Joe Rogan Experience #1361 - Cmdr. David Fravor & Jeremy Corbell

> You mentioned restricted airspace etc, but AFAIK there's no info on the GIMBAL video apart from that it was taken somewhere on the East Coast. Correct, there is significantly less background here than on the Nimitz video, to which I was referring. I've seen all of Mick West's videos in this playlist now, and his explanation for the Nimitz footage is even weaker than for Gimbal. He skips the difficult points such as accounting for movement of the object and the momentary loss of target lock for FLIR-1. He fixates on the rotation of the targeting pod, which may be valid, but doesn't seem as interesting to me as the fact that there are no heat plumes coming from this "jet" in Gimbal. It seems like his whole gimmick is to find one nitpick and claim victory, not to try to piece together the full, most accurate story of what was witnessed given all the information. Not to mention, neither of you seem to appreciate how catastrophic of a design failure it would be to have distant glares generating opaque images and target locks. If there is one area where defense contractors innovate, it is in meeting specs and testing. If the specs are not met, you end up in F-35 hell, not in production. Take a look at Fravor describing the video step by step which may clear up some of your questions -- my link skips right to where he walks through the videos, but the whole interview is fascinating, minus Corbell [0]. >just that the glare makes it look like something more fantastical than it is Pe

The theory that this is US-controlled drone tech does not jive with the claims made with regards to aerodynamic performance by David Fravor: [this video] Basically, skeptics need to embrace the idea that such an off-the-cuff, obvious theory like "it's drone tech" or "it's Chinese or Russian tech" like the one you mention is well outside the realm of things that should be taken seriously, given the current up-to-date evidence and claims. Such a theory would have to additionally claim that the existing evidence is completely fabricated, and those involved going on record are complete frauds or disinformation agents. Theories that at least include those aspects would have much more credibility, given that they at would at least fit the evidence, but would require a high degree of assumptions. Frankly, a much less reaching theory at this point is that we simply don't know what these things are, have completely failed to determine it, and can't safely conjecture anymore they are human created or purely natural phenomena. This is a perfectly suitable place to be given our place in the universe and our current level of understanding, and doesn't require any further leaps to explaining their origin beyond "we just don't know." Its fair to speculate, but we should recognize most of such speculations are probably unfalsifiable. In terms of action, it does mean we should try to find out more if we haven't yet fully exhausted our ability to do so. Hard to say, given the evidence, if our gover

Joe Rogan interviewed David Fravor, a retired Navy pilot, alongside a documentary maker who was interested in UFOs. The conversation was cautious but not particularly skeptical. It sounded like Mr. Fravor saw something in his airspace with his own two eyes. I don't know what it was (blimp, foreign aircraft, whatever), though I doubt it was extraterrestrial. (Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence) I couldn't spot anything obviously wrong with Mr. Fravor's story by itself. On the other hand, if the DoD wanted to nudge their pilots to report things they see, and had a story like David Fravor's to put out there in order to encourage current pilots to report what they see, that would be a propaganda event to encourage, so to speak, at least by declassifying harmless footage and not squashing the story. [this video]

Posting the Mick West explanation is the go-to response for critics who have done the bare minimum research. And I have to give him credit -- his explanation of parallax as it pertains to Go-Fast is compelling and probably accurate. We don't have a whole verified narrative with multiple angles/witnesses (besides the two pilots) to enrich that incident. I'm referring to the Nimitz incident. I don't mean to offend you, but I can say confidently there is information you have yet to consume on that incident. Taken alone and with no context, the IR video isn't convincing proof of anything, and West points that out, while ignoring that there is other information. But there is more verified info from the original NYT piece that makes this case special [0]. How do you explain the fact that passive radar from the ship was tracking this object on and off for two weeks before they finally deployed a squadron to investigate it? How do you explain the fascinating pilot testimony (they had multiple angles, by the way) of the white round object flying around erratically, then mirroring their descent, then shooting off into the sky [1]? Or the fact that their primary radars were being jammed (technically an act of war)? Any of these pieces of information taken alone could be inconclusively explained away, but as you compound them, forcing a "normal" explanation looks more and more like the Catholic church telling Galileo that the cosmos orbit around the Earth. [0] [link] [1] [this video]

For one thing, first-person accounts, which are notoriously inaccurate to begin with, don’t provide enough information for an empirical investigation. Scientists can’t accurately gauge distances or velocity from a pilot’s testimony: “It looked close” or “It was moving really fast” is too vague. What a scientist needs are precise measurements from multiple viewpoints provided by devices that register various wavelengths (visual, infrared, radar). That kind of data might tell us if an object’s motion required engines or materials that we Earthlings don’t possess. It's true that first-person accounts are sometimes inaccurate, but in the Nimitz case, we have, I believe, eight pilots in total who actually saw the object. The first incursion by David Fravor and his co-pilot Alex Dietrich and a second plane; and the second incursion - by other pilots which I don't know the names of - on which there's brief footage of the object[0]. Not only there's first-person accounts there's also devices which registered these objects. Nimitz caught these objects, in fact, they not only caught several of them, the incursions were made in order to check out what was going on. I wish these "devices can be faulty," (knowing that people actually looked at the object in loco ) "people can be bad first-person accounts" memes actually died once and for all in this particular case. It feels like people don't actually go out and do their due diligence. I feel people either aren't listening or paying atten

The context of the story in that JRE episode ( [this video] at about the 49:30 point) is "some things are explainable, here is an example" But, if Fravors story isn't credible because of that, to me it doesn't change much: - The "tic tac" video recorded from that encounter wasn't recorded when Fravor was in the air, he was back at the carrier. It was a follow on flight that had their aircraft equipped with targetting pods. - Fravor's aircraft had a backseat WSO who witnessed what Fravor saw, to my knowledge that officer hasn't spoken in public or denied Fravor's story - There was a second aircraft in the air when Fravor had that encounter, also with a pilot and WSO. The pilot of that second aircraft has interviewed confirming Fravor's story. - Radar operators from the Princeton operating the AEGIS radar have interviewed saying that they also saw the objects. - To my knowledge no one, either in the air, on the carrier, or in the air wing has stepped forward and claimed that Fravor, or anyone else was lying, or making up stories.