[HN Gopher] Famous Navy UFO video was camera glare, evidence sug...
___________________________________________________________________
Famous Navy UFO video was camera glare, evidence suggests
Author : mromanuk
Score : 207 points
Date : 2022-03-16 18:31 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (petapixel.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (petapixel.com)
| rhema wrote:
| Well, the only reason they were scrambled to begin with is that
| they had been tracking these objects for weeks using advanced
| radar. As I understand it, the radar is based on multiple
| resolutions. The active radar can point in the direction of
| objects of interest and get very very precise measurements. It's
| not just the video, its the radar data.
|
| The thing that pushed me over the edge in believing these things
| is the long podcast interview between Commander David Fravor and
| Lex Fridman.
| zardo wrote:
| > its the radar data
|
| Did the Navy release the radar data, or an analysis based on
| it?
| rhema wrote:
| Not that I know of, so I take your point there. Here's a
| related video with some radar data
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rh4QngYJG4I . In the
| interview, Frevor does talk about the radar and
| instrumentation on the plane, but it's been a while since I
| listened to it.
| avl999 wrote:
| > But a new detailed analysis by self-described debunker,
| skeptic, and UFO investigator Mick West
|
| Ignored as soon as I read the name "Mick West". The guy's brand
| is to be a debunker which in of itself is not bad but I am not
| gonna trust a video game developer's (brand aligning)
| explanations of this phenomenon compared to trained fighter
| pilots and the US Navy/Pentagon who have found no explanation of
| this phenomenon thus far.
| nwallin wrote:
| > the US Navy/Pentagon who have found no explanation of this
| phenomenon thus far.
|
| "Released no explanation to the public" != "have found no
| explanation". The DoD is simply not in a habit of releasing
| information to the public unless they're instructed to do so by
| the executive branch.
| avl999 wrote:
| They did not have an explanation as of last spring when they
| were forced to disclose everything they knew about the
| phenomenon by an act of congress. There wasn't even a
| redacted appendix.
| ssully wrote:
| Mick West has some interesting videos and does a good job
| debunking a lot of crap, but to me he is on the complete opposite
| spectrum of a UFO truther in that he doesn't seem to leave any
| room for the possibility that he might be wrong.
|
| With that said, I suggest reading this New Yorker piece [1] on
| the subject. It's actually how I came to learn about Mick. He is
| covered a bit in the story and gives decent counter points at
| certain parts.
|
| [1]: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/05/10/how-the-
| pentag...
| zionic wrote:
| What? Mick west does a terrible job, all of his arguments that
| I've seen are preposterous, and require ignoring tons of
| evidence.
| ssully wrote:
| I think I could have gone harder on my second sentence. I do
| think he has some good debunking video's, but I would agree
| with you in that he does ignore a lot of evidence. When I say
| he is on the opposite spectrum of a UFO truther, I mean that
| I don't take him serious because his only goal seems to be to
| get a debunk video out regardless of merit.
| ynniv wrote:
| What is the point of this story? Someone lacking context could
| watch this and arrive at the conclusion that "the Navy video of a
| UFO has a simple conventional explanation", which is how the
| presenter delivers his arguments. He meticulously demonstrates
| that the shape of the object which is the subject of the video is
| an artifact of camera glare from overexposure. In case you are
| not convinced, he breaks it down into four reasons, supporting
| each of them with data based on a detailed understanding of the
| system. If you are still not convinced that this shake is camera
| glare by the end of the video, I would be surprised.
|
| And yet, whether the shape of the subject is representative of
| the object or an artifact of the camera is almost irrelevant to
| whether or not this is a video that should be investigated. The
| source of the glare is clearly not part of the camera or the
| aircraft. We should not treat the silhouette of the object as
| valuable data, but it says nothing of the actual object that is
| being tracked. The presenter does not suggest this, and the post
| spins the whole event as being "debunked". I don't know why
| "debunking" things seems to have become a cottage industry, but
| there was considerable effort put into analyzing and visually
| modeling this thoroughly condescending presentation.
| xmaayy wrote:
| He literally says something to the effect of "I'm only saying
| that the glare is obscuring the true shape of the object" in
| the first minutes of the video.
| tejohnso wrote:
| Yet the title of the article says _the video_ was camera
| glare. Which doesn 't even make sense. But what it suggests
| is that the entire contents can be explained away as camera
| glare. So blame the media in this case perhaps?
| tptacek wrote:
| There is no way to watch this video and come away with the
| understanding that there was no object at all. It spends a
| tedious several minutes demonstrating the connection
| between glare and objects emitting light, and multiple
| long, tedious disclaimers that it is not arguing that there
| is no object at all in the video. You have to want it to be
| saying something else to take away a different message.
| ynniv wrote:
| Of course you can, the submitted article does exactly
| that. His emotions convey that he knows exactly what's
| going on, and he states, repeatedly, that it is lens
| flare. Rationally we can see that this is missing the
| forest for the trees, but anyone who doesn't think as
| critically will deduce that this is only a camera
| artifact. He operates this way on purpose, so that people
| who want to believe him have the proof they are looking
| for, and everyone else will quibble about meaningless
| details.
|
| _A new detailed analysis of the modern poster child for
| UFO footage makes the case that the object in the video
| is not anything other than glare on the Navy jet's gimbal
| camera system._
|
| Done. Pilots are idiots, and so are your open minded
| friends. Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk.
| tptacek wrote:
| He says literally the opposite thing, and at great,
| tedious length.
| [deleted]
| toptal wrote:
| Didn't they actually see the object on multiple radars using
| multiple types of detection methods? Assuming that's true, the
| camera glare story seems unlikely.
| netsharc wrote:
| The video states that there's something there, but its heat
| signature is causing the glare (the video is in IR). Was the
| object flying steadily and rotating weirdly throughout the
| video? You can't see how the object is flying, the smooth
| motion and weird rotation you perceive is the effect of the
| glare!
| Jerry2 wrote:
| You can try the live simulation here:
| https://www.metabunk.org/gimbal/ It's amazingly well done!
|
| Quick inspection shows that it was done with tree.js. Neat!
| orblivion wrote:
| Maybe they're just gaslighting us to keep us a safe distance from
| any certainty on this issue.
| oblib wrote:
| Interesting how so many are willing to accept "camera flare" as a
| concrete explanation.
|
| One thing that bothers me about this explanation is we know those
| pilots had a lot of experience with those systems so I'd expect
| they'd know "camera flare" when they saw it on those displays.
| But it's clear from the audio they did not recognize it as that.
| And there was more than one pilot seeing it, and from different
| angles.
|
| I'd like to hear what the pilots and ship crew members think
| about this.
| emkoemko wrote:
| you say that but there is a fighter pilot on youtube trying to
| debunk these videos but lacks any basic knowledge on how
| cameras work, while saying things like you can't focus on
| objects at different distances at the same time... he
| demonstrates this by having a camera very close to a object
| ahaha but never noticed he is in focus and so is his
| background.... :( dose not know what focal length is.. or how
| parallax works.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| The US Air force and Navy have a pretty bad track record of
| incompetent pilots. They have a history of losing numerous
| planes in training excercises, for example.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| And Mick West is a VFX artist who has a hobby of making
| debunking videos for youtube.
| RobertMiller wrote:
| > _They have a history of losing numerous planes in training
| excercises_
|
| There is a reason virtually every fighter jet ever made was
| made with ejection seats or retrofitted with them later:
| They're inherently risky aircraft, and almost impossible to
| bail out of.
|
| If you have some actual statistics that show that USN and
| USAF pilots crash their jets at a greater rate than other
| nations, I'd like to see it. The absolute number of crashes
| tells nothing because some countries (Russia) barely fly
| their jets at all.
| ARandomerDude wrote:
| Incredible speed + low altitude flying + statically unstable
| aircraft + sensors + weapons + offense + defense +
| communications + ...
|
| Yeah. These guys must really suck.
| tablespoon wrote:
| > The US Air force and Navy have a pretty bad track record of
| incompetent pilots. They have a history of losing numerous
| planes in training excercises, for example.
|
| Or flying planes planes for the military is just really hard,
| and you're holding them to an unreasonable standard.
|
| Even the best programmer writes software with bugs,
| especially when they're not playing it safe and just writing
| fizzbuzz over and over again.
| gcthomas wrote:
| I'd be wary of taking a pilot's subjective impressions as
| superior to a technical analysis of the optical system.
|
| Pilots may be competent users of these systems, but they are
| not experts at anything beyond flying their missions, in
| general. Experience as users is not the same as expertise under
| unusual conditions.
| zionic wrote:
| https://youtu.be/ro29w4ESw44
|
| Has an actual fighter pilot's reaction.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| Actual video from the pilot
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tyw4JA00AMc
| oblib wrote:
| That was pretty painful to watch with the fast forward going
| on for so long. I didn't try to take that in.
|
| Seems to me like our gov's own investigation would've found
| gimbal glare to be the culprit if that were the case. But
| they didn't. What they said is:
|
| "Of the 144 reports we are dealing with here, we have no
| clear indications that there is any non-terrestrial
| explanation for them -- but we will go wherever the data
| takes us..."
|
| And:
|
| "We absolutely do believe what we're seeing are not simply
| sensor artifacts."
|
| [https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/25/politics/ufo-report-
| pentagon-...]
| thjkgfgrrioppo wrote:
| Believe the experts!
|
| Some people want real proof, not having to rely on believing
| experts.
|
| I guess it is a chasm across society. Some people want to be
| able to believe.
| Johnny555 wrote:
| Isn't he only debunking the image that appeared on the video as
| being glare as opposed to the actual object? So the object is
| real, but what appeared in the video is glare, not an actual
| representation of the object?
|
| _West contends that what is being seen in the video is actually
| infrared glare that hides a hot object behind it and only rotates
| in the way it does because the camera rotates when tracking the
| target from left to right._
| notfbi wrote:
| UFO-ers were using things like the rotation speed as definitive
| evidence of some like other-worldly advanced technology.
| Demonstrating that it was the glare/gimble brings it back into
| the realm of just a normal far-away plane. It also casts doubt
| on the expertise of the pilots/military who didn't realize what
| happened.
| nwallin wrote:
| Correct.
|
| IR video tends to bloom. If the object is hot enough, (for
| instance, a jet engine exhaust, a burning vehicle, a refinery
| flare...) you'll have a blob of smudge around/behind it on the
| video. The video is contending that the rotation of what is
| seen on the video isn't the object itself rotating. Instead,
| the blob is elongated as a result of glare/lens
| flare/diffraction gradient, and this elongation is aligned with
| the rotational axis of the gimbal. As the gimbal nears gimbal
| lock, it is forced to rapidly rotate to continue tracking the
| object. This rapid rotation of the gimbal causes the glare to
| rapidly rotate.
|
| I do have a background in IR video, gimbals, and translating
| between gimbal telemetry and real life coordinates and the
| explanation in the video looks good to me.
| stouset wrote:
| Yes, that is correct. There was still an unidentified flying
| object, but the remaining aspects of its behavior do not
| require invoking advanced unknown technology to explain.
| lamontcg wrote:
| > Evidence Suggests Famous Navy UFO Video Was Camera Glare
| Vixel wrote:
| The narrator sounds like an alien. That analysis is what they
| WANT us to think.
| progre wrote:
| Direct link to the source
|
| https://youtu.be/qsEjV8DdSbs
| darkhorn wrote:
| Could it be a ball lightning?
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_lightning
| phendrenad2 wrote:
| Nitpick: This isn't "evidence", this is "analysis". The title of
| the video itself is "Gimbal UFO - A New Analysis". A photography
| magazine can't be expected to understand the difference though, I
| guess.
| SubiculumCode wrote:
| From the first I thought it looked like a bug smashed on the
| gimble lens because of how it orated relative to the horizon.
| Fascinating explanation why it could be glare from an actual
| object.
| Maursault wrote:
| Why, at the time, were Navy pilots behaving so incredulously, and
| why did they not pull up along-side the UFO and simply eyeball
| its identification? And why did they _let it get away?_ What is
| it that Navy pilots are supposed to be doing when they 're
| inscrutably _not pursuing_ possible unidentified threats?
| deutschew wrote:
| It is bewildering that they expect people to actually believe
| intelligent people to discount the IR footage from the F-18 just
| based on this article that reads like the "it was a weather
| balloon" trope we often get whenever we ask questions.
|
| edit: holy crap, there are actually lot of people on HN buying
| it!
| MauranKilom wrote:
| Do you have some factual counterpoint to the analysis, or just
| "the conclusions sounds like something I don't want to hear"?
| mikeInAlaska wrote:
| Listen to the Navy pilot himself
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aB8zcAttP1E
| [deleted]
| mzvkxlcvd wrote:
| disinfo
| imwillofficial wrote:
| Camera glare is often known to disable ships and cause small
| fleets to mobilize to investigate
| NyxWulf wrote:
| So the anomaly that the carrier group tracked, then scrambled
| fighter jets for. The object that four different pilots saw
| visually, and was confirmed on multiple different sensors. That
| was camera glare?
|
| The video is only one piece of the evidence. The pilots are
| trained, and other sensor systems confirmed what the camera was
| showing. This analysis is pretty flimsy.
| tshaddox wrote:
| > the gimbal UFO video almost certainly shows a glare that
| hides the actual object
|
| This is in the first 15 seconds of the YouTube video.
| [deleted]
| tptacek wrote:
| I don't know much about this whole story (I'm not a UFO person)
| and am learning most of what I know about it from this video
| and this thread, but: the people saying that this video depicts
| an actual object rotating in the sky appear to be making the
| extraordinary claim here: the connection between the rotation
| and the camera system seems compelling. The horizon is moving
| as the camera/plane moves; the object is not moving. You can't
| refute that with "these are highly trained fighter pilots": the
| horizon is moving with the camera, the object isn't. Training's
| got nothing to do with it. The shape we're looking at is, in
| part, an artifact of the camera, unless the aliens are somehow
| reprogramming the camera to fuck with us.
| user-the-name wrote:
| cma wrote:
| > The pilots are trained
|
| Fraver (not sure he was one of the ones in this incident) has a
| history of UFO pranks, shutting down engines and gliding over
| campfires then lighting up after burners when right over them,
| explicitly to give a UFO experience, and someone found a
| contemporaneous report of him doing it, so it wasn't just a
| story.
| Teever wrote:
| Source?
| ceejayoz wrote:
| He told the story to Joe Rogan:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRM8AMrqqsc (at 3:57)
| [deleted]
| cma wrote:
| What ceejayoz linked below
| tunap wrote:
| Jets do this regularly over the Colorado River and various,
| otherwise desolate gathering places around AZ. I've
| witnessed such shenanigans a dozen or so times over the
| last 3 decades. One jet distracts onlookers while another
| sneaks up to buzz low over the deck(or, perhaps it's just
| incidental to their training Ops, IDK). These maneuvers are
| tests of skill, technology & amusement.
| MarkMarine wrote:
| As a former member of USMC Aviation, it's valid to point out
| that skilled navy pilots can have some of the same range of
| differences in belief, action and motivation that the general
| populace does. I flew with a pilot on a transport helicopter
| that was blasting Eye of the Tiger and taking every turn at
| maximum bank, constantly looking for AA to get to fire at us
| so he could call in F-18s and watch the fireworks. Some of
| them are cranks.
|
| BUT... I don't think any US military pilot expects their
| cockpit recordings or FLIR video to be public at some later
| time, I'm not sure what the motivation would be to lie about
| this stuff. The harm to you as a respected pilot would be
| fairly severe, and you'd have to get your co-pilot to go
| along with it.
|
| "Three may keep a secret if two of them are dead." - Benjamin
| Franklin
| outworlder wrote:
| > shutting down engines and gliding over campfires then
| lighting up after burners when right over them
|
| I find it very, very, very hard to believe that a fighter
| pilot would _shut down_ his engines in flight, at night, even
| more so if it's for a stunt.
|
| Slightly more believable if he went to idle, and then full
| military power. Slightly.
| justsomehnguy wrote:
| There is enough videos of F-18s doing 'push the throttle
| and bank' in a _level flight_ on YouTube. It 's fast, but
| it's not instantenious. And as an arm-chair pilot I can say
| what a multiton plane doesn't stay at the altitude with the
| engines at idle.
|
| Also the last weekend I caught an 40" bass.
| bostonsre wrote:
| So your are saying the one with evidence was a prank because
| he screwed around on a training mission?
| stouset wrote:
| The entire point of this a analysis is that the video
| _isn't_ evidence of anything extraordinary.
|
| Given other potentially questionable behavior around this
| subject matter, yes, that absolutely calls their
| credibility into question.
| RobertMiller wrote:
| _" Known prankster pulls another prank"_ vs _" Known
| prankster says aliens are here and you should believe him
| because he's a professional."_
|
| Hmm.
| bostonsre wrote:
| Have you listened to the joe rogan episode where he talks
| about it?
|
| It seems a little ridiculous to compare the one where he
| turned his engine off and on one time at night over a
| couple campers to the episode where multiple pilots see
| it, with multiple sensors seeing it from planes and from
| ships. He engaged in horseplay once, therefor anything he
| ever says should not be believed seems lame.
| cma wrote:
| He explicitly said he did those as UFO pranks.
| a9h74j wrote:
| > the carrier group tracked
|
| Naive question: If a carrier group cannot, in essentially real-
| time, document _three dimensional_ trajectories at this point
| (four if you include speed), what possible defense can they
| claim to have against evasive incoming missiles, etc.
| chrisco255 wrote:
| Carriers are most likely partly obsoleted by hypersonic
| missiles that travel and maneuver at mach 20 (which Russia
| and China have), in addition to 100 megaton nuclear torpedoes
| that travel at 120mph (which Russia has).
|
| https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/03/russias-new-
| pos...
|
| https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2019/10/14/will-ground-
| bas...
| smachiz wrote:
| I mean... assuming the Russians have anything that works is
| probably not a great assumption based on their performance
| in Ukraine.
|
| But I think they provide overlapping, but different, roles.
| But missiles and torpedoes is why aircraft carriers travel
| in carrier groups that have defensive capabilities against
| torpedoes and missiles.
| chrisco255 wrote:
| Yes, Russia has the largest nuclear stockpile in the
| world, they absolutely work and it's unwise to base your
| opinions on their nuclear and tactical capabilities based
| on their slow advance into Ukraine.
|
| The Poseidon is a 100 megaton nuclear torpedo.
|
| It doesn't need to get anywhere near a carrier group to
| knock out the entire group. It is twice as powerful as
| the largest nuke ever detonated (at 57megatons) and a
| Russian sub can carry four of these torpedoes:
|
| "All buildings in the village of Severny (both wooden and
| brick), located 55 km (34 mi) from ground zero within the
| Sukhoy Nos test range, were destroyed. In districts
| hundreds of kilometers from ground zero wooden houses
| were destroyed, stone ones lost their roofs, windows,
| doors, and radio communications were interrupted for
| almost one hour. One participant in the test saw a bright
| flash through dark goggles and felt the effects of a
| thermal pulse even at a distance of 270 kilometres (170
| mi). The heat from the explosion could have caused third
| degree burns 100 km (62 mi) away from ground zero. A
| shock wave was observed in the air at Dikson settlement
| 700 km (430 mi) away; windowpanes were partially broken
| to distances of 900 kilometres (560 mi)."
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba
| smachiz wrote:
| chrisco255 wrote:
| I'm a tenth generation American. Pointing out facts is
| called being a realist. And I'm not impressed with a
| bunch of armchair generals that think that war with
| Russia would be easy because their Tik Tok feed told them
| so.
| smachiz wrote:
| VyperCard wrote:
| If it exists. If it works. If if it
| mcast wrote:
| It wouldn't make much sense for Russia to show their
| cards and use modern war tech on Ukraine, a country with
| a (relatively) primitive military. They're barely even
| using fighter jets.
| RobertMiller wrote:
| > _They're barely even using fighter jets._
|
| Maybe because they've barely been training those pilots
| and know the planes would likely be lost if used above
| Ukraine? Pilots in the Russian Air Force have supposedly
| been averaging less than 100 flight hours a year, which
| is next to nothing.
| justsomehnguy wrote:
| With all their operations in (and supporting) Syria I
| would doubt the number. It is not the amount of USAF
| pilots, but should be more than that.
| smachiz wrote:
| If you think their strategy is to lull someone else into
| attacking them, I guess?
|
| Occam's razor is more likely - the west vastly
| overestimated their capability practically the entirety
| of the Cold War, and you're doing it again now.
| water8 wrote:
| Except for the fact that they are
|
| https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2022/03/14/u
| s/r...
| [deleted]
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| Obsolete is a binary term, not scalar.
|
| Carrier effectiveness and utility is diminished by some
| weapon systems, but they are still effective for many roles
| and purposes.
| outworlder wrote:
| > Carriers are most likely partly obsoleted by hypersonic
| missiles that travel and maneuver at mach 20
|
| That's assuming they can actually hit and inflict
| sufficient damage.
|
| Also, you need to re-read your own sources.
|
| > 100 megaton nuclear torpedoes that travel at 120mph
| (which Russia has).
|
| The article is estimating that it's at most 2 megatons
| (still a lot, but 50x smaller) and that it's NOT
| supercavitating, so it would not travel at 120mph.
|
| The other article does not support the conclusion that
| carriers are obsolete, at all. It poses the question, but
| does not answer it.
| [deleted]
| water8 wrote:
| Why is china building carriers then? Hypersonic weapons
| still need to know where to go. Theres a reason an ICBM
| which flies upwards of mach 20 is ineffective against
| carriers
| chrisco255 wrote:
| They are good at projecting power against lesser foes in
| a sub-nuclear confrontation. I think if we went to all
| out war against Russia and/or China our carriers would be
| some of the first casualties.
| [deleted]
| thereddaikon wrote:
| Its a common assumption made by layman that the existence
| of a weapon that can kill a system means its now obsolete.
| That is incorrect.
|
| Systems do not become obsolete because they can be killed.
| They become obsolete when they no longer serve utility.
| Either something else does the job better, more efficiently
| or effectively or the nature of war has changed to the
| degree that its now irrelevant.
|
| This mistake is most often made with Tanks and Carriers for
| some reason. The existence of Javelin ATGMs does not mean
| tanks are obsolete. And the existence of hypersonic AshMs
| does not make carriers obsolete. Those weapons do not
| replace the functionality of tanks and carriers.
|
| Its like the common pop history myth that machineguns made
| horse cavalry obsolete in the first world war. It did not.
| Cavalry lasted through the war. Their tactics definitely
| had to change and adapt. And they were certainly used far
| more sparingly due to their low survivability but offensive
| cavalry weren't rendered obsolete until tanks came around.
| And horses in general weren't obsolete until armies became
| fully mechanized and replaced them with trucks. Some armies
| didn't manage that until after WW2.
|
| Likewise the Battleship was not obsoleted because carrier
| aircraft could kill it easily. It was obsoleted because
| carrier aircraft and later smart weapons meant combat now
| happened over the horizon and those big guns weren't
| contributing to fleet actions anymore
|
| Its been possible to kill a tank since literally the first
| battle they were employed. Ballsy German artillerymen
| learned that British tanks were not immune to a direct hit
| from a field gun fired over open sights. And Carriers have
| always been vulnerable to antiship weapons. Be it torpedoes
| from a sub, dumb bombs from an aircraft or fancy high tech
| missiles today.
| marcusverus wrote:
| I hope you'll excuse some pushback from another layperson
| --isn't the situation with Aircraft Carriers
| categorically different? In the examples you provided
| above (Cavalry, Tanks, and Battleships), there has never
| been a push-button solution to eliminating _every single
| unit_ in the service of the enemy. Given the technology
| mentioned by GP, the small number of Carriers in service
| and the utter impossibility of hiding them, it would
| appear that such a solution _does_ exist for Carriers.
|
| So while it seems to be true that Aircraft Carriers are
| not obsolete in peacetime or in a conflict with minor
| powers, aren't they obsolete in the context for which
| they were created--namely, war with another great power?
| pavelrub wrote:
| No. Because you have to consider:
|
| 1. Current or future means of intercepting hypersonic
| missiles.
|
| 2. The ability to disable or reduce the enemy's ability
| of launching hypersonic missiles, or of pinpointing and
| accurately tracking the exact location of aircraft
| carriers.
| colordrops wrote:
| It was also tracked on radar.
| beebeepka wrote:
| Weather balloon launched by swamp gas burp
| Miner49er wrote:
| Do you have links to reading more about this? The video saying
| it was glare made it seem like the object was very far from the
| jet, much farther then the naked eye could see. Was it closer
| at some point?
| nabla9 wrote:
| That "four different pilots" stuff has not been confirmed as
| far as I know. All people involved in these stories are
| hustlers, including that one ex-pilot who peddles the story.
|
| You must look at every statement they make separately. They
| give one fact that can be verified and then they tie lies or
| unverified stuff on that.
|
| btw. Luis Elizondo is has not been charge of any UFO stuff.
| https://theintercept.com/2019/06/01/ufo-unidentified-history...
| TMWNN wrote:
| >Luis Elizondo is has not been charge of any UFO stuff.
|
| The late Senator Harry Reid of Nevada disagreed with you.
| <https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/politics/article/luis-
| elizondo...>
| bvbrandon wrote:
| Curious to hear your thoughts on this
| https://twitter.com/gadinbc/status/1386872125835812864?s=21
| [deleted]
| bostonsre wrote:
| Have any of them made any money from this? What is the
| hustle?
| nabla9 wrote:
| Oh yes.
|
| To the Stars Academy of Arts & Sciences (media &
| entertainment company) makes this stuff up and sells it.
|
| https://tothestars.media/
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_the_Stars_(company)
| bostonsre wrote:
| The navy pilots are members of that organization?
| TechBro8615 wrote:
| > btw. Luis Elizondo is has not been charge of any UFO stuff
|
| I have no conviction on the UFO phenomenon other than it
| would be cool if aliens exist, and even cooler if they were
| already on Earth. Still, I can't get enough of it - I
| especially love thinking about the most epistemically
| offensive conspiracy theories, like "the moon is a spaceship"
| or "Antarctica is an alien base." I sometimes fall asleep to
| _Ancient Aliens_.
|
| But, fact is, the only government agents with any "authority"
| in this "movement" - which became especially fervent around
| the dissolution of Q-Anon, btw - are people who worked for
| DIA in Information Operations. That is, their specialty is in
| manipulating the public, not alien technology.
|
| The "Lue anon" moniker about sums it up. My theory is the
| recent reinvigoration of the UFO movement is an attempt by US
| intel agencies to pre-emptively herd the most impressionable
| people with their own controlled conspiracy, rather than
| allow a hostile actor to manipulate them during the next
| election.
|
| Also, I predicted this 10 months ago, the last time
| "disclosure" was imminent, in a comment [0] that I think has
| aged well so far.
|
| [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27339120
| likeabbas wrote:
| ^This is the key point. These objects have been tracked on
| radar, FLIR, and multiple pilot witness testimony off both
| coasts for decades now. Attempting to debunk a single one of
| these three leaked videos is pointless because they do not show
| the entire context of the events happening.
|
| I implore everyone to watch these two interviews with
| Christopher Melon, the former Deputy Secretary of Defense for
| Intelligence. And to read the DNI report on UAPs It will change
| your entire perception of these incidents and show you to view
| them as true national security issues.
|
| 1.
| https://open.spotify.com/episode/2V0uWX1C4m8xEL0HHYqbnE?si=e...
|
| 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdxcgS4spRM&t=1393s
|
| 3.
| https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Prelima...
|
| There are unknown objects flying with impunity in our
| restricted military airspace, some that exhibit characteristics
| that nothing of human origin can accomplish. This should
| terrify you.
|
| Edit: Why the downvotes? Please explain to me your logic. I'm
| just listing things that people with credibility in our
| government said, including the Department of National
| Intelligence.
| [deleted]
| willidiots wrote:
| The "saucer" shape and its rotation were IR glare, that's the
| point of the video. He's very clear that he's NOT debunking the
| existence of an object. The exhaust of a jet engine, or another
| high-heat signature, could cause such glare.
|
| AFAICT no pilots saw this shape with their naked eye. They were
| miles away from the target and relying on what they saw via
| their sensors.
| subsubzero wrote:
| So actually Commander Fravor saw the object with his own
| eyes, he is one of the pilots who was sent in to engage the
| craft after it appeared on radar from the carrier group, here
| is a detailed video of him talking about the incident with
| Lex Fridman(AI reasearcher - MIT) on his podcast -
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aB8zcAttP1E
| tptacek wrote:
| I'm literally learning about this "gimball video" from this
| video, so I don't have all the background, but the video
| we're looking at wasn't taken by David Fravor; it was taken
| by Chad Underwood? In the video we're looking at, we don't
| so much have to guess how far away the object was; the
| camera video itself indicates it. It's too far away to
| discern shape and rotation accurately with a naked eye. The
| video goes into detail about this, and the details aren't
| complicated.
| recuter wrote:
| Spoken like a true none believer. I shun thee. Even the
| pentagon said they can't explain the UFOs, clearly they
| are preparing society for a big reveal. ;)
| pgreenwood wrote:
| David Fravor was talking about the Tic-Tac video which was
| over ten years before the Gimbal video in the article.
| mountainriver wrote:
| Camera glare my friend, case closed
| csa wrote:
| > Camera glare my friend, case closed
|
| I came here to say this.
|
| There will be no further discussion.
| zmgsabst wrote:
| This analysis even admits that there's an object required for
| the "glare" to exist.
|
| This analysis doesn't reject an actual object being tracked: it
| confirms it and describes it as one that causes IR glare!
| NyxWulf wrote:
| So the claim is...these highly trained pilots and the other
| sensor systems didn't realize that objects cause IR glare,
| but this guy did. Case closed.
| thesuitonym wrote:
| It's not the pilots job to theorize on whether the object
| is glare or not, just to describe what he's seeing. This is
| one plausible explanation, not THE explanation. There is
| still a UFO there, the video is just saying it probably
| doesn't look like what we see on screen.
|
| If you're unwilling to even entertain that this might be a
| possibility because you want to believe... I guess do what
| you want.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| Yes. This happened multiple times. There was an incident
| where the tree-blade bokeh of a NVD was mistaken for a UFO
| once, for example.
| stouset wrote:
| I'm quite confident that most people here are going to find
| a calm, measured, and thorough explanation of the observed
| phenomenon more credible than a snarky and instinctive
| dismissal that doesn't even bother to address a single one
| of the clearly demonstrated points in the analysis.
| tablespoon wrote:
| > So the claim is...these highly trained pilots and the
| other sensor systems didn't realize that objects cause IR
| glare, but this guy did. Case closed.
|
| And frankly the "this guy" appears to be someone with no
| expertise and who is strongly biased towards particular
| investigatory outcomes:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mick_West:
|
| > Mick West is a British science writer, skeptical
| investigator, and retired video game programmer. He is the
| creator of the websites Contrail Science and Metabunk, and
| he investigates and debunks pseudoscientific claims and
| conspiracy theories such as chemtrails and UFOs.
|
| Not to say he isn't right in this case, but I'm equality
| unenthusiastic about "skeptics" like that as I am about
| conspiracy theorists.
|
| Edit: on second thought, I'm somewhat _more_ unenthusiastic
| "skeptics" like that. Conspiracy theorists can at least be
| entertaining sometimes, while "skeptics" tend to just bore
| you with self-assured arrogance while they take pot shots
| at low-hanging fruit.
| Talanes wrote:
| > Not to say he isn't right in this case, but I'm
| equality unenthusiastic about "skeptics" like that as I
| am about conspiracy theorists.
|
| Yeah, it can be interesting to hear a dubunking from
| someone with an actual background in the field, but
| someone who's whole schtick is debunking is just as
| motivated to prove things wrong as the conspiracy
| theorists are to prove things right.
| d35007 wrote:
| > Conspiracy theorists can at least be entertaining
| sometimes, while "skeptics" tend to just bore you with
| self-assured arrogance while they take pot shots at low-
| hanging fruit.
|
| I don't know about skeptics in general, but I found Mr.
| West's video to be pretty entertaining. He built some
| pretty impressive-looking simulations to support his
| claims.
|
| I think conspiracy theories can be interesting and
| entertaining, but a lot of their theorists are kinda
| pathetic.
| msla wrote:
| > Conspiracy theorists can at least be entertaining
| sometimes
|
| Right up until they're sure that there's a child
| molestation ring in the basement of a pizza parlor that
| doesn't have a basement, and someone goes and shoots up
| the place because the conspiracy theory was so damn
| entertaining.
| tablespoon wrote:
| That's exactly why I said "sometimes." It might have been
| more precise to mean occasionally, but the clear intended
| meaning was that it was a minority of the time.
| [deleted]
| RobertMiller wrote:
| bostonsre wrote:
| This analysis is saying it's likely 10 miles away, that
| doesn't track with the other evidence, does it?
| stouset wrote:
| What other evidence is this inconsistent with?
| colordrops wrote:
| RADAR and visual confirmation.
| stouset wrote:
| I'd be floored if the radar data didn't back this up. A
| carrier group would have scrambled fighters well before
| anything unidentified got within a hundred miles, much
| less ten.
|
| Visual confirmation I don't find remotely compelling.
| Besides the notorious general unreliability of human
| observers, humans simply cannot distinguish between
| small, nearby objects traveling slowly and large, far
| objects traveling quickly without additional contextual
| clues (e.g., a tiny plane-shaped object in the sky is
| probably the latter). Factor in that they were validating
| their observations against a sensor displaying a
| misleading image--in other words, providing incorrect
| contextual clues--and I think it's not hard to call into
| question the accuracy of any visual claims.
| bostonsre wrote:
| It was picked up on radar over several different days and
| a training mission was scrubbed so that they could go
| investigate what they saw on radar.
|
| You don't think humans could get better at judging
| distance of objects with practice? It seems like if any
| humans on earth could reliably do it, it would be
| seasoned fighter pilots that have thousands of hours of
| experience doing that exact thing.
| scoopertrooper wrote:
| Got a source on that?
|
| I feel like people just want to believe. But this is a
| pretty satisfying explanation.
| cronix wrote:
| Here's a 60 Minutes piece discussing it:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBtMbBPzqHY
|
| Here's a 4 hour interview with the pilot, David Fravor,
| on Lex Fridman's show where he goes into much more detail
| than you'll probably read elsewhere:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aB8zcAttP1E
|
| This wasn't just a single radar. It was an AEGIS system
| compromised of multiple ships with state of the art
| radars, multiple plane radars, and visual confirmation by
| several pilots. They were tracking it for multiple days.
| thereddaikon wrote:
| I didn't think the radar track was at the same time was
| it? I thought the Tico's tracked it with the SPY-1 and
| they sent F-18s to investigate who then tracked it with
| the FLIR and visually.
|
| Without a reference point you are unlikely to be able to
| guess the distance of an aircraft, especially an unknown
| one.
| stouset wrote:
| Exactly. Zero of the GPs objections are inconsistent with
| this explanation. The carrier group tracked an unknown object
| and scrambled fighters to investigate. The pilots may have
| visually observed the object, but it would have been too far
| away to really ascertain any visual detail. Instead they
| relied on infrared sensors which... suffered from glare, and
| so rendered incorrect visuals for the object. Its strange
| shape and rotational behavior are now explained.
|
| What remains is still an unidentified flying object, but one
| whose behavior is reasonably mundane and doesn't require
| advanced technology to explain.
| adriand wrote:
| We also need to be really honest about what we _want_ this
| to be, and how that desire influences what we believe about
| it. I personally _want_ this to be an alien spacecraft,
| because that 's super interesting and exciting. I think the
| same is true of lots of other people. Unfortunately, there
| are much more mundane explanations which fit the evidence
| much better.
| birdyrooster wrote:
| Why do you want it to be alien spacecraft? Are you some
| sort of glutton for punishment?
| mark-r wrote:
| If there really are aliens out there, wouldn't you like
| to have some proof of it?
| JaimeThompson wrote:
| Given how horribly interactions between more
| technologically advanced and lesser technologically
| advanced societies seem to harm the lesser ones I'm not
| sure it would turn out well for humanity.
| sterlind wrote:
| if the aliens don't annihilate us, maybe they'd be
| willing to teach us some physics?
| shadowgovt wrote:
| And in the realm of mundane objects that may create very
| strange radar and visual patterns, we have our choice.
|
| Space Data Corporation was operating as early as 1997.
| Their product is radio communications provided by balloon.
| IIUC, normally those balloons are tethered, but if a tether
| snapped and one got away and was caught in a high-altitude
| crosswind, you'd have a mostly-metal object catching
| sunlight and throwing it in weird ways as it tumbled.
| gfodor wrote:
| The gimbal video is not a video of the object from the Nimitz
| incident. There _is_ a video of that but it's less compelling
| in terms of evidence, but also afaik not cleanly debunked. (I
| think it's called FLIR?)
| [deleted]
| StanislavPetrov wrote:
| >This analysis is pretty flimsy.
|
| Flimsy is an extremely generous and flattering word if you know
| anything about the details of this case or the testimony of the
| Navy's top pilots who witnessed and tracked this object from
| different vantage points both visually and with instruments.
| jmyeet wrote:
| I honestly don't know what to make of these observations other
| than I'm utterly convinced they're not alien, super high tech or
| break the laws of physics (eg inertia). There was no alien crash
| in Roswell. I also file believe any government is competent
| enough for the claimed cover up and associated psyops.
|
| What I do find interesting is the overlap between people who buy
| into various conspiracy theories and people who are religious,
| were religious or would otherwise be likely to be religious.
|
| There's some fascinating psychology here and I think it boils
| down to a combination of wishful thinking and the comfort derived
| from there being a Grand Plan rather than just a collection of
| random stuff that just happens.
|
| "Can't be explained" is typically "hasn't been explained yet".
| Lack of an explanation is nothing more than that. Extraordinary
| claims require extraordinary evidence.
|
| I approach this from the other direction. Given the huge benefits
| of a Dyson Swarm and the fact that it seems to require no exotic
| materials and no more physics it looks increasingly likely that
| we are very alone in the Milky Way and even if we aren't it
| requires an awful lot of hubris to suggest a species would spend
| the considerable effort and tens of thousands of years to come
| here and hide.
|
| Like this is Main Character Syndrome at its finest.
| playcache wrote:
| The problem with your comment is you just lumped together a
| string of un-credible events and then summarise you're not
| convinced. To be frank Roswell and psyops (whatever that is)
| would not be enough to utterly convince me too. What I do find
| very interesting though is credible recent eye witness
| testimonies coming from US Navy pilots and the work at Harvard
| University for the Galileo Project, along with the other many
| recent activities around the study of UAPs (whatever they might
| be).
|
| The problem as I see it with this area is it's been far too
| stigmatised, so no researchers would ever dare touch it for
| fear of being labelled conspiracy theory believing nutcases.
| That sentiment is now dying off thankfully and we can start to
| find out what on earth is going on.
| xdennis wrote:
| I'm surprised you're more convinced by eye witness
| testimonies. People are notoriously unreliable. If anything,
| this glare is better proof of green men than just talk.
| president wrote:
| I think a lot of people just find the topic of conspiracy
| theories interesting and entertaining. You don't need to hate
| on them for what is essentially a hobby.
| honkdaddy wrote:
| The Dyson Swarm is more or less a science fiction concept. Is
| its lack of existence really your reason for believing we're
| alone in the universe?
|
| You seem keen to make fun of dogmatic people but attaching a
| hypothetical concept which is so trivial and fringe to your
| mental model seems like pretty dogmatic behavior. If you'd
| never heard of a Dyson Swarm, like the vast, vast majority of
| people haven't, would your view of extraterrestrial life have
| significantly changed?
| user3939382 wrote:
| > wishful thinking and the comfort derived from there being a
| Grand Plan
|
| You may not have meant this by your comment, but in general I
| find a related analysis common among atheists, that religious
| people believe what they do because it feels good. I find
| that's often wrong, and when generally applied condescending,
| as if atheists are simply more emotionally mature. On the
| contrary many religious people will tell you they believe what
| they do because it seems to them to be true.
|
| > Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
|
| One might consider the existence of the universe extraordinary
| evidence (for the existence of God).
|
| That said I think we can mostly agree that based on what we
| know so far, "aliens" is a fairly implausible explanation for
| any given unexplained phenomenon. Where ever you fall on that
| debate, I don't think it has anything to do with religious
| beliefs except as far as the biases of the people who conduct
| these psychology studies goes.
| [deleted]
| water8 wrote:
| There is a high correlation between atheists and arrogance
| quesera wrote:
| There's a high correlation between arrogance and _anyone_
| who wants you to believe as they do.
|
| This applies to all of the most visible proselytizers of
| religion, politics, economics, operating systems, and text
| editors, among others.
| bratwurst3000 wrote:
| Same said about arrogance and theist. Most religions are
| based on beeing something special and not a shitload of
| atoms nobody will remember as time pase by
| mardifoufs wrote:
| I disagree. Religion usually involves deifying a entity
| that you consider to be superior, _because_ it is not
| human. As an example, the word Islam literally means
| "submission" in reference to submitting to God. I'm not
| sure how that's arrogant. If anything being just a
| creature of god inherently means that we're nothing
| special in the grand scheme of things.
| ssklash wrote:
| I think you hit on the key part of conspiracy thinking. It
| doesn't seem like a coincidence that many of the most
| conspiracy minded are also extremely religious, in the US
| anyway. I don't know anything about conspiracy thinking in the
| context of Islam or Hinduism, for example.
|
| It seems like the tendency to accept a higher power in control
| of your life and the world leads to believing in other earthly
| powers being able to exert vast control over the world.
| vmception wrote:
| In France, it was also deeply religion people of Christian or
| Muslim faith who felt is was their _duty_ to tell me about
| the shadow groups controlling the world. The best part was
| that _these_ shadow groups were all French, based in Paris.
| ssklash wrote:
| I think they must be wrong, since I have it on good
| evidence from my deeply-religious and conspiracy-minded
| family that the shadow groups are _US based_.
|
| But seriously, I assume all these types of people have this
| sort of localized, my-version-is-the-right-version
| theories, since they do the exact same thing with their
| religion.
| jl6 wrote:
| > Given the huge benefits of a Dyson Swarm and the fact that it
| seems to require no exotic materials and no more physics it
| looks increasingly likely that we are very alone in the Milky
| Way
|
| There's still a huge engineering gap between our current tech
| and the theoretical possibility of a Dyson Swarm. I don't find
| it _at all_ implausible that such a thing would need too much
| energy, effort, collective will, or some other resource, to
| make it practical. There could still be plenty of stealthy sub-
| Dyson civilizations, or even supra-Dyson civilizations that
| have found it in their interest not to be detectable.
| staticman2 wrote:
| "Given the huge benefits of a Dyson Swarm and the fact that it
| seems to require no exotic materials and no more physics"
|
| Since we haven't been able to build such a thing I think it's
| fair to say it requires something or other that's exotic to us.
| oldstrangers wrote:
| You can't really extrapolate being alone in the universe from
| "aliens aren't visiting us." The fact that we exist at all,
| especially as a random occurrence of events, would suggest it's
| not that bizarre of an event. If we were single celled
| organisms having this conversation, then yeah, life outside of
| earth would seem more unlikely.
|
| But we have 4.543 billion years worth of evidence showing that
| life REALLY likes to live. To get from a single celled organism
| to me typing to you over the internet tells me there's probably
| something universal to this process.
|
| To me it's a lot more "Main Character Syndrome" to suggest we
| are wholly unique and alone in the universe. We are the special
| chosen species that made it out of an infinite number of
| probabilities. Sounds insane.
| tunap wrote:
| AC Clarke posited perhaps extra-terrestrial life came, they
| observed & they quarantined our corner of the galaxy to
| inhibit the escape of slavery, murder & environmental
| destruction.
| DennisP wrote:
| For all we know, it takes a whole universe banging molecules
| together before metabolizing self-replicating life randomly
| arises. If it has only emerged one time in the entire
| universe, nothing would look different to us than it does
| right now.
|
| Or maybe it happens all the time. But with only one sample,
| we have no data either way.
| oldstrangers wrote:
| > But with only one sample, we have no data either way.
|
| Sure we do, that one instance of life pushes the needle in
| favor of life. A fun exercise is to imagine or visualize
| the concept of nothingness, as far as you can take it.
| Eventually you realize even the "idea of nothingness"
| negates the meaning of "nothingness." You reach a paradox
| in awareness that you're incapable of resolving because to
| do so would mean the idea didn't exist in the first place.
| Applying it to life, the existence of life negates the
| existence of no-life, and increases the probability in our
| favor.
|
| Functionally I think life is more commonplace than anyone
| realizes, and we're probably just incapable of
| understanding life outside of our perception of reality.
| jmyeet wrote:
| So we only have one data point of a planet producing what
| will quite possibly be a spacefaring civilization or, in
| the very least, one able to comprehend as such.
|
| But if you accept that the Dyson Swarms are a likely
| outcome then we have a while bunch of negative data points
| in systems within even thousands of light years of us.
|
| That then brings into focus the hypothesis about Dyson
| Swarm. Such a thing can be built incrementally, requires no
| material stronger than stainless steel and requires no
| energy tech beyond solar power. It is a massive engineering
| challenge to be sure but not requiring new physics is
| significant.
| bun_at_work wrote:
| Of all the life we can see only one (or a few for the more
| generous of you) species has what humans commonly call
| intelligence.
|
| Intelligence as we commonly refer to it is not a given in
| evolution. Evolution seeks forward propagation of genetic
| material, it doesn't seek an "intelligent" state.
|
| It's reasonable to assume there is life elsewhere in the
| universe. It's quite a bit more of a stretch to assume there
| is _intelligent_ life elsewhere in the universe, aside from
| the problem of defining what intelligence is.
| potatoman22 wrote:
| If we can't define intelligence well, why is it
| unreasonable to assume there's intelligent life? Maybe most
| life is intelligent, just not on Earth.
| [deleted]
| jklinger410 wrote:
| The thing about conspiracy theories is that when people who
| hold power over large groups of people actively mislead them
| and deny them of a source of authority, those people grasp at
| what pieces of information they do have in order to build a
| narrative that isn't tainted by lies.
|
| It is, and I cannot stress this enough, entirely unhelpful for
| you to ascribe it to main character syndrome or compare it to
| the belief in an omnipotent God.
|
| If sources of truth in human societies like governments and
| scientific institutions would stop lying or misleading people
| nearly constantly then you could call conspiracy people
| lunatics, or fringe. But you simply cannot.
|
| Not only are people being lied to, but they are being actively
| disinformed for "their own good." There are massive socializing
| forces that have taken an active role in manipulating society
| based around the idea that they know better.
|
| And the ironic part is that, to a degree, they do know better.
| People act stupid in groups and have important information
| WITHHELD for various reasons that make it impossible to discern
| the truth.
|
| If you want to start minimizing the amount of bullshit beliefs
| that people hold, supernatural or otherwise, you can start by
| tearing down the systems that are used to create false
| narratives which push people into those beliefs.
| bratwurst3000 wrote:
| Totaly true . Look at alex jones. He is a full blown crazy
| person that believes in the supremacy of the christian race...
| oh yes racism goes also realy well with religion
| ARandomerDude wrote:
| What? Christianity is not a race.
| Banana699 wrote:
| > Given the huge benefits of a Dyson Swarm and the fact that it
| seems to require no exotic materials and no more physics
|
| This doesn't account for the fact that you don't know what - if
| any - benefits do exotic materials and funky physics might
| bring if they exist and are feasible to exploit. The benefits
| might be so much larger than Dyson Swarms, that it would be
| wastful\unnecessary to use Dyson Swarms, except maybe as a
| hobby or as a low tech fallback for civilizations like camping
| enthusiasts and survivalists. Why bother with stars when you
| have tech to live in the 21 dimensions that those born-
| yesterday biologicals can't even sense yet ?
|
| The Dyson 'Paradox' doesn't strike me as much of a paradox,
| imagine if a group of ants looked at the sky and wondered why
| aren't extraterrestials building tunnels inside the moon's
| regolith like ants do on Earth. It's just assuming too much.
| It's of course a valid scenario, it just isn't the only one.
| TremendousJudge wrote:
| I mostly agree with your take, but I'll pick on this sentence:
|
| > Given the huge benefits of a Dyson Swarm and the fact that it
| seems to require no exotic materials and no more physics it
| looks increasingly likely that we are very alone in the Milky
| Way
|
| The fact that we can come up with the idea of a Dyson Swarm
| doesn't mean that not finding any in our observations results
| in we "being alone in the galaxy". It's also Main Character
| Syndrome, in a way.
|
| Even discarding the idea of alien life being so different from
| ours that we wouldn't recognize it even if we were looking
| right at it, and assuming a "human like civilization", it's
| perfectly possible for there being unknown physics to us that
| make the idea of a Dyson Swarm unnecessary. Using our own
| civilization as an example, in the 1950s and 60s we did all of
| our data broadcasting over radio waves, and built huge powerful
| antennas that screamed about our presence to the wider
| universe. People then thought "well, if we're broadcasting all
| this stuff, where are the alien broadcasts? why can't we hear
| them? we must be alone in the galaxy". Fast-forward to now. Our
| current tech allows pretty much all communications to be over
| cables, and we're being much less wasteful with our emmiting;
| our radio emissions are diminishing over time.
|
| So, not a century has passed, and already newer technology has
| proven our assumptions of alien life wrong. Why would it be any
| different with Dyson Swarms? You can't know how more advanced
| technology looks like, you can only extrapolate with what we
| have now.
| bostonsre wrote:
| How are you utterly convinced when it can't be proven true or
| false and don't have any other explanation for it? Why close
| all those doors without sufficient evidence to close them?
|
| We don't have extraordinary evidence therefore it's not
| possible that it's anything weird doesn't seem very scientific.
| stonemetal12 wrote:
| >Why close all those doors without sufficient evidence to
| close them?
|
| Because there isn't sufficient evidence to open them in the
| first place. Might as well claim it is unicorns and dragons,
| you don't have any evidence it isn't.
| StanislavPetrov wrote:
| We have unexplained phenomena. We have eyewitness accounts
| from the Navy's top pilots as well as instrument data and
| IR footage. If we cannot explain this phenomena with what
| we know, then we must consider the possibility its
| something that we don't know. Simply putting your head in
| the sand or attempting to debunk this documented phenomena
| with patently absurd explanations like "a lens flare" or
| "it was only Venus" isn't good enough for thoughtful
| people.
| zardo wrote:
| We have what appears to be a shiny floating object. What
| data do we have that can't be explained by a shiny
| balloon?
| nocturnial wrote:
| I might be overly pedantic with this point but saying a
| shiny balloon fits the limited data we have, doesn't mean
| it _was_ a shiny balloon.
|
| The thing that bothers me the most about this sort of
| discussions is that it's all done on "paper"[1]. It would
| be helpful to actually release a balloon, or whatever
| object you think it was, and check if you can reproduce
| the glare and other sensor data.
|
| If it's very easy to reproduce then we can be more
| confident in that explanation and probably nail down more
| detailed characteristics of that object. Once we have
| that we can look where this object could've come from.
| For example, if it points to a balloon, did a
| company/organization lose a balloon in that time frame?
| Once we have all this info we would have an explanation
| that's more robust than someone saying: "It might be
| possible this and potentially that"
|
| This requires money, time and the hardware. So I guess
| it's unlikely that will ever happen.
|
| [1] Not saying it's useless. Those calculations and/or
| simulations are very useful to limit the types of objects
| it could be.
| kingofpandora wrote:
| > Navy's top pilots
|
| Relative to what? Other pilots who fly the same aircraft?
| All fighter jet pilots in the Navy? All pilots of all
| types of navy aircraft?
| bostonsre wrote:
| A squadron commander doesn't get into that position by
| being incompetent. Fighter jets are incredibly complex
| and demanding and there are lots of different aircraft to
| pilot in the navy.
| bostonsre wrote:
| How are you supposed to discover something new about the
| universe if all doors are closed from the start? How do you
| go from zero evidence where something isn't worth being
| investigated further because there isnt sufficient evidence
| to there being sufficient evidence for it to be considered
| acceptable to investigate? The seems like a feedback loop
| that will result in nothing new ever being discovered
| unless something magical drops all evidence in your lap.
| nabla9 wrote:
| To the Stars Academy of Arts & Sciences (media & entertainment
| company) makes this stuff up and sells it.
|
| https://tothestars.media/
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_the_Stars_(company)
| jonnylynchy wrote:
| Someone forgot to take their anti-cynicism medication this
| morning.
| mr_toad wrote:
| > Given the huge benefits of a Dyson Swarm
|
| Dyson Swarms are only plausible if your society is still stuck
| in an exponential growth mode. It assumes technological
| advancement, but stagnant sociological development, or perhaps
| even worse; pathological development, like a hegemonising
| swarm.
|
| I think that many UFO theories make the same mistakes. They
| assume high tech aliens with low tech motives.
| belter wrote:
| - David Fravor and is colleagues, are highly credible witnesses
| of something they observed visually.
|
| - This is certainly a very interesting interview:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIUBjvY4PnQ
|
| - There are visual observations, and what are, ( by military
| standards), flimsy short video images/video.
|
| - This analysis partially explains one part of it, without
| excluding the presence of an object.
|
| - There is also Radar data, but it has not been published or time
| correlated to the reported visual observations.
|
| Observations:
|
| - These Aliens only seem to want to goof around with folksy US
| pilots.
|
| - Pilots known to simulate UFO sightings, fans of UFO invasion
| stories and stories of Russians shooting UFO's and getting shot
| back. ( watch the interview...).
|
| - These Aliens show up exclusively during their training time and
| with sightings restricted to areas with US carrier groups
| exercises.
|
| Also...
|
| - The Aliens don't show up with their "Tic Tac's" or seem to be
| interested on the Ukraine conflict.
|
| - They don't care about EU or Latin America citizens...
|
| - Don't want to play around with the Russian or Chinese Air
| Force.
|
| - They don't show up in the data of any of the existing Military
| satellites that exist, and are capable of reading a bus ticket on
| the ground from 400 km.
|
| - These Aliens don't show up in the observations of the thousands
| of professional and amateur astronomers, that scan the sky a
| total of thousands of hours every night, using some of the most
| exquisite optical instruments available.
|
| I would say: They either don't exist, or if they do, they are
| pretty dumb and we have nothing to fear.
| avl999 wrote:
| These observations have also been made by military adjacent
| organizations in UK, France and China. It is definitely not a
| US pilot specific thing.
| RobertMiller wrote:
| Mick West debunked these to my satisfaction ages ago. The only
| question I have left is whether the whole thing was a US Navy
| psyop or whether the navy was just looking the other way and
| playing coy when those pilots were creating a retirement career
| in UFOlogy.
| gfodor wrote:
| The UAP report debunks the idea that all the evidence the
| government has has been debunked. Time will tell but the report
| reversed Project Blue Book, which ruled out non-human
| technology.
| nabla9 wrote:
| People read "Navy confirms authenticity of the video" as "This
| is important and Navy can't explain it." (if they try).
|
| Only thing Navy does it confirms that the video is real. They
| don't say that they have even tried to identify or that there
| is any reason to identify. They have hundreds or thousands of
| hours of video or radar images of drones etc. they don't care
| to identify.
|
| Navy does not engage with these hustlers from "To the stars
| academy" at all. That's the only good response. To the Stars
| Academy of Arts & Sciences (media & entertainment company)
| makes this stuff up and sells it.
|
| https://tothestars.media/
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_the_Stars_(company)
| RobertMiller wrote:
| > _People read "Navy confirms authenticity of the video" as
| "This is important and Navy can't explain it."_
|
| Precisely. There is a huge gap between what the Navy has
| actually claimed about the videos and what people _think_ the
| Navy has claimed. _' The video is authentic'_ is not the same
| as _' the video shows what it's purported to show.'_
| zionic wrote:
| Mick West utterly failed to "debunk" these videos, and actual
| fighter pilots have debunked his "debunk".
|
| https://youtu.be/ro29w4ESw44
| RobertMiller wrote:
| Do you happen to have a copy of this supposed debunking
| debunking that isn't given by Alvin the Chimpmunk? Wtf dude.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tyw4JA00AMc
|
| Here is the video on the actual fighter pilot's channel
| emkoemko wrote:
| are you kidding now? that pilot does not even know how
| cameras work at all and your using him ???
|
| this American pilot does not know how depth of field works...
| can't even notice in his own video recordings, this beyond
| funny. He thinks you can't have objects at different
| distances in focus at the same time ahahaha, does not get how
| parallax works... gave up after those dumb errors and smug
| attitude as he was saying such dumb things, i bet he made
| even more mistakes.
|
| is he really a "fighter pilot" or they just not trained to
| understand their gear?
| TooKool4This wrote:
| Or if you follow Hanlon's razor, if the Navy is incredibly
| (scarily) incompetent!
| emkoemko wrote:
| i think they are, there is a video of a "fighter pilot" who
| does not understand basics of a cameras... he thinks you
| can't focus on objects at different distances at the same
| time.... how did he ever get to fly a jet? or parallax i mean
| he should know how that works
| radicaldreamer wrote:
| That's a given (see all the ships crashing into other ships
| in the South Pacific a couple of years ago -- and not
| noticing for hours!)
| RobertMiller wrote:
| That is possible, but I think strains credibility. The GOFAST
| video is egregious, I find it hard to believe nobody in the
| US Navy was able to calculate the actual [mundane, very...
| balloon-like] speed of that object using basic trigonometry.
| I think it's more likely the Navy knew there was nothing
| actually exotic in that video.
|
| The Defense Department described the subject of GOFAST,
| Gimble and FLIR videos as "UAV, Balloons, and other UAS". _'
| Balloons'_; they know what it is. They're not even lying,
| they're being coy or misleading.
| alphabetting wrote:
| Still convinced the intelligence and technology it would require
| to get here would make us identifying aliens in our ozone
| impossible. They'd only be seen if they wanted to be. First
| contact could be seeing a von neumann probe or some other kind of
| scout type aircraft in space but it wouldn't be like the videos.
| throwaway984393 wrote:
| Those crafty aliens.
| billsmithwicks wrote:
| I like Mick West, and even though camera glare isn't usually
| picked up on radar by the navy, it's sufficient to fulfill
| Occam's razor.
| zionic wrote:
| Mick West is a buffoon, and his "debunking" videos
| intentionally mislead his audience. I say this because he has
| had this explained to him again and again but he still ignores
| evidence.
|
| When you have infrared, multiple radar, and visual observations
| simultaneously of an object and pretend all you have is a
| grainy infrared video REPEATEDLY it goes beyond skepticism into
| deceit.
| MauranKilom wrote:
| Nothing in this analysis or conclusion contradicts the radar
| observations - how are they being "ignored"? And it is
| unclear to me (as an uninitiated person) how "visual"
| observations lend any more credence to the story when they
| are just retellings of the exact same kind of footage, except
| impossible to further analyze/corroborate.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| We have a grainy infrared video, and _claims_ of other
| infrared, radar and visual observations. Claims are easy to
| make and hard to analyze. Video is all we can analyze, and
| the video is unconvincing. Why then should we believe the
| claims?
| user-the-name wrote:
| tiahura wrote:
| I find the "bump" aspect persuasive.
|
| I'd like to see similar analysis of the East Coast cruise missile
| ufo video.
| deepnotderp wrote:
| Lens glare tracked by radar.
|
| That's a new one.
| ChrisGranger wrote:
| The claim isn't that there is no flying object. The glare
| accounts for its appearance.
| russdpale wrote:
| Im pretty suspicious, why does an MIT AI researcher have a
| youtube channel? Does he not get paid enough with his salary?
|
| Also, this is a four hour video, what is the timestamp of the
| comments you refer to?
| anothernewdude wrote:
| > Im pretty suspicious, why does an MIT AI researcher have a
| youtube channel?
|
| Are you serious?
| nkassis wrote:
| Some people have YouTube channels as hobbies ? I don't see the
| issue.
| darig wrote:
| e40 wrote:
| There's an index in the video notes.
| vo2maxer wrote:
| > Im pretty suspicious, why does an MIT AI researcher have a
| youtube channel? Does he not get paid enough with his salary?
|
| Could you please elaborate on why you think that an MIT
| researcher having a YouTube channel where is had some very
| interesting interviews somehow makes it suspicious?
| drc500free wrote:
| _removed needlessly snarky comment_
| Banana699 wrote:
| Those are 3 very, wildly, different men that you're
| comparing.
| dang wrote:
| We detached this offtopic subthread from
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30703907.
| qaq wrote:
| This podcast generates millions it is one of the most popular
| pop sci podcasts. David Favor is not a random pilot he was Top
| Gun instructor at the time.
| [deleted]
| rpilot8 wrote:
| Recently Jim Lacatski confirmed that Colm Kelleher ran the daily
| operations of AAWSAP/AATIP. Colm was also the deputy
| administrator of NIDS which started in 1995.
|
| This along with the fact that Lue Elizondo used remote viewing to
| "save soldiers" in Afghanistan are pretty shocking revelations.
|
| AASWAP produced no results and shut down. Yet Elizondo talks
| often about a 23-minute close video of a craft. And has allegedly
| shown videos on his phone to people.
|
| Only recently have people claimed the government has high quality
| evidence, yet the evidence seems to be unclassified (but not
| public).
|
| If such evidence exists, it's almost hard to believe it's only
| recently been discovered and it hasn't somehow leaked out. The
| whole ordeal is highly suspicious.
| voldacar wrote:
| Elizondo is a very sus character. He talks and talks but has
| produced nothing of any substance
| bally0241 wrote:
| I suppose the radar signature was camera "glare" too, smh. This
| is pretty weak.
| zionic wrote:
| Exactly! The number of comments in this thread treating this
| and mick west as credible is disturbing
| netsharc wrote:
| The video states that there's something there, but its heat
| signature is causing the glare (the video is in IR). Was the
| object flying steadily and rotating weirdly throughout the
| video? You can't see how the object is flying, the smooth
| motion and weird rotation you perceive is the effect of the
| glare!
|
| But nah, of course you know better!
| ceejayoz wrote:
| It's probably worth at least skimming the article prior to
| dismissing it. He's not saying nothing's there.
|
| > He says that his video does not address the object itself as
| it's not clear what the object is and there is nothing to say
| that it isn't special or exemplary in some way. He just argues
| that his analysis shows that it isn't actually exhibiting any
| incredible behavior and opens the door to other "mundane
| possibilities" like a distance small jet just flying away and
| the heat of the engines is what is creating a large glare on
| the thermal camera.
|
| He's saying the supposedly magical behavior is explicable.
| Without that, it's a fairly boring "someone's probably flying a
| drone near our ships" sort of incident.
| oblib wrote:
| Sitting here knowing we have a helicopter and a land rover on
| Mars it doesn't feel like it's entirely impossible for an alien
| craft to be here, looking at us.
|
| I can't make the leap to believe without doubt there is, or even
| to believe there probably is. But it is not impossible. We've
| already proved it's not, and we're not really all that smart.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| Anyone on Mars would have very clearly seen the Rover landing
| and known exactly what it was and where it was coming from.
| They also didn't arrive in Mars from the opposite end of the
| Galaxy, they arrived from the next planet over.
|
| Most importantly, no one on Mars would think that the rover or
| helicopter are defying theaws of physics, bending space time or
| anything like that, which are real claims made by army
| personnel about the objects seen in some of these videos.
| ssully wrote:
| Yup, that's kind of where I am at. I think I lean more towards
| "this definitely isn't aliens", but if it's aliens then I
| definitely think these are unmanned drones keeping an eye on
| us.
| stouset wrote:
| Space is really big. The difference in effort between getting
| an oversized RC car to Mars and getting a huge
| supermaneuverable space-and-aircraft to the nearest habitable
| planet is about the same as walking down tree driveway to get
| your paper and... well, getting a huge supermaneuverable space-
| and-aircraft to the nearest habitable planet.
|
| Then doing it over and over just to play mind games with the
| primitive apes on the planet while somehow evading anything
| resembling a decent camera or photographer?
|
| I'm not going to say it's strictly impossible. But it sure as
| hell isn't plausible.
| oyebenny wrote:
| The title of this article sucks. Real bad.
| lsllc wrote:
| More specifically camera glare caused by swamp gas from a weather
| balloon that was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the
| light from Venus.
| birdyrooster wrote:
| Obviously it was glare, it looked like bokeh...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-03-16 23:00 UTC)