NASA astronaut's 1965 UFO sighting was solved many years later

[UM-Bot]

Astronaut Jim McDivitt had reported seeing an object shaped like a beer can outside the Gemini 4 capsule.

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/378543/nasa-astronauts-1965-ufo-sighting-was-solved-many-years-later

[Hazzard]

A perfect example that astronauts (and other people with impressive job titles) are as prone to misidentification and mistakes as  the rest of us. 

[Cho Jinn]

"And it was rotating around, I noticed something out in front that was a white cylindrical shape with a white pole sticking it out of one corner of it - it looked like a beer can with a smooth pencil sticking out. I grabbed two cameras and took pictures of it...As the sun shone on the window, I could no longer see out and the thing just disappeared."

So there was one (1) "thing" you saw, whatever it was.

"The windows were made up of about three or four or five panes of glass, so that if one got broken we still had some pressure integrity...And these little things, when the Sun shined on them right, they'd multiply the images off the different panes.

So the one (1) thing you saw was the result of multiple panes, creating multiple images of one thing...which you just said you didn't see, because, you know, you saw one thing, and not multiple things, or multiple images of the one thing.  60 years later, you are "quite sure" that you saw one of a multiplicity of images of the bolts in the window (which surely would have been very observable being proximate to the window) - the others you didn't see, or at least you don't remember seeing?  Moreover, why would window bolts be rotating (relative to him, the viewer) around?  Was he spinning in the capsule ala Homer Simpson eating potato chips?

We are stuck in a journalistic Kessler Syndrome or sorts.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

On 7/8/2024 at 11:24 AM, Hazzard said:

A perfect example that astronauts (and other people with impressive job titles) are as prone to misidentification and mistakes as  the rest of us. 

Absolutely true.

Honest question: Do they ever get it right? And all they have to do is get it right ONCE and the gig is up. 

A case that comes to mind is the tic-tac UFO. Two squadrons of 4 jets, each with two pilots saw the UFO close-up for some time.

16 pilots, did they all see a tic-tac UFO or not?

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

On 7/8/2024 at 1:10 PM, Cho Jinn said:

"And it was rotating around, I noticed something out in front that was a white cylindrical shape with a white pole sticking it out of one corner of it - it looked like a beer can with a smooth pencil sticking out. I grabbed two cameras and took pictures of it...As the sun shone on the window, I could no longer see out and the thing just disappeared."

So there was one (1) "thing" you saw, whatever it was.

"The windows were made up of about three or four or five panes of glass, so that if one got broken we still had some pressure integrity...And these little things, when the Sun shined on them right, they'd multiply the images off the different panes.

So the one (1) thing you saw was the result of multiple panes, creating multiple images of one thing...which you just said you didn't see, because, you know, you saw one thing, and not multiple things, or multiple images of the one thing.  60 years later, you are "quite sure" that you saw one of a multiplicity of images of the bolts in the window (which surely would have been very observable being proximate to the window) - the others you didn't see, or at least you don't remember seeing?  Moreover, why would window bolts be rotating (relative to him, the viewer) around?  Was he spinning in the capsule ala Homer Simpson eating potato chips?

We are stuck in a journalistic Kessler Syndrome or sorts.

I agree.

His long-delayed alibi for what he saw makes little-to-no sense.  

And who can forget James Lovell's "BOGEY AT 10 O'CLOCK HIGH."? - that was live, and Houston had to cut the feed. 

[the13bats]

Zero reason to cover up a forgotten decades old nothing sighting but when it's explained and not a mothership true believers can't accept it, yet they call skeptics the closed minded.

[Hazzard]

11 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

A case that comes to mind is the tic-tac UFO. Two squadrons of 4 jets, each with two pilots saw the UFO close-up for some time.

16 pilots, did they all see a tic-tac UFO or not?

Well, if you believe Fravor then it was 4 witnesses ... Him and the other pilot Dietrich and the two guys in the backseat.

The second wave with Underwood (never had eyes on it) he only recorded it with his FLIR camera... and gave it the name "tic tac" based on how it looked on the video.

That was the same footage that was later debunked as a camera artifact. (when the UFO shot off to the left)

 

When that sharp turn is explained... There is nothing extraordinary about this sighting at all. 

Edited July 10 by Hazzard

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

10 hours ago, Hazzard said:

When that sharp turn is explained... There is nothing extraordinary about this sighting at all. 

So you at least agree that 4 pilots saw the tic-tac. It seemed to be standing guard over the USO below the surface that Fravor said "... was as big as a B737".

Fravor went on to say that the tic-tac flew around the water "like a ping pong ball in a glass", making very sharp cuts but always within a certain diameter.

Fravor also said that when he flew in closer to it, it took off like it was shot out of a gun.

When he was returning back his ship, the USS Nimitz, the USS Princeton informed Fravor that UFO was behind him.

 

You say "nothing extraordinary" and I say "nothing at all ordinary". If you really think that then perhaps you can cite another such experience,
If you cannot do that, then it certainly is extraordinary. What do you think?

 

[Hazzard]

8 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

So you at least agree that 4 pilots saw the tic-tac. It seemed to be standing guard over the USO below the surface that Fravor said "... was as big as a B737".

Fravor went on to say that the tic-tac flew around the water "like a ping pong ball in a glass", making very sharp cuts but always within a certain diameter.

Fravor also said that when he flew in closer to it, it took off like it was shot out of a gun.

 

I didnt say that... I said that if you believe Fravor...

 

Quote

You say "nothing extraordinary" and I say "nothing at all ordinary". If you really think that then perhaps you can cite another such experience,
If you cannot do that, then it certainly is extraordinary. What do you think?

 

You really need to pay attention more... After that dashing out to the left is explained, all we have here is the usual... people trying to describe something they couldnt identify - a UFO.

Happens every day somewhere.

As for Fravor... i wouldnt give a squirt of p1ss for his testimony.

 

Quote

When he was returning back his ship, the USS Nimitz, the USS Princeton informed Fravor that UFO was behind him

 

Link please?

[Hazzard]

On 7/11/2024 at 3:05 AM, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

When he was returning back his ship, the USS Nimitz, the USS Princeton informed Fravor that UFO was behind him.

Im still waiting for you to cite the source on this one!

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

On 7/25/2024 at 5:42 AM, Hazzard said:

Im still waiting for you to cite the source on this one!

that was Fravor reliving the experience on the "Joe Rohan Experience' podcast, episode 1361

[Hazzard]

12 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

that was Fravor reliving the experience on the "Joe Rohan Experience' podcast, episode 1361

Fravor 😄 See my earlier post for my thoughts on his testimony.

Edited August 1 by Hazzard

[Trelane]

On 7/9/2024 at 10:14 PM, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Absolutely true.

Honest question: Do they ever get it right? And all they have to do is get it right ONCE and the gig is up. 

A case that comes to mind is the tic-tac UFO. Two squadrons of 4 jets, each with two pilots saw the UFO close-up for some time.

16 pilots, did they all see a tic-tac UFO or not?

Two squadrons of 4 jets and only one pilot has provided a statement and testimony regarding the event. This pilot has gone on to make tidy earning going on podcasts, Youtube channels and the convention circuit with his story.

I have more honest questions. Why haven't the other pilots made statements and gone on podcasts, etc.? Why weren't they on the hill testifying last August? Why aren't they even named? 

How about the senior commander who would likely be briefed and debriefed? What is his name? What are his statements? I understand there may have been radar returns regarding the object? Can we see the returns? How about neighboring radar stations? Where are their accounts of seeing this object? Is there an FAA file on this? Who wrote it? What was the FAA's slant on the whole thing? If they weren't involved why not? Who made the call to not bring them into the investigation?

 

See? Way too many questions. I could go on if I leave my investigator hat on.

Edited August 1 by Trelane

[the13bats]

On 7/25/2024 at 5:42 AM, Hazzard said:

Im still waiting for you to cite the source on this one!

His source is he makes things up as he goes it's well known.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

13 hours ago, Trelane said:

Two squadrons of 4 jets and only one pilot has provided a statement and testimony regarding the event. This pilot has gone on to make tidy earning going on podcasts, Youtube channels and the convention circuit with his story.

Here we go,, everybody lies! He said it to make money, right?  Trelane, just because the other pilots said nothing (except Underwood) does not mean thy did not see the tic tac UFO.
This whole thing started when the USS Princeton picked up the UFO on radar, and the squadrons were sent there to view it. That proves it was a real UFO.

13 hours ago, Trelane said:

I have more honest questions. Why haven't the other pilots made statements and gone on podcasts, etc.? Why weren't they on the hill testifying last August? Why aren't they even named? 

Underwood and Fravor testified to congress, along with Grusch, and I cannot speak for the other pilots. your concerns here are overplayed.

13 hours ago, Trelane said:

How about the senior commander who would likely be briefed and debriefed? What is his name? What are his statements? I understand there may have been radar returns regarding the object? Can we see the returns? How about neighboring radar stations? Where are their accounts of seeing this object? Is there an FAA file on this? Who wrote it? What was the FAA's slant on the whole thing? If they weren't involved why not? Who made the call to not bring them into the investigation?

 

See? Way too many questions. I could go on if I leave my investigator hat on.

yes, you have questions, but that does not change the veracity of the military's stated beliefs (see Go Fast)

[ChrLzs]

Earl, may I ask if you are having memory lapses..?  Several of the things you claimed above are false, and they have been explained in some detail in previous threads on Unexplained Mysteries.   No major harm if you are are having memory struggles - I'm getting old too, and am often surprised when I do the preliminary research, to find that I had completely forgotten stuff that was comprehensively covered in old threads.  That's why it pays to do the investigating *before* you make the claims..........

For now, let's just focus on ONE aspect.  Earlier, you referred to 16 pilots having seen a particular UFO.  But during the course of this page, when pressed, it seems that you dropped the claim to 4.  However, I can only find vague references above to three (two being from Fravor, so that's really only one).  The remaining one ... well.. it does not corroborate Fravor in some aspects, if it's the one I think it is.  And of course NONE of the radar data, nor any of the FLIR video footage, shows any non-terrestrial capabilities, as has been explained ad infinitum...

So I would ask you politely, either withdraw the claim, OR post proper references / quotes / cites so the claims can be properly looked at.  AGAIN.  A genuine debater would refer back to the earlier threads at the time they post the claims, but that seems to be way beyond some of our prolific claimants... 

Subject to your reply, I may return to look at your claims in MUCH more detail.  Is this going to be a repeat of the Coast Guard debacle?  I'd suggest you take care to verify what you are claiming beforehand.   I'll be back later with some actual cites and actual quotations, but of course there is still the huge elephant in the room - NO HARD EVIDENCE, just stories.

Edited August 2 by ChrLzs

[MrAnderson]

20 hours ago, Trelane said:

Two squadrons of 4 jets and only one pilot has provided a statement and testimony regarding the event. This pilot has gone on to make tidy earning going on podcasts, Youtube channels and the convention circuit with his story.

I have more honest questions. Why haven't the other pilots made statements and gone on podcasts, etc.? Why weren't they on the hill testifying last August? Why aren't they even named? 

How about the senior commander who would likely be briefed and debriefed? What is his name? What are his statements? I understand there may have been radar returns regarding the object? Can we see the returns? How about neighboring radar stations? Where are their accounts of seeing this object? Is there an FAA file on this? Who wrote it? What was the FAA's slant on the whole thing? If they weren't involved why not? Who made the call to not bring them into the investigation?

 

See? Way too many questions. I could go on if I leave my investigator hat on.

Do you want every pilot to come forward and describe what they have witnessed? That's new! You are very demanding as it seems!

Some pilots come forward and describe their sightings and experiences. Some others say nothing because they don't want any publicity (negative) and they don't want to put their reputations and careers at risk.

Even if all pilots come forward to describe what they saw (if we assume all of them have seen it) then your next argument it to dismiss and deny what they said they saw and argue they don't have evidence or they were confused and they didn't see what they have described or arguments along these lines. And I am sure @Earl.Of.Trumps understands your way of thinking and your arguments very well.

Edited August 2 by MrAnderson

[Trelane]

10 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Here we go,, everybody lies! He said it to make money, right?  Trelane, just because the other pilots said nothing (except Underwood) does not mean thy did not see the tic tac UFO.
This whole thing started when the USS Princeton picked up the UFO on radar, and the squadrons were sent there to view it. That proves it was a real UFO.

Underwood and Fravor testified to congress, along with Grusch, and I cannot speak for the other pilots. your concerns here are overplayed.

yes, you have questions, but that does not change the veracity of the military's stated beliefs (see Go Fast)

1) I never said that was intent. However, you can't deny the fact he's made a living off of it post- military.

2) YES, that is huge red flag to me as an investigator and inspector. There would, and should be corresponding reports from the pilots in the squadron. Evidence by corroboration. So, as of now we have very vocal person and only one other alleged to have witnessed it has a similar (but not exactly the same) account.

3) In this discussion, don't care about Mr. Grusch. His whole deal is a discussion better fit for another thread.

4) Ok, you acknowledge that my honest questions do have merit? Goo, and thank you.

The whole incident allegedly occurred just off the coast and should have been picked up by adjacent radar stations on land. It stands to reason there should be corresponding reports from those stations and reports from them to the FAA documenting the events. Based off of those reports the FAA should have conducted it's own investigation. The shocking revelation that none of this occurred is another massive red flag in the totality of this alleged case.

One's veracity does not make it truthful or factual. We've gone over this.

 

Oh yeah, I still have never heard the name of the senior commander that Mr. Fravor would have had to brief at the conclusion of the flight. That's where the whole thing begins to fall apart for me. The chain of information post-flight is never discussed nor questioned.  

Edited August 2 by Trelane

[ChrLzs]

7 hours ago, Trelane said:

The whole incident allegedly occurred just off the coast and should have been picked up by adjacent radar stations on land. It stands to reason there should be corresponding reports from those stations and reports from them to the FAA documenting the events.

Indeed.  It's almost as if the 'encounters' were part of a training exercise...    And what a coincidence, these WERE training exercises, using initially uncalibrated equipment, and persons who were unfamiliar with that equipment's use.  Also.. (just another coincidence...) the exercises happened very close to San Clemente Island.  That would be this San Clemente Island, the one where they develop and test drone technology.  Here's an example of their activities, from 2019.  Apart from the very obvious possibilities like submersible drones and surface-to-air submarine launched missiles and targets, even the most basic drones have what would be described as 'astonishing' maneuvering capabilities.  If they were training and testing the abilities of their pilots and radar operators, does anyone really think they would announce / admit what new tech they were trying out?  THAT is why we ask for solid evidence, and the very best evidence being presented doesn't show anything.

I've yet to hear any of the claimants even acknowledge these training exercises were right next to a drone development and testing facility.

[Hazzard]

5 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

 does anyone really think they would announce / admit what new tech they were trying out?  THAT is why we ask for solid evidence, and the very best evidence being presented doesn't show anything.

I've yet to hear any of the claimants even acknowledge these training exercises were right next to a drone development and testing facility.

It wouldnt be the first time they used the UFO crowd in this sinister way. 😁

[ChrLzs]

More here...  and I quote:

Quote

In July 2019, approximately 50 nautical miles to the west and southwest of San Clemente Island off California, three U.S. Navy ships encountered several Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) in four separate incidents.

... A friend of one of the crew members of the USS Kidd said that the UAVs resembled the TicTac shape of a famous UFO encounter by FA-18s of the USS Nimitz in the same area back in November of 2004.

As you might expect, this tie-in to a previously documented UFO sighting sent the press into a speculative frenzy.

... Officially, the Navy said it had no idea what they were, but the reported details about how it reacted to these mystery drones suggest that it probably knows a great deal more than it is letting on.

The basic outline of the incidents is simple. Over the course of four evenings, as many as six remotely piloted vehicles approached a training exercise consisting of six U.S. warships in the waters off San Clemente Island. The UAVs flew at various altitudes from sea level to over 1,000 feet. They hovered over the ships and their helicopter flight decks at the stern and kept station off their port and starboard sides. They were not blacked out but had red and white lights visible. Other than approaching the warships they did not endanger the safe operation of any of the ships according to Navy log entries.

The Navy vessels immediately set for Emissions Control or “EMCON.” Under EMCON anything emitting any electromagnetic signals aboard the ship, like radios and radar, is turned off and the ship goes dark. The question then becomes, why did the ships shut off all their emitters? The answer is two-fold.  First, this reduces the emissions signature of the vessels which can otherwise be detected many miles away by their radios and radars’ transmissions. It’s obvious the Navy ships were depriving these mystery drones of any ability to detect and record their frequencies for later analysis by whoever launched them.

Interestingly, the article author believes that some or all of the drones in the 2019 incident may have been Chinese drones, launched from the inevitable 'trawlers' that hang around near US training events.  I recommend that you visit the page, and also note the images of the types of drones likely involved.  Tictacs, anyone?

 

And from the Navy itself:

Quote

The Navy has owned the Naval Auxiliary Landing Field (NALF), San Clemente Island {SCI} since 1937, but came into its current importance during the past decade. It is the Navy's only remaining live fire range. ...  It lies 55 nautical miles (nm) south of Long Beach and 68 nm west of San Diego.

One of the primary military function of San Clemente Island has been to support research and development of many of the Navy's weapon systems.  A major part of Navy training takes place on the ranges right off the SCI shores. The primary range covers over 149,000 square miles and is the Navy's busiest Fleet airspace. Also included in this training area are two mine exercise areas, the Southern California Anti-Submarine Warfare Range, seven submarine areas, the shallow water Undersea Training Range, and two laser training ranges. In total, SCI is a very unique combination of airfields, airspace and ranges unlike any other facility owned by the Navy. It is the only location in the Pacific where surface ships, submarines, aircraft and Navy expeditionary forces can train in all warfare areas simultaneously using shore gunnery, bombardment, air defense, anti sub and electronic warfare.

 The SCI land, air, and sea ranges provide the U.S. Navy, U.S. Marine Corps, and other military services space and facilities which they use to conduct readiness training and test and evaluation activities. SCI's distance from the mainland and its complete Navy ownership make the island and its surrounding area ideal for fleet training, weapon and electronics system testing, and research and development activities.

... The extent of these areas range from the ocean floor to an altitude of 80,000 feet {hmm, where have we heard that number before..?  }.

... {there is a need for} more training in: littoral warfare, including mine counter-measures; electronic warfare; missile firing; operations in the shore bombardment area (SHOBA), amphibious operations; and Naval Special Warfare. Increased need for test and evaluation activities is also anticipated.

Dear reader, have you seen any cites and quotes like the above coming from the claimants?  NOT ONCE have they mentioned or debated San Clemente Island...

 

 

Edited August 2 by ChrLzs

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

10 hours ago, Trelane said:

1) I never said that was intent. However, you can't deny the fact he's made a living off of it post- military.

So what? Why does making money make him an evil liar??  we've gone over this before.
A physics professor writes a physics text... TO MAKE MONEY. so much for that argument.

 

10 hours ago, Trelane said:

2) YES, that is huge red flag to me as an investigator and inspector. There would, and should be corresponding reports from the pilots in the squadron. Evidence by corroboration. So, as of now we have very vocal person and only one other alleged to have witnessed it has a similar (but not exactly the same) account.

Obviously, I don't know the procedure and have no idea whether those other pilots filed reports or not, I simply assume that they did. And I could be wrong.

 

10 hours ago, Trelane said:

3) In this discussion, don't care about Mr. Grusch. His whole deal is a discussion better fit for another thread.

4) Ok, you acknowledge that my honest questions do have merit? Goo, and thank you.

The whole incident allegedly occurred just off the coast and should have been picked up by adjacent radar stations on land. It stands to reason there should be corresponding reports from those stations and reports from them to the FAA documenting the events. Based off of those reports the FAA should have conducted it's own investigation. The shocking revelation that none of this occurred is another massive red flag in the totality of this alleged case.

One's veracity does not make it truthful or factual. We've gone over this.

Again, I do not know the procedure. those other stations could have made reports but not for the public. no idea.

 

10 hours ago, Trelane said:

Oh yeah, I still have never heard the name of the senior commander that Mr. Fravor would have had to brief at the conclusion of the flight. That's where the whole thing begins to fall apart for me. The chain of information post-flight is never discussed nor questioned.  

I still think that this whole "Go Fast" is an orchestration. I don't blame you for being suspicious.

Edited August 3 by Earl.Of.Trumps

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

16 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

For now, let's just focus on ONE aspect.  Earlier, you referred to 16 pilots having seen a particular UFO.  But during the course of this page, when pressed, it seems that you dropped the claim to 4.

Well then  it is you that should do your research. I said 16, *another poster* barked it down to 4, all though I have no idea how he arrived at that niumber

[Hazzard]

14 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Well then  it is you that should do your research. I said 16, *another poster* barked it down to 4, all though I have no idea how he arrived at that niumber

What in the actual F 😄  I just told you how!!

 

Here...

 

[Trelane]

15 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

So what? Why does making money make him an evil liar??  we've gone over this before.
A physics professor writes a physics text... TO MAKE MONEY. so much for that argument.

 

Obviously, I don't know the procedure and have no idea whether those other pilots filed reports or not, I simply assume that they did. And I could be wrong.

 

Again, I do not know the procedure. those other stations could have made reports but not for the public. no idea.

 

I still think that this whole "Go Fast" is an orchestration. I don't blame you for being suspicious.

1) Motive

2) I know the procedure, that's why i question the absence of information.

3) I know the procedure, that's why I question the absence of information.

 

I'm just curious and in some respects yes, suspicious.