Search results

It does not say the sub was positioned at their merge point. Additionally there is no provenance for that summary. I would lend more credence to Dietrich's own testimony than an unverified summary containing several dubious contradictions. There is no reason to believe a balloon was launched...

The problem with this balloon hypothesis is that there is zero evidence American submarines launch balloons, tethered or not, in 2004 or anytime after. Dietrich was also assured by multiple parties multiple times that there was no submarine at their merge point.

Also curious that there has been exactly zero mention or acknowledgement from officials about reexamining sightings prior to 2004. It's like they've retconned the entire subject. We're supposed to believe the Navy started "seeing things" around 2004 up until the present day.

Targeting balloons are not launched from subs. It would be a huge failure of operations to vector pilots into range of a live fire test. Investigations also would have figured this out immediately. The balloon hypothesis just doesn't hold up when paired with the testimony of those involved or...

I'm not so sure. Dietrich reiterated in the interview that she was assured multiple times by different parties that there was so sub in the area during their encounter. Furthermore there is no evidence American subs deploy balloons, tethered or otherwise, in 2004 or anytime after.

Fravor hasn't commented on it. I've noticed Mick trying to nail down Dietrich into clarifying what she means but she hasn't been totally clear on the timeline. It seems she's saying the entire encounter did take 5-10 minutes (radar contact, vectoring the three jets, flying to intercept...

While I'm not sold on this hypothesis, particularly the vapor-obscured jet portion, it bears mentioning this new "revelation" that the pilots only had eyes on the tic-tac for 5-10 seconds. That would roughly fit within the realm of believability for a vapor obfuscated jet to trick Fravor for a...

I think the distance only becomes important when paired with other points of data that can be used to establish a likely identity. Kind of like how the Chile 'UFO' encounter was solved. Unfortunately in this case we're unlikely to get additional data and none of the proposed hypotheses have...

I feel like he isn't doing a great job articulating his arguments in these videos. This one was all over the place with tangents and disconnected points of contention. The dozens of jump cuts make it even harder to follow. I'd like to see him slow down and take some time to really articulate...

Not sure if you post on ATS but that's the point they got to as well if I'm remembering things correctly (that was a LONG thread a long time ago). They tracked him down but that was the end of it. I do think the guy was legit, I don't think he was operating under anyone's direction to kickoff...

There's also the whole saga of the ATS members who attempted to dox TheFinalTheory and Cometa2. IIRC they have a pretty good idea who both people really are but I don't think names have been publicly posted for obvious reasons. It's an interesting read and worth the investment if you're ever...

Well yes, that's the general spirit of this forum. Don't speculate. Support your position with things that can be verified within reason. It doesn't really matter what the UFO believers do.

Fravor didn't have the object on gimbal video, he claims he saw it with his naked eye as does Dietrich. Identifying a plane visually in very clear conditions at 25k feet is doable. There obviously isn't enough information in our hands to completely prove or disprove your hypothesis but I see...

Assuming they talked to the pilot is pure speculation. We have no idea what their investigations consisted of or if they were consistent across 'events.'

The vapor shown in those photographs typically lasts for less than a second, often much less than that, and I've never seen a photo or video of the vapor completely obscuring the jet. Many people here have an extremely low opinion of pilot's observational prowess but it's a little hard to...

If the next military engagement is naval then someone is in for a very very bad time. America's naval spending and offensive capabilities are almost laughable when compared to the rest of the world. There is zero chance anyone would willingly draw America into a naval conflict IMO.

If the object is not moving why do the pilots mention it is moving against the wind?

If the camera is pointing at the tail of a Hornet do the proposed trajectories, including Underwood's left turn, still hold up? Would the jet in front of Underwood need to turn along the same angle to maintain the illusion?

If the object is stationary why do the pilots mention the radar returns (along with the object we can see) are moving against the wind? What type of stationary airborne object would produce the type of image we see in the video?

Yeah exactly! There are a few guys on the sub who have tried to get a match by looking at Google/Bing imagery of Louisiana and the Mississippi Delta area but that seems like too much of a needle in the haystack situation for me. You'd also have to account for the possibility the creator used...