4

There has been a lot of recent press about David Fravor's 2004 UFO sighting, an event also known as the USS Nimitz UFO incident. A quick Google search will verify that since December of 2017 (with another wave this week), the story has been covered by a wide variety of mainstream reputable news sources. The coverage also divulges that the incident was investigated by the Pentagon, with no satisfying conclusion being reached. I am interested in why this story is getting so much coverage and particularly whether the widespread coverage is part of a disinformation scheme by the US Government. That is, is the US Government intentionally promoting/encouraging Americans to think about this story in order to distract them from other more significant matters, which it wishes to hide.

This claim came to my attention via personal conversations, but can also be seen in various forums discussing the event, e.g. on Openminds.tv, and has been argued against on the To The Stars Academy Facebook page. More general claims about UFO stories as disinformation can be found in this Wikipedia article, this book by John Michael Greer and this BBS radio article.

To be clear, what interests me about this is not the declassified video footage or even the testimony, but the fact that the media is paying so much attention to it. If the story is not bogus, and there is no element of conspiracy or disinformation at play, it truly defies explanation. There is no publicly known phenomenon, natural or otherwise, which could explain what Fravor describes. And Fravor is a respectable source, being treated with respect by the media.

The general consensus on the phenomenon Fravor describes (according to the first linked Wikipedia article) is that it is due to one of: malfunctioning or misinterpretation of aircraft equipment, classified government technology, or extraterrestrials. If we do not entertain the possibility of disinformation, this merits further investigation (as recommended by physicist Don Lincoln), at the very least to confirm or deny the first possibility. But that investigation is no longer occurring.

j0equ1nn
  • 149
  • 7
  • What does the very article you linked to list as possible explanations for the sighting? There is the answer to your question. –  Mar 15 '18 at 06:14
  • 7
    If you hear something 1. Moving faster than any material object imaginable; 2. Seeming to react to your movements almost predicting them, then the most obvious conclusion is that 1. it is not a material object; 2. it moves only when you move. In other words, it's an atmospheric light phenomenon. Put a mirror on your forehead and try to catch the reflection - it will be moving at extreme speeds and outsmarting you every time you try to turn your head and follow it. – sashkello Mar 15 '18 at 06:21
  • @sashkello Could be right? I like the idea. But it seems the military should be able to distinguish that though somehow in their investigation no? Also, Mach 3 is actually not faster than any jet can go (check out X-43A), just faster than the F-18. – j0equ1nn Mar 15 '18 at 06:25
  • 3
    @j0equ1nn Yes, I would think that military would be familiar with how weird and deceptive atmospheric phenomena might be. I can only assume that pilots always have to record and give detailed description of any potential unidentified (enemy) aircraft, but don't have access to the investigation. Therefore, they genuinely might not know the result of such an inquiry, which in turn might be secret by default, even if the explanation is mundane. – sashkello Mar 15 '18 at 06:31
  • 4
    @j0equ1nn If you read the account closely, they did not actually observe anything moving at Mach 3. They observed a radar blip in one place, sent aircraft there to check. When the aircraft got there they could not spot anything on the radar. Then they spotted another radar blip and concluded that **if** this was the same object, then it could have had to move at Mach 3 to get there in that time. So please maintain the distinction between **observed fact** and **conjecture**. As a PhD in mathematics I am sure you are well aware of the folly of making hasty assumptions based on scant facts. –  Mar 15 '18 at 06:31
  • 4
    I must also say that this account absolutely doesn't sound like a unique phenomenon to me. It is quite typical. It is always cigar- or oval- shaped, metallic (in other words, reflecting the light), moving faster and predicting every movement when you try to chase it. There are several similar accounts with plausible explanations of how these phenomena might occur outlined in wonderful books by Donald Menzel, which I highly recommend to anyone interested in atmospheric physics. – sashkello Mar 15 '18 at 06:40
  • 1
    @sashkello Thanks for the reference, I will check out Donald Menzel. I expect you're probably right about the commonality of it, this story has just brought a lot of new people into the discussion due to the recent publicity of it. – j0equ1nn Mar 15 '18 at 08:32
  • 2
    @j0equ1nn Suggestion for a better headline: "Is there any explanation of Fravor's UFO description besides 'aliens'?". If you disagree, you should explain better what you mean by "rejecting the story". –  Mar 15 '18 at 11:39
  • Welcome to Skeptics. Start with a claim. What is the claim here that you doubt? Almost all of the rest of this can be deleted. – Oddthinking Mar 15 '18 at 14:21
  • The claim should be summarised in the title. At the moment, it isn't clear what the claim is from the title. – Oddthinking Mar 15 '18 at 14:23
  • @Oddthinking Okay, thanks for the guidance. I will think about what you said and edit the post later today. – j0equ1nn Mar 15 '18 at 21:34
  • @Oddthinking I have reworked the post to be more direct about what I think of the story, and took out the section where I try to explain my motivations, as they are now much more apparent. On the other hand, I think this question may be hard to answer, so I'm not sure whether or not it fits into the communities guidelines but remain attentive to constructive criticism. – j0equ1nn Mar 15 '18 at 22:46
  • 1
    Who says it is a disinformation scheme? Link to them and quote them. – Oddthinking Mar 16 '18 at 02:46
  • @Oddthinking Okay, so the claim needs to be something made public by someone else? I will look into that, but basically this claim came up from the comments of the last time I tried to post about the topic (which I ended up deleting). – j0equ1nn Mar 16 '18 at 02:51
  • @Oddthinking I think I'm starting to understand better the structure of this SE site, thanks for your help! I'm hoping my most recent edit puts the post within the guidelines. If it does not, is there per chance another SE community where it would be appropriate, to which it could be migrated? – j0equ1nn Mar 16 '18 at 03:32
  • 1
    @j0equ1nn You go onto a website and ask the equivalent of "Hi, is the US government involved in illegally misinforming the public?". What kind of answer were you expecting: "Yes, they are... here is the proof", hm? If any such proof existed, then that would be grounds for indictment / prosecution. It would be ground for outrage, a scandal of monumental proportions. It would be a huge sensation! What then makes you think that such proof would come into light **here**? What makes you think that any such proof exists, but has been withheld, and then brought forth just because you ask for it? –  Mar 16 '18 at 12:40
  • This is still not a question that is on-topic here. There is a notable claim: that some operator said they saw a track on radar. But you've seen all the discussion on whether that is true - there is little to add. The claim that is is a "disinformation scheme" seems to be your own speculations, which are off-topic here. Your opinion that the media's interest "defies explanation" is an argument from personal incredulity and not a notable claim. – Oddthinking Mar 19 '18 at 12:13
  • @Oddthinking I'm okay with the question being closed if it is still off topic, but the claim is not entirely my own speculation (as explained in the 2nd paragraph, with links). My understanding was that claims here are typically things we expect to be debunked, so an appropriate answer would be some evidence of why it is *not* a disinformation scheme. However I understand if no further evidence either way is available. – j0equ1nn Mar 19 '18 at 18:45
  • @j0equ1nn: I appreciate that you are genuinely working to get this into shape for the site, so I am trying to see how to help. I skimmed through the Openminds.tv, To The Stars Academy, Wikipedia and BBS web sites looking for a specific quote that *this* UFO media event is the result of a deliberate disinformation campaign. I couldn't find any. – Oddthinking Mar 19 '18 at 23:25
  • @Oddthinking Oh boy okay, I'll need to take a more careful look when I'm around my computer tonight. I appreciate your taking the time to try to help. At the very least it is a good lesson on this site's conventions for the next time I want to post. – j0equ1nn Mar 19 '18 at 23:53

0 Answers0