Mysteries Department
Sign inRequest access
0

What did Fravor and Dietrich see on 14 November 2004?

Asked 26 Oct 2026 by ·4 answers·0·0 following
Four answers, none aheadNone is ahead yet. See what would settle it.

Where it stands

Four answers have been proposed. None is ahead on the evidence yet. Four are still possible. Of the one narrower question under it, none is answered yet.

Why it matters

The visual encounter is the core of the case. Four aircrew in two aircraft describe the same wingless white object over disturbed water, and the flight lead says it accelerated beyond anything he had seen⁠[1]⁠[2]. If it was a conventional object misjudged, the radar story becomes secondary; if not, it is the best-attested military UAP sighting on record.

Answers 4

Evidence: 1 for, 1 against
Still possible
Evidence: 1 for, 1 against
Still possible
Evidence: 2 for, 1 against
Still possible
None of these.
Not tested enough to call either way
Evidence: none yet
Still possible

History

  1. Office of the Director of National Intelligence puts forward: a classified US test vehicle operating in the exercise area.
  2. Whitaker: two experienced pilots in separate aircraft independently describe wingless erratic motion, which ordinary…Against: A conventional object (aircraft, drone, balloon or surface wake) whose range, size and speed the crews…
  3. Office of the Director of National Intelligence: oDNI lists US developmental programmes among five candidate categories for military UAP reports.For: A classified US test vehicle operating in the exercise area.
  4. Fravor puts forward: an aircraft or drone of unknown origin with performance outside the aircrew's experience.
  5. Fravor: no contemporaneous debrief, tape or radar record has been released to test the account.Against: An aircraft or drone of unknown origin with performance outside the aircrew's experience.
  6. Fravor: four aircrew describe the same shape, colour, absence of wings and exhaust, and sudden acceleration.For: An aircraft or drone of unknown origin with performance outside the aircrew's experience.
  7. Chasan: the crews had no reference for size or distance over open water; the figures of 40 to 45 feet and half a mile…For: A conventional object (aircraft, drone, balloon or surface wake) whose range, size and speed the crews…
  8. Dress: aARO's historical review found no evidence that any US programme accounts for the UAP cases it examined.Against: A classified US test vehicle operating in the exercise area.
  9. Asked on this site
Add evidence
1What it bears on2What you found3Where it comes from
Which answer?
Does it count for or against it?
In a sentence, what did you find?
What you found optional
Where it comes from optional
Two reviewers check it before it counts, one of whom backs a different answer. You'll hear back by email: accepted, needs changes, or a duplicate.
Propose an answer
Your answer, in a sentence
What would rule it out? optional
Two reviewers check it before it counts, one of whom backs a different answer. You'll hear back by email: accepted, needs changes, or a duplicate.
Ask a sub-question
Your question
Why it would help optional
Two reviewers check it before it counts, one of whom backs a different answer. You'll hear back by email: accepted, needs changes, or a duplicate.
Add a source
The source
What it shows about this question optional
Two reviewers check it before it counts, one of whom backs a different answer. You'll hear back by email: accepted, needs changes, or a duplicate.

Discussion 0

Add to the discussion