I'll post it here just in case someone missed it, I'd say it's pretty good. Darn interesting to see the case presented this way:
Last edited by a moderator:
SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY A PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, five years young! For a low subscription fee, you will be able to download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive After The Paracast podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! FLASH! For a limited time, you can save up to 40% on your subscription. Long-term susbcribers will receive a free coupon code for the James Fox UFO documentary "The Phenomenon," which includes 3 hours of extras, while supplies last. It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
I think it's here someplace else too, but you're right. This particular production is very good. There seems to be no doubt that something out of the ordinary was going on. But what exactly? We're tempted to think it was a UFO ( as in alien craft ), but what if this was some sort of advanced training simulation? Back in the Golden Age of Ufology, it would not have been possible to pull-off anything like the Nimitz encounters. Today however it's conceivable that we could create the illusion of such craft, even if we can't actually engineer them physically.I'll post it here just in case someone missed it, I'd say it's pretty good. Darn interesting to see the case presented this way:
I've never seen any military reality television shows, but I don't think that this documentary is BS. I think these people are telling their experiences as they recall them. What that actually means is another story. One of the things that lends credence to the idea that some sort of super secret tech was behind the strange events, is that there were officials who seemed to have mysteriously showed up to take away the "bricks" ( data recorders ).I just wonder - I recall a "real-life" show on an US carrier, round 1999. Sounds like just before this. The commander guy look very familiar. The young lady pilot was then a rook, I remember the Cmdr pulling her off the list in bad weather. She protested, Cmdr flew in her place.
I cannot remember if it was the Nimitz, but was definite on of those air craft carriers. And I don't have video.
I'm 99% sure this is the same BS - do any of you remember this "naval" real television?
You are probably referring to the ten-part PBS series "Carrier" mentioned in Fravor's resume above. The blurb reads:do any of you remember this "naval" real television?
Personally, I've never been too impressed with these three videos.This is a must watch for those who want a terrestrial explanation.
I'm with you on all points. But there are also a few little loopholes in the story that keep me from buying all the way into an alien explanation. The main one is that there were discrepancies at times between the shipboard radar coordinates and the presence ( or lack thereof ) of a visual confirmation. So the incredible maneuvers indicated on radar, and the radar jamming, can be hypothetically explained by advanced radar countermeasures and spoofing, which exists within our own technology, and has been posted elsewhere on the topic.Personally, I've never been too impressed with these three videos ...
Yes. Fravor and the flight crews he was with when he saw the "TicTac".Were there any witnesses that saw these objects with their naked eye - including through normal binoculars?
I wouldn't say that I buy into an "alien" explanation -- as in interstellar visitors out-and-about for a little entertainment at the expense of USN F-18s. But I don't find Mr. West's "explanations" of the videos, especially in light of Fravor's comments about the videos, to be nearly sufficient to dismiss the videos as misidentified mundane objects. Though, again, I don't think the available vids show much at all. Fravor said he saw a much higher quality vid that showed a lot more detail. All in all, I don't think Fravor and his aviators, nor the USN shipborne radars, were tracking airliners, balloons or birds. That's all I'm saying.a few little loopholes in the story that keep me from buying all the way into an alien explanation
Other than perhaps one's own personal experiences, it's difficult to say with confidence that any case in particular represents proof of alien visitation. So we're left to evaluate the other evidence and weigh it accordingly. To do that we need to fair-mindedly review the points made by skeptics, and at least West's points are well presented ( except for a few offhanded comments ).I wouldn't say that I buy into an "alien" explanation -- as in interstellar visitors out-and-about for a little entertainment at the expense of USN F-18s.
The problem there is that the videos were taken during flights that Fravor wasn't on, so there is no direct correlation between what Fravor saw and the objects in the videos.But I don't find Mr. West's "explanations" of the videos, especially in light of Fravor's comments about the videos, to be nearly sufficient to dismiss the videos as misidentified mundane objects.
I agree that Fravor's firsthand eyewitness testimony is powerful. However the analysis of the go-fast video includes numbers in the video itself that allows the trigonometry to be done, which when applied, explains the movement of the object more than adequately. I think we can safely write that one off completely. The other videos are far too inconclusive to be certain about what they are, and given the explanations offered, the images do seem to match a terrestrial object ( like an aircraft ) better than an alien craft.Though, again, I don't think the available vids show much at all. Fravor said he saw a much higher quality vid that showed a lot more detail. All in all, I don't think Fravor and his aviators, nor the USN shipborne radars, were tracking airliners, balloons or birds. That's all I'm saying.
Personally, I doubt the "secret military technology" theory for Fravor's and his fellow aviators' encounters. The military can test their hardware in vast empty stretches of the continental US using existing hardware like F-18's or Princeton type radar systems. There's also an Admiral and staff who command the task force that in that case included the Nimitz and Princeton and other ships, and it seems impossible to me that the task force Admiral would not be kept up-to-date on any possible "testing" of actual US military hardware that his task force might encounter. So, if that had actually happened, the task force Admiral would directly contact the Captain of the Nimitz, who would directly contact the fighter squadron commander Fravor and tell him, "cool your jets son, it was ours"; case closed. In any case, the 1976 Tehran, Iran F-4 encounter case is hard to envision as either US or Soviet hardware.However it's still not inconceivable that the objects ( or phenomena ) observed, were some sort of military technology not known to the public, and that it wasn't an actual craft, but some sort of projection.
So now we're left with only two options
- Secret high-tech military technology