication of your expertise....

1. No exhausts in FLIR footage of planes claimed to be the object in question.

2. Uniform blob (heat signature) of object in question. Inconsistent with alleged plane(s) signature.

The video link (by UFO Proof) presents context to the attempted debunk by the other UFO channel. There are arguments for ulterior reasons for why this debunk was made including reading a full letter by John Lear. As a result of this video by the channel and letter from Lear, the owner Kyle (aka UFO Proof) has lost respect for both, more so the channel. Lear has always been not taken totally seriously even by die-hard UFO proponents.

There's a lot of context to a given video, some of the argument is based on looking and comparing VIDEO and better viewed than written out for DISCUSSION. When you make cases, you present both written and completmentary video/images to support claims.

I provided the 1 and 2 points (above) of discussion divorced from entire video argument. But may I suggest you are being lazy for not willing to watch said footage related to the subject at hand. We don't have peer reviewed paper for reference on this subject as it's still blacklisted by msm, laughed at etc, for the movies, etc. The pilot direct witness who came out on Fox News and Tucker is one "reference" for related event (it was a 2 week event at least), he thinks it's something "out of this world".

11 hours ago, Fila said:

I was wondering the same thing. Where are the exhausts?

Edited by Area201

##### Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I juxtaposed Lazar's saucer description with that of the object here. Apparently in Lazar's theory when it turns it's supposed to enter the interstellar travel mode, otherwise it bobbles when traversing in a planet's atmosphere locally.

Just to get an idea though, not my conclusion. Found it interesting to look into.

Edited by Area201

##### Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

2 hours ago, stereologist said:

No your math is incorrect. An object falls 16 feet in the first second, not 32. It appears that you are confusing acceleration with velocity. Covering a distance in a period of time is velocity. Acceleration is the change in velocity. Forces are due to acceleration. Remember F=ma

The problem is that there is an assumption that the pilot's estimates are correct. Is there corroboration from the instruments, the other person on board the plane, and the other plane? There are ways to double check what the pilot asserts is the case.

Found this g-acceleration calculator online, linked below. Put in a start speed of 300 miles per hour and end speed of 3600 miles per hour, and a time of one second.  The answer calculated for me was 150 g s.   I assume 300 miles per hour as a reasonable start speed for the object, as it was reported to be keeping pace with the jet. Since the object then accelerated, traveling at least one mile in one second, 3600 mph appears correct. Distance over time equals velocity. 150 g s is close to 17 times the maximum acceleration attainable by a military jet.

I note that, even if we assume that the pilot was grossly off the mark, which seems unlikely, anomalous acceleration would still be indicated. I have already reduced Commander Fravor's 'miles' the object traveled in one second to a single mile. If the time involved was 2 or 3 seconds, instead of one, this would still produce solutions with accelerations of 75 and 50 g s, respectively, still far above the capabilities of a military jet.

Edited by bison

##### Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

NICAP - Object Outmaneuvers 2 jets Over Pacific

Nov. 14, 2004

Edited by Erno86
1 person likes this

##### Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

5 hours ago, stereologist said:

We can be conservative and state that Fravor's estimates of distance were off. Covering 32 feet in 1 second is velocity,  not acceleration. Accelerating smoothly from a standstill to 16 feet in 1 second is an acceleration of 1g.

The calculations are rumored to have come from an  unnamed person online that missed the fact that the zoom changed. I did not find the source and am waiting for the person reporting it to reveal where this came from other than the online rumor mill.

I can't post the link because it's on another forum...though he (Guest101) did note that the zoom had changed.

Edited by Erno86

##### Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Area201 said:

I juxtaposed Lazar's saucer description with that of the object here. Apparently in Lazar's theory when it turns it's supposed to enter the interstellar travel mode, otherwise it bobbles when traversing in a planet's atmosphere locally.

Just to get an idea though, not my conclusion. Found it interesting to look into.

Lazar i s a crank, a joke, a fraud. Are you now saying that this too is a joke, a hoax, a fraud like Lazar?

##### Share on other sites
6 hours ago, bison said:

Found this g-acceleration calculator online, linked below. Put in a start speed of 300 miles per hour and end speed of 3600 miles per hour, and a time of one second.  The answer calculated for me was 150 g s.   I assume 300 miles per hour as a reasonable start speed for the object, as it was reported to be keeping pace with the jet. Since the object then accelerated, traveling at least one mile in one second, 3600 mph appears correct. Distance over time equals velocity. 150 g s is close to 17 times the maximum acceleration attainable by a military jet.

I note that, even if we assume that the pilot was grossly off the mark, which seems unlikely, anomalous acceleration would still be indicated. I have already reduced Commander Fravor's 'miles' the object traveled in one second to a single mile. If the time involved was 2 or 3 seconds, instead of one, this would still produce solutions with accelerations of 75 and 50 g s, respectively, still far above the capabilities of a military jet.

This is just another garbage in - garbage out situation. Your numbers are made up.

There is zero, nada, nothing corroborating the comments by Fravor. Is there a radar corroboration? Is there corroboration by the WSO? Is there corroboration by the second jet?

You are free to make up any dubious numbers you want to. Your numbers are based on whimsy. There isn't anything here but whimsy.

Fravor and others describe what they saw as a missile, drone, something else. In all of this confusion over what was being seen do you really think that the observations are so good you can attach numbers to them?

##### Share on other sites

I've already posted FLIR which shows no exhaust so why are posters looking for something they imagine should be there when videos do not show it?

##### Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

41 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Lazar i s a crank, a joke, a fraud. Are you now saying that this too is a joke, a hoax, a fraud like Lazar?

That is a terrible and faulty deduction from my reply. Come on you're better than this

Edited by Area201

##### Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Area201 said:

1. No exhausts in FLIR footage of planes claimed to be the object in question.

?  Could you use English?  Are you suggesting that the blob doesn't look like an exhaust, in your opinion?  If so say so, I'm not here for stupid guessing games and mind-reading.

8 hours ago, Area201 said:

2. Uniform blob (heat signature) of object in question. Inconsistent with alleged plane(s) signature.

Hogwash.  The heat source is 'blooming' ie it is an area of dead black which indicates that area is overloading the pixels.  This is really basic stuff, and once that happens you get bloom and flare effects that make the actual shape UNRELIABLE, just like bokeh in lenses - it then takes on shapes and distortions due to the optics, even the front glass and the sensor electronics (hence those flare lines).  FLIR systems are NOT useful to determine accurate shapes in overloaded areas - I mean, isn't that patently obvious from watching FLIR footage?  Sheesh.  And even if I was to accept that the shape was important, can you tell me what shapes a foreign fighter jet exhaust would take on from various angles?  Does that shape vary depending on the aircraft's attitude/ angle of attack, angle to camera?  Speed?  Thrust level setting?  Yes, yes, yes,...

Seriously, Area201, it is pretty obvious why people like that video producer target people with little knowledge....

Anyway, this is a total waste of time, what with Bison reeling out guesstimates without proper error range analysis, and people using anecdotes as evidence... just have lotsa fun with it guys.  I have more important things to do than debate with people wildly handwaving and completely unfettered and unburdened with knowledge....

In fact, I'd suggest you all donate to delonge's cause, because, of course, this is just the beginning of Disclosure, and it will just get better!!!

{sarcasm}

1 person likes this

##### Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

47 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

?  Could you use English?  Are you suggesting that the blob doesn't look like an exhaust, in your opinion?  If so say so, I'm not here for stupid guessing games and mind-reading.

Hogwash.  The heat source is 'blooming' ie it is an area of dead black which indicates that area is overloading the pixels.  This is really basic stuff, and once that happens you get bloom and flare effects that make the actual shape UNRELIABLE, just like bokeh in lenses - it then takes on shapes and distortions due to the optics, even the front glass and the sensor electronics (hence those flare lines).  FLIR systems are NOT useful to determine accurate shapes in overloaded areas - I mean, isn't that patently obvious from watching FLIR footage?  Sheesh.  And even if I was to accept that the shape was important, can you tell me what shapes a foreign fighter jet exhaust would take on from various angles?  Does that shape vary depending on the aircraft's attitude/ angle of attack, angle to camera?  Speed?  Thrust level setting?  Yes, yes, yes,...

Seriously, Area201, it is pretty obvious why people like that video producer target people with little knowledge....

Anyway, this is a total waste of time, what with Bison reeling out guesstimates without proper error range analysis, and people using anecdotes as evidence... just have lotsa fun with it guys.  I have more important things to do than debate with people wildly handwaving and completely unfettered and unburdened with knowledge....

In fact, I'd suggest you all donate to delonge's cause, because, of course, this is just the beginning of Disclosure, and it will just get better!!!

{sarcasm}

Way to be condescending in order to avoid the real points made. Too lazy to watch the video then complain about not enough info. Sheesh. Unreasonable much?

It just shows this is above your level of grasping. Maybe in the future you might come to light. It's not been a complete waste of my time, but core period of research and debating this subject is coming to a close.

Edited by Area201
1 person likes this

##### Share on other sites
17 hours ago, stereologist said:

We can be conservative and state that Fravor's estimates of distance were off. Covering 32 feet in 1 second is velocity,  not acceleration. Accelerating smoothly from a standstill to 16 feet in 1 second is an acceleration of 1g.

Covering 32 feet per second in terms of steady velocity is like driving with your Grandmother on Sunday morning ~21.5 mph.

To accelerate from a standstill and experience 1 g of force you must travel 32.2 feet in that first second. If you want to experience 1 g for two seconds then you must accelerate that 32.2 feet in the first second and then accelerate another 32.2 feet per second to travel 64.4 feet in the second second. For three seconds, you must accelerate another 32.2 feet per second to travel 96.6 feet in that third second and so on. One g is expressed as an acceleration of 32.2 feet per second per second.

Your 0 to 16 feet in one second is just under 0.5 g's.

##### Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

6 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

FLIR systems are NOT useful to determine accurate shapes in overloaded areas - I mean, isn't that patently obvious from watching FLIR footage?  Sheesh.  And even if I was to accept that the shape was important, can you tell me what shapes a foreign fighter jet exhaust would take on from various angles?  Does that shape vary depending on the aircraft's attitude/ angle of attack, angle to camera?  Speed?  Thrust level setting?  Yes, yes, yes,...

But this isn't your local Police department's FLIR system from the late 90's, this is U.S. Military grade ATFLIR that is designed to do all those things. Also the FA/18 Super Hornets RADAR is also designed for target Identification of foreign Aircraft.

What to you think the U.S.S. Nimitz RADAR and optical systems are capable of?

Edited by lost_shaman
1 person likes this

##### Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On 04/01/2018 at 2:49 AM, stereologist said:

If you go to the section of the video at 2:17 you will see a section of the video in which the jets look very similar to the black blob in the TTS video. The IR signal is hiding the shape of the plane.

Thanks Stereo. I took a screenshot of the jets. The objects look dark, and the background is clear.

So are these jets the footage you provided 6 miles away? And are the images in infrared? And what is an IR signal? (The one hiding the planes shape)

I put the Fravor UFO beside those images to compare. The object is dark, and the background is bright.., just like your examples.

I added the Nimitz images.., the 1st looks similar to the Infrared images. (Object is dark, background is clear).., But it claims to be "TV mode". Then the one beside claims to be Infrared. But the background is dark.., and the object is bright

I'm confused. It was a big day. Thanks in advance.

Edited by Fila

##### Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Area201 said:

That is a terrible and faulty deduction from my reply. Come on you're better than this

You introduced a known hoaxer. What was the purpose in that? Pointing out that the person you introduced is a a known hoaxer is not "interesting" as you suggest nor does it tel us anything at all.

##### Share on other sites
2 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

Covering 32 feet per second in terms of steady velocity is like driving with your Grandmother on Sunday morning ~21.5 mph.

To accelerate from a standstill and experience 1 g of force you must travel 32.2 feet in that first second. If you want to experience 1 g for two seconds then you must accelerate that 32.2 feet in the first second and then accelerate another 32.2 feet per second to travel 64.4 feet in the second second. For three seconds, you must accelerate another 32.2 feet per second to travel 96.6 feet in that third second and so on. One g is expressed as an acceleration of 32.2 feet per second per second.

Your 0 to 16 feet in one second is just under 0.5 g's.

Wrong. You travel 16 feet in the first second. Apparently no one here knows basic physics.

One g is 32.2 ft/s/s or 9.8 m/s/s. The distance traveled from standstill under 1g is 16.1 ft.

##### Share on other sites
1 minute ago, stereologist said:

Wrong. You travel 16 feet in the first second. Apparently no one here knows basic physics.

One g is 32.2 ft/s/s or 9.8 m/s/s. The distance traveled from standstill under 1g is 16.1 ft.

I think you need to go back to school. Say I drop a rock from a tower... it will experience 1 g of acceleration until it hits the ground. Do you disagree with this basic premise?

No. You can't disagree with that because it is a FACT.

Now how far will the Rock fall in one second? (Pro tip it's twice as far as 16.1 feet)

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fila said:

Thanks Stereo. I took a screenshot of the jets. The objects look dark, and the background is clear.

So are these jets the footage you provided 6 miles away? And are the images in infrared? And what is an IR signal? (The one hiding the planes shape)

I put the Fravor UFO beside those images to compare. The object is dark, and the background is bright.., just like your examples.

I added the Nimitz images.., the 1st looks similar to the Infrared images. (Object is dark, background is clear).., But it claims to be "TV mode". Then the one beside claims to be Infrared. But the background is dark.., and the object is bright

I'm confused. It was a big day. Thanks in advance.

The image is created from infrared or IR. The image  information coming to the sensor is the IR signal. The IR signal is converted to the optical range which we can see.

On the far left we see that the blobs are blobs without any detail of the planes. The zoomed in image is not the same as the first image because the planes are moving sideways to the image.

##### Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

I think you need to go back to school. Say I drop a rock from a tower... it will experience 1 g of acceleration until it hits the ground. Do you disagree with this basic premise?

No. You can't disagree with that because it is a FACT.

Now how far will the Rock fall in one second? (Pro tip it's twice as far as 16.1 feet)

I love it when people are so loud about their lack of understanding of basic physics. I simply can't wait for you to get all hot and bothered again with this blunder of yours.

In second 1 an object drops 16.1 feet. I originally wrote 16 feet and that is an approximation as is 16.1 feet.

This is introductory physics, very introductory physics.

##### Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, stereologist said:

I love it when people are so loud about their lack of understanding of basic physics. I simply can't wait for you to get all hot and bothered again with this blunder of yours.

In second 1 an object drops 16.1 feet. I originally wrote 16 feet and that is an approximation as is 16.1 feet.

This is introductory physics, very introductory physics.

Your right from a stand still one g at one second is 1/2 32.2 ft per second per second. So just slightly more than 16 ft. My mistake.

From a "stand still" it's logarithmic . After 8 seconds an object is falling at 90% of 32.2 ft per second per second and after 15 seconds 99%. Assuming you are near Sea level and ignoring air resistance.

##### Share on other sites

Now the above being said... Did you have a point? Obviously if this was a "distant Jet" it was not "standing still" was it?

##### Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

Your right from a stand still one g at one second is 1/2 32.2 ft per second per second. So just slightly more than 16 ft. My mistake.

From a "stand still" it's logarithmic . After 8 seconds an object is falling at 90% of 32.2 ft per second per second and after 15 seconds 99%. Assuming you are near Sea level and ignoring air resistance.

No it is not logarithmic.  Distance traveled is quadratic with respect to time.

No. An object is always experiencing a force of 32 m/s/s regardless if it is falling or not.

This is basic physics. Very basic physics.

##### Share on other sites
1 minute ago, stereologist said:

An object is always experiencing a force of 32 m/s/s regardless if it is falling or not.

I'm experiencing one g siting one my couch. But i'm not falling. If an an object falls at one g then it is moving and yes that is a logarithmic.

## Create an account

Register a new account