The Five Stages of Ontological Shock - UFO Version
Posted on 07/29/2023 5:08:41 AM PDT by RoosterRedux
Retired Navy Cmdr. David Fravor was commander of an F/A-18F Super Hornet squadron aboard the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz on Nov. 14, 2004, when he piloted one of two Super Hornets that came across a Tic Tac-shaped aircraft. At the time, the Nimitz was about 100 miles southwest of San Diego.
The crew of the two Super Hornets was told that unidentified objects had been observed for over two weeks, during which they had rapidly descended from 80,000 feet to 20,000 feet, loitered for several hours, and then returned to extremely high altitudes, Fravor told a House Oversight subcommittee on Wednesday.
“For those who don’t realize, above 80,000 feet is space,” Fravor said during Wednesday’s hearing on “Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena,” or UAP, a recently coined term for unidentified objects in the air and underwater.
The Super Hornets’ pilots and weapon systems officers all saw a Tic Tac object moving abruptly above the ocean without any visible wings or propulsion system, Fravor said. As his plane got closer to the object, it quickly accelerated and disappeared. An air controller quickly told Fravor that the object had been detected 60 miles away less than a minute after the Super Hornets had lost contact with it.
[...]
Assuming the Tic Tac was a physical object and not some sort of projection, no human pilot could survive the G-forces caused by how quickly it moved and maneuvered, retired Lt. Cmdr. Alex Dietrich, who piloted the other Super Hornet involved in the incident, told Task & Purpose on Thursday.
With the known technology that the United States and its adversaries possess, an aircraft can either be as fast as a jet or as maneuverable as a helicopter – Dietrich said after the hearing.
“You can’t go supersonic and turn on a dime,” said Dietrich, who currently teaches engineering at the University of Colorado, Boulder. “The flight control surfaces, the propulsion required, they’re incompatible in our current configurations, in our current technology, with the fuel we have, with the materials that we have. And so, what we saw that day was something that was hovering like a helicopter and then intravenously accelerating, turning on a dime, not requiring the full turning radius that we require in our strike fighters or advanced jets. That’s why it was so confusing to us in the moment and seemed to defy what we know and expect to be laws of physics and limitations of capabilities.”
(Excerpt) Read more at taskandpurpose.com ...
Quite frankly, the peak scares me. When people have the power of gods at their fingertips, we are probably doomed.
Interesting factoid.. after they retired the SR 71 bkackbird… Area 51 lengthen the run way.. / we have civilian drones that can maneuver like no airplane can… and that is open to the public… I have to think that we have craft that are capable of similar activity
Specify a timeframe please.
Radar created a spoofed local image would have to be done locally. Spoofing of a distant image would be done from a distance. There was no conventional radar emitter in place locally.
Schrodinger’s cat would like a word.
I find the anecdotal evidence abundant enough to hypothesize without resorting to fantasy or speculation. But, if actual material evidence is being sequestered, speculation is all that remains.
2019.
And I am not talking about the piece of crap they purchased from the Russians.
Natural laws pertaining to physics are not really "laws" discovered and put in place to be respected and unbroken, with consequences of not adhering to, but theorem, derived from countless observations, in an attempt to explain and put on paper what appears to be so.
We don't make laws for or of nature, we make statements to explain what we see, and if the statement holds up, it is then placed on a lofty pedestal as "the law" (Judge Dredd comes to mind!).
As our means of detection advance, we refine these theorems to fit what we see.
I submit, we have not seen all there is to see, and therefore should have an open mind to refine our laws as new observations are made.
If aliens exist here, now, and they show no harmful intent, It would literally be the experience of a lifetime to interact.
We weren’t in any declared war with China in 2019. It is now 2023 so you’re not making any sense.
The best case for so called Unidentified Flying Objects I have come across was made by Dr. Steven Greer in an interview on the Shawn Ryan show. More or less indicating that a good portion of them are home grown or re-engineered by what you may call a shadow group loosely associated with some big US industrial companies. More or less representing something comparable to the early Ford Model T with certain capabilities such as the ability to cloaking as well defying the gravitational field and impressive speeds.
Yet still in the early stages like our radios and TV sets about sixty years ago where you had all kinds of tubes, capacitors, coils and resistors all mounted on a metal chassis until we approached the miniaturization and integration process along with the discovery of the transistor and everything eventually ended up in the configuration of chips something we only could have dreamed of sixty years earlier and so far we have not even scratched the surface.
Now keep in mind that civilizations from what you may call “Out there” have been at it for millennia’s and have been refining this to the N-th degree and probably have at their disposal things which we have not yet even dreamed about. And these, I believe make up the other and smaller portion of sightings of so called UFO’s Aside all this, if anything I believe that the real ones are harmless as if they wanted to harm us, due to their technological advances could have done so long time ago.
I would be more concerned about the home grown version as pointed out by Dr. Steven Greer which are more or less are under the control of some war mongering entities. And it would come as no surprise to me if these powers to be would do everything possible to redicule any whistle blowers and make a joke of congressional hearings just so they can continue undisturbed behind the scenes.
For more detailed info you may want to watch the presentation by Dr Steven Greer who has been researching this subject for over thirty years.
Oh good grief! 60 miles in one minute is 3,600 mph, not 600.
Maybe! But, I think that the flight characteristics under consideration are not the power of gods, just good technology. But, in context, potentially threatening; somewhat mitigated by the idea, that these UAP have been around for a long, long time.
According to well-attested and many multiple eyewitness testimony, they have yanked our chains a couple times, but not seriously threatened. That bears investigation, not outright dismissal.
That's something both Graves has mentioned in interviews in relation to flight safety, that the new sensor tech info provided onboard our aircraft has revealed that these things aren't just present off the east coast, but persistent.
The Five Stages of Ontological Shock - UFO Version
I'm not making sense? What does being in a declared war have at all to do with your assertion of bias that you were intent on making?
Your contention (and it is a 50% valid one) that people shouldn't disparage Communist China because people have a bias that Communist regimes cannot produce goods of high quality-was modified by me to say that the other kind of bias where people are ready to throw up their hands because the Communists are some kind of race of super people is equally as idiotic without the counterbalancing view that communism is unable to produce these things on their own.
Communism cannot produce these things on their own because they stifle innovative thought and efficiency, and can only advance by theft, espionage, and destruction of their economic adversaries. Those are ALL things that Communist China has engaged in since the early 1990's in an aggressive war they have waged against the West, a war which too many are to damned frightened to face up to and vocalize aloud for fear of being branded a bigot or losing their gravy train, like the douchebag NBA, not to mention the politicians and technocrats in their pockets.
Your introduction of the concept of some kind of declared war being necessary for me to reinforce any claim of fatalism is wrong at best, and inane at worst. We have never been in a declared war against Communist China, though they have been at open war against us for decades.
I'm not making sense? What does being in a declared war have at all to do with your assertion of bias that you were intent on making?
Your contention (and it is a 50% valid one) that people shouldn't disparage Communist China because people have a bias that Communist regimes cannot produce goods of high quality-was modified by me to say that the other kind of bias where people are ready to throw up their hands because the Communists are some kind of race of super people is equally as idiotic without the counterbalancing view that communism is unable to produce these things on their own.
Communism cannot produce these things on their own because they stifle innovative thought and efficiency, and can only advance by theft, espionage, and destruction of their economic adversaries. Those are ALL things that Communist China has engaged in since the early 1990's in an aggressive war they have waged against the West, a war which too many are to damned frightened to face up to and vocalize aloud for fear of being branded a bigot or losing their gravy train, like the douchebag NBA, not to mention the politicians and technocrats in their pockets.
Your introduction of the concept of some kind of declared war being necessary for me to reinforce any claim of fatalism is wrong at best, and inane at worst. We have never been in a declared war against Communist China, though they have been at open war against us for decades.
I'm not making sense? What does being in a declared war have at all to do with your assertion of bias that you were intent on making?
Your contention (and it is a 50% valid one) that people shouldn't disparage Communist China because people have a bias that Communist regimes cannot produce goods of high quality-was modified by me to say that the other kind of bias where people are ready to throw up their hands because the Communists are some kind of race of super people is equally as idiotic without the counterbalancing view that communism is unable to produce these things on their own.
Communism cannot produce these things on their own because they stifle innovative thought and efficiency, and can only advance by theft, espionage, and destruction of their economic adversaries. Those are ALL things that Communist China has engaged in since the early 1990's in an aggressive war they have waged against the West, a war which too many are to damned frightened to face up to and vocalize aloud for fear of being branded a bigot or losing their gravy train, like the douchebag NBA, not to mention the politicians and technocrats in their pockets.
Your introduction of the concept of some kind of declared war being necessary for me to reinforce any claim of fatalism is wrong at best, and inane at worst. We have never been in a declared war against Communist China, though they have been at open war against us for decades.
Or... Just let them believe what they like as long as it doesn’t squash the beliefs of others. Why is it they absolutely have to impose their own on others? Each to their own...
I would add: if the CCP stifle innovation (and they do); what if one of the UAP crashed where they could get hands on it to reverse engineer? That might play right into their strengths. I don’t rule them out as possessors of the observed technology, if technology is what the UAP are.
That there is funny right there.
Could require actual understanding and commitment soon, for us yokels to help the normies out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.