[HN Gopher] The Calvine UFO photograph ___________________________________________________________________ The Calvine UFO photograph Author : lukeplato Score : 63 points Date : 2022-08-12 19:21 UTC (3 hours ago) (HTM) web link (drdavidclarke.co.uk) (TXT) w3m dump (drdavidclarke.co.uk) | h2odragon wrote: | Lighter than air radar reflector / target? Looks like good shape | for something like that. | yarg wrote: | The one thing that makes me think that there might be something | there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Canada_VZ-9_Avrocar. | | Not because it worked, more because it really didn't (and they | thought it would); it makes me feel like it was (very) loosely | based on something else (something only seen). | | I'd be very interested to see what would happen if you | incorporated some very fast very heavy gyros inside of a disc. | miniwark wrote: | I only see an small island with reflection on a Scottish lake or | a large river a foggy day... And the "plane" is just a floating | tree branch for me... | night-rider wrote: | My razor for filtering out any UFO/UAP photo is simply: unless I | have physically seen the UFO in question, any attempt by others | to persuade me they're real or operated by intelligences orders | of magnitude higher than ours, is invalid. You can't audit these | people's claims short of being physically with them when the | photo was taken. For all I know, someone put a piece of cheese on | the lens and then passed it off as a UFO. | | That said, I did witness something strange about a year ago when | I looked up at the sky randomly. This object was darting really | fast at quite a height. I dismissed it as a drone, but I didn't | know drones could operate at such a height, and it done acute | turns without slowing down, something drones can't do, no matter | how many videos of drones turning acutely at speed you show me, | because an object _has_ to slow down before it does that. It 's | basic physics. | | Anyway, it was good to see, since I was physically present, so at | least I can say these things could possibly fit the narrative of | 'aliens' or 'watchers' who are doing recon on our planet. | amerine wrote: | I also saw what you described once in southern Oregon right | along the California border, but it was in 1996 and I was a | kid. None of the adults around believed I saw an object moving | like that and were convinced I had noticed a satellite. | | Satellites don't turn at acute angles without losing momentum. | They didn't believe me. | libertine wrote: | You might have seen a satellite, nowadays it's pretty common to | see them, especially starlink ones. | | At least from a couple onward. | aaaaaaaaaaab wrote: | Satellites travel in straight lines. [1] | | [1] akshually, those are elliptical orbits, but you get what | I mean | tshaddox wrote: | > and it done acute turns without slowing down, something | drones can't do, no matter how many videos of drones turning | acutely at speed you show me, because an object has to slow | down before it does that. | | What you saw probably wasn't an expert flying a small RC | helicopter, but those can do things that I believe would appear | to some people as being almost impossible. It's not rare to see | seemingly genuine online comments on these sorts of videos | claiming they must be fake or sped up. | | https://youtu.be/KmPchrGW1TQ | | https://youtu.be/XlyxmqfTLxk | hammyhavoc wrote: | Now I want some Gouda. | [deleted] | TrainedMonkey wrote: | I think a better way to phrase this is - extraordinary claims | require extraordinary evidence. Being present myself is a good | litmus test, but humans are pretty unreliable. Having multiple | corroborated credible sources would be much better. E.G. | multiple radars detecting an object approaching, many videos | from different view points, governments (who have access to | better data sources) scrambling interceptors, defcon level | rising, etc.. | BLKNSLVR wrote: | > cheese on the lens | | Or a faulty stench coil. | withinboredom wrote: | > so at least I can say these things could possibly fit the | narrative of 'aliens' or 'watchers' who are doing recon on our | planet. | | Mandatory must-read: Backyard Starship. The writing isn't the | best in the world, but the premise and story is pretty darn | good. | smallmouth wrote: | Indeed. I second this recommendation. | | I also recommend John Keel's "Operation Trojan Horse". He's | my favorite writer on the phenomenon and brings a skeptic's | wit to the analysis while not discounting the volumes of | testimony from highly credible witnesses. | BiteCode_dev wrote: | Similar observation a few years ago in the sea sky: some ligh | moving very high, with a strange flying pattern (like a very | fast bee), for 20 minutes, above my head, then disapearing. No | apparent light beam, support for light reflection, animal | presence or mechanical vehicule. Clear weather conditions. | | It was, to my eyes, an object that was flying and that I | couldn't identify. So UFO applies. | | The problem is not seing those. | | The problem is making interpretations out of those. | | Humans often prefer to create explanations than say they just | don't know. | | Centuries ago, somebody spot lightning and said it was Thor. We | are mocking them now, but we are doing the same. | spaceman_2020 wrote: | I saw similar lights in the sky off the eastern coast of Sri | Lanka back in 2017. I assumed it was military aircraft since | that area is a hotbed of military activity. | | But then it abruptly turned almost 60 degrees at a sharp | angle - like a cue ball bouncing off the walls of a billiards | table. | | I don't know of anything that can move like that. | jay_kyburz wrote: | I've also seen 3 lights fly in formation then the two on | the wings make instant 90 turns and fly off into the | horizon. | puchatek wrote: | Search light hitting a cloud? | 1-6 wrote: | What ever happened to crop circles. Have we ever gotten to the | bottom of those? | spullara wrote: | https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/crop-circles-the... | mikewarot wrote: | Context -- You can build a "ufo" (ion wind lifter) yourself, many | have[1]. The power to weight ratio is roughly equal to that of a | helicopter, so it's not trivial, but it could in theory be scaled | up to large enough to move battle tanks around on. You'd end up | with a large dark craft that glows a bit around the edges. | | That's old physics, who knows what's been done since then. | 1 - http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/liftbldr.htm | yuan43 wrote: | > The Calvine UFO photograph is in my opinion the best image of | an unidentified flying object ever taken. | | And yet the no evidence for this is presented in the entire | article. Government cover-up/friction is not evidence of | authenticity. | | The person making the extraordinary claim is obligated to bring | the extraordinary evidence. There is none, so the author is | resorting to spinning conspiracy theories. Unfortunately, quite | typical of UFO "research." | [deleted] | sudden_dystopia wrote: | Ok so let's just say that the author is correct, and this thing, | among other sightings, are actually US secret projects. I can | believe that, but I would be much angrier if the government has | been covering up some sort of wild capabilities for at least the | past 30 years than if they have been covering up aliens for the | past 80 years. If we have the ability to fly silently at high | speeds, we have the ability to generate much more power at much | lower cost than we do currently...which means the technology is a | secret because releasing that tech into the world liberates the | peasants from their rulers. | spaceman_2020 wrote: | If these are indeed secret government projects, you'd wonder | why did taxpayers ever fund a trillion+ dollar F-35 program | that keeps running into problems year after year. | | Surely these black ops operations couldn't have had a bigger | budget than the F-35 (if they did, you'd ask how did they | source the funds?). And if they didn't, how were they able to | get these experimental aircraft to fly better and faster than | the trillion dollar F-35 jets - decades ago? And if they were, | why are we not funding these hypersonic gravity defying jets | instead of an evolutionary upgrade to 4th gen fighter planes. | bee_rider wrote: | The F-35 ended up being a pretty impressive jet after all, | but let's go with the old story that it way under-performed | for the cost -- a possible explanation would be that most of | that trillion+ budget actually went to secret projects like | the hypersonic UFO stuff. (I don't actually believe this, but | it is at least a self-consistent explanation under the | assumption that the government is hyper-competent and has | this sci-fi UFO technology). | nine_k wrote: | Same was said about the B-2 stealth bomber program: its | cost was so high that a popular conspiracy story was that | much of the funds go to something _really_ advanced and | thus not even spoken of publicly. | subsubzero wrote: | I think the cost per fighter was something like $2B which | to me seems absurd as once the initial research and test | plane were created the other planes should be relatively | cheap as they are making them off of well tested plans. | So either major grift by the manufacturer or something | else is getting that money. And the cost per plane keeps | getting higher every year which doesn't make sense. | tshaddox wrote: | They only made 21 of them, which is probably hardly | enough for marginal cost to even matter. | somat wrote: | The government tends to include operation costs. The 2 | billion per plane includes the cost to run the things | over their lifespan. so the equation to get it is | something like. | | stealth_bomber_design + stealth_bomber_r_and_d + ( 21 * ( | stealth_bomber_manufacturing + | (stealth_bomber_operations_cost_per_year * | years_of_operation ) ) | mywacaday wrote: | I can understand the misappropriation of funds to explain | what was done but what I can't understand is the depth and | number of layers required for the cover up. The amount of | people starting at the maintenance, cleaning etc all the | way through engineering, logistics, support to maintain | such a cover up just seems impossible to me. | checker wrote: | Alright, I'm no MAD game theory expert so I'll probably get | ripped apart, but I'll appreciate the discussion. | | I've wondered if there's any MAD incentive to keep some major | groundbreaking technology under complete wraps (beyond TS - | see recent headlines). If MAD is disrupted by groundbreaking | tech, and if this technology would significantly boost strike | capabilities and possibly render nuclear weapons useless, | then the rival nations would be forced to exercise a nuclear | strike preemptively to ensure their security to prevent a war | they would inevitably lose. | | So that's one theory that I've kicked around in my head as to | why we might have such tech but keep it such a tight secret. | It certainly could be complete fantasy or misunderstanding of | MAD. Please tell me why I'm wrong so I can bury this line of | thought! | Jenk wrote: | > trillion+ dollar F-35 program | | <tin-foil>It makes perfect sense that the trillion+ didn't | actually go to the F-35 and was instead used for secret | projects, and the F-35 was a token effort to look | legit.</tin-foil> | Apocryphon wrote: | Pretty sure in the Cold War and so forth there were all | sorts of paper tiger projects that were just for show, | either to the public or for Soviet espionage. | YeBanKo wrote: | Cmdr. David Fravor in one of his interview mentioned, that he | does not believe that it is a secret gov program - he was | talking about tic tac, not this incident - because since that | encounter it would have come to light by now, because the | commercial value is just simply too great to stay secret. And | that this is what typically happens to military tech. | colechristensen wrote: | I think it is much more mundane. The mythology around secret | aircraft makes them out to have super-performance or strange | advanced characteristics, when these things probably weren't | true at all. | | I would believe exactly the opposite. Things like "flying | saucers" were attempts at secret advanced aircraft which | worked, but not particularly well, and never really went on to | be anything more than experimental aircraft. Leaks happened | from time to time to prod adversaries to worry and try to | develop competing technology to waste their time and resources. | | The F117 looks pretty alien, that one worked though. | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_F-117_Nighthawk | | There are probably a handful of other examples, aircraft that | were tried but never made to work very well, work on new | principles of design that haven't been figured out yet, and are | still on the drawing board with various attempts to make them | work ongoing. | subsubzero wrote: | I would say the probability that the US has technology that was | demonstrated in the pentagon UFO tapes would be more surprising | to me than if these craft were actually made by non-humans. | | If the US had possession of such technology in a black project | we would see some of the technology "bleed" into other | projects, notably the air force and drone technology. And right | now nothing the US possesses has those capabilities. | | An alternate theory is that this is ruse by the US or another | foreign govt. projecting images into the sky and moving them | like a person using a laser pointer does across a wall. I don't | know of any technology that can project an image into the sky | like that, and then there is the radar signatures seen on some | of these things. | krapp wrote: | Technology wasn't demonstrated in the pentagon UFO tapes. | People extrapolated hypothetical technological capabilities | based on uncertain second or thirdhand evidence, sensational | reporting and eyewitness testimony. Not all such evidence may | be interpreted properly (certainly not by the internet | commentariat that wants to believe) nor may all | interpretations be valid. One "triangle UFO" video[0] has | already been debunked as lens bokeh[1]. | | Occam's Razor suggests that the vast majority of these | sightings are hoaxes or misinterpretations, and the rest are | conventional, albeit state of the art, aircraft whose actual | capabilites are beyond what people may assume possible (as | people in the 1960s might have assumed had they seen an SR-71 | Blackbird when most commercial aircraft were still using | propellers) but still not physics-defying. | | [0]https://www.businessinsider.com/pentagon-confirms-ufo- | video-... | | [1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26838782 | Simon_O_Rourke wrote: | Why? If we've got that capability then why telegraph it to | everyone else, including peer (or near peer) air forces around | the world. | | If it's ours, great, let's keep a tight lid on it until we need | it. If it's not, let's discretely find out what it was. Period. | sudden_dystopia wrote: | Because if we do have the capability to create lots of cheap | energy, it could have been applied to various other sectors | and improved the quality of life for billions of people. | Instead of constraining us to the whims of oil barons. | krapp wrote: | Assuming this for the sake of argument, it might not be | cheap. Maybe we're talking about small portable fusion | engines that cost half a trillion dollars a piece to make, | and have a very short, single-purpose shelf life. | | Remember the Area 51 lawsuit where workers sued over being | exposed to toxic fumes and chemicals, and as a result the | facility was exempted from all environmental laws? Maybe | the byproducts of creating this energy are more toxic and | dangerous than spent nuclear fuel, but it's the government | and the government doesn't give a damn, but there's no | feasible (much less legal) way to mass produce the | technology. | Flankk wrote: | The thing that doesn't make much sense to me is the variety of | shapes these things come in. Saucer, triangle, tic tac, pyramid, | cube, etc. The triangles are probably just military, but where | does that leave this other stuff? The military has had supersonic | drones for a long time so that could explain many other | sightings. The thing about aliens is it's exciting. The thing | that makes me wary is that even if the military declassified | hypersonic saucer drones people would just call it a psyop. | huron wrote: | That's totally an aircraft banked towards the camera. Turn the | image 90deg and it looks like a testbed a/c that Boeing had that | looked like something out of Batman. Brown from above makes sense | as it would help to hide it from foreign satellites. | thinkingemote wrote: | Stargazing and watching satellites in a very dark skies place, I | noticed that some satellites zigzaged about, moving at right | angles. I explain this by saccades of my eyes and the brain | trying to work out the pattern based on a black featureless | background. | | Would make sense for the brain to estimate it as "flying bug" | with erratic flight than very smoothly straight flying mechanical | thing. | jcims wrote: | Very plausible explanation, but fwiw the 'zigzag' behavior | you're describing is also described by people out in places | where they have high end night vision goggles and nothing to do | all night but stare at the sky. | jmyeet wrote: | If you ever find yourself tempted to look down on or judge | someone for getting roped up in a cult or simply spewing some | dogma that you find ridiculous, please consider that UFOs (and a | bunch of other conspiracy theories) are just religion for | atheists. | | Humans have a deep need, a very egotistical need in some ways, to | feel like there's a bigger plan, that they're part of something | and even that they're in possession with some secret knowledge | the masses aren't. | | It's not too dissimilar to those who jump on the trend of the | latest fringe FTL technology idea. Warp drives, wormholes, space | folding, whatever. Part of this comes from a genuine desire for | some Star Trek or Star Wars future of visiting other stars | without taking a lifetime to get there. But part of it is also | some people realize that if the speed of light is a cosmic speed | limit (my personal belief) then the idea of alien visitors and | UFOs becomes truly ridiculous. | jeremycw wrote: | I wonder if it's possible this was an optical illusion. Seeing | optical illusions where oil tankers are hovering in mid-air has | changed my perception of what people could see and how it could | be misinterpreted. [1] I'm not a physicist but it almost looks | like the photo could be a mountain and it's reflection somehow | projected up into the sky similar to how the oil tanker is | projected in the sky. | | [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cornwall-56286719 | saaaaaam wrote: | Isn't this just a photo of something similar to the Boeing "Bird | of Prey" | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Bird_of_Prey ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-08-12 23:00 UTC)