Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Carrier Group in Recent UFO Encounters Had New Air Defense Tech

thedrive.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 100 posts

Re: Carrier Group in Recent UFO Encounters Had New Air Defense Tech

#61

Post by maxander »

instantwhat wrote: post #39
mannykannot wrote: post #2

So, in at least a couple of cases, these events coincide with the deployment of new air defense tech with advanced information processing capabilities? One should at least consider the possibility that they are machine-generated artifacts, possibly responses to unusual conditions that have mundane explanations.

That makes no sense. Testimony from the pilots who intercepted the object indicates the object demonstrated awareness of their presence. Watch this video of a U.S. Navy F/A-18 squadron commander (not an average military pilot) who intercepted one of the objects and engaged in aerial maneuvers with it. He describes intercepting the object, flying about one mile away from it, with the object demonstrating awareness of…

It makes perfect sense- in the same way that your reflection in a mirror "demonstrates awareness of your presence." An illusion generated by a sensor glitch or interference is entirely liable to move around when the sensors and interference moves around, and flight computers tracking the glitch would plausibly show it "performing maneuvers" that make no sense for physical objects, such as the ones you describe.

Re: Carrier Group in Recent UFO Encounters Had New Air Defense Tech

#62

Post by dmix »

Funny, a first deployment of a highly complex networked software driven system developed by gov contractors, being admittedly used by newly trained people (a training program called COMPUTEX as per the article), makes me even more sceptical that it may simply be an error/anomaly rather than providing better evidence of it being UFOs.

If this is indeed positive evidence, then the big question not asked was how many of these sensors detected the object in real time? If it was just 2-3 from the same sources (ie, jets or circling surveillance planes in the same area) then it's no different than technology from 2004 or earlier. Radar is still radar. The fact they are all linked together helps with real-time analysis. But in matters of UFO investigations their real-time interconnectivity doesn't really add any additional validation. When a post-incident analysis could simply reconstruct the moment by cross-checking multiple unconnected sensors present at the time - as any investigative team would have in prior eras.

The upgrades to the E-2C Hawkeye seem to be only related to the networking functionality adding real-time analysis on top of the system rather than providing better individual radar tracking. Unless I'm missing the part where each sensor became more accurate individually regardless of realtime networking or after-the-fact analysis?

Not to mention the whole uncertainty that first-deployment of new software brings to the whole equation.

Re: Carrier Group in Recent UFO Encounters Had New Air Defense Tech

#63

Post by deepnotderp »

etrevino wrote: post #8

So, the US was testing unknown and presumably expensive drone technology on Carrier Air Groups? Why would they do that in a "live" situation with people who would report it? I would think (and perhaps I'm wrong) that keeping advanced craft secret would be in the US interest. I don't buy the ET explanation and I don't buy this one either. If it is real and it is a craft it's much more likely it was a state actor testi…

To test whether or not the advanced craft can be shot down?

If the test was conducted on, say the Chinese military, then it would be very geopolitically dangerous it was shot down.

Re: Carrier Group in Recent UFO Encounters Had New Air Defense Tech

#64

Post by dmix »

blincoln wrote: post #35
WrtCdEvrydy wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What?

typeformer is referring to Robert Hastings' claim that military personnel witnessed UFOs disabling nuclear weapons, e.g. https://www.livescience.com/10146-ufos-disarm-nuclear-weapon... .

> Hastings [who makes a living selling UFO books] claims that a global conspiracy exists in which all major governments have been covering up evidence of UFOs for decades.

mhm

Re: Carrier Group in Recent UFO Encounters Had New Air Defense Tech

#65

Post by svd4anything »

dmix wrote: post #62

Funny, a first deployment of a highly complex networked software driven system developed by gov contractors, being admittedly used by newly trained people (a training program called COMPUTEX as per the article), makes me even more sceptical that it may simply be an error/anomaly rather than providing better evidence of it being UFOs. If this is indeed positive evidence, then the big question not asked was how many of…

> Unless I'm missing the part where each sensor became more accurate individually regardless of realtime networking or after-the-fact analysis?

Yes I think you are missing that. My understanding is that multiple individual radar systems were all upgraded, in some cases using more solid state components over mechanical and with higher accuracy and then all networked together. And additionally the FLIR imagery is an independent system/observation.

Supposedly there are actually many documented incidents, and in particular 2 separated by almost 10 years, with remarkably similar observations of UAP characteristics.

Either this is a big hoax or there are UAPs of whatever origin and it is an issue.

Re: Carrier Group in Recent UFO Encounters Had New Air Defense Tech

#66

Post by jtolds »

My theory is that these UFOs aren't physical but are projections from elsewhere, literally like a TV projector. If two sources direct waves at the same location correctly, perhaps the interference can make the air molecules emit light like ships? Some audio advertising is starting to do this with sound waves (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_from_ultrasound). These projected ships would look like they could defy physics with how they fly.

Are these UFO sightings always over water? Maybe there's some submarine source?

Re: Carrier Group in Recent UFO Encounters Had New Air Defense Tech

#67

Post by deepnotderp »

svd4anything wrote: post #59
gfodor wrote: post #50

Skepticism means positing alternative theories that explain the evidence, not coming up with less-extraordinary theories that contradict the evidence, which is what most of the threads here do. Super intelligent AI certainly seems plausible as a thing which could exist. Fusion powered sub-light speed autonomous drones certainly seems like a thing which could exist. Any super intelligent AI would take actions to ensur…

> We will likely never know since these things are so far beyond our ability to capture or analyze, but my theory at least doesn't break physics. I’m not sure about that. For sake of discussion assume they are self replicating Von Neumann probes [1] from an ET civilization, interesting something serious scientists would predict we might find as first evidence. We do now have working high energy laser weapons. I would…

Yes, let's shoot at something that's sent from a civilization with technology incomprehensibly more advanced than ours.

Great idea, I'm sure they won't be able to annihilate us in a few seconds.

Re: Carrier Group in Recent UFO Encounters Had New Air Defense Tech

#68

Post by deepnotderp »

jtolds wrote: post #66

My theory is that these UFOs aren't physical but are projections from elsewhere, literally like a TV projector. If two sources direct waves at the same location correctly, perhaps the interference can make the air molecules emit light like ships? Some audio advertising is starting to do this with sound waves ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_from_ultrasound ). These projected ships would look like they could de…

We can already do that with multibeam lasers.

Re: Carrier Group in Recent UFO Encounters Had New Air Defense Tech

#69

Post by exabrial »

gfodor wrote: post #50

Skepticism means positing alternative theories that explain the evidence, not coming up with less-extraordinary theories that contradict the evidence, which is what most of the threads here do. Super intelligent AI certainly seems plausible as a thing which could exist. Fusion powered sub-light speed autonomous drones certainly seems like a thing which could exist. Any super intelligent AI would take actions to ensur…

> are a autonomous surveillance and intervention system

> they are subluminal

since we're talking crazy theories... how do they defeat the speed of causality to relay information back home?

Re: Carrier Group in Recent UFO Encounters Had New Air Defense Tech

#70

Post by deepnotderp »

convivialdingo wrote: post #56

I spent my childhood around New Mexico, my family also knew a handful of scientists out at the labs. We heard a lot of funny stories. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if some gov tech was testing against the Navy. But I also wouldn’t be surprised if we just don’t have a clue. My uneducated, completely bonkers guesses would be plasma stealth drones or multibeam lasers. I knew several scientists in the 90s that worked on…

My bet is also that it is a hypersonic plasma stealth drone.

Plasma injection also reduces drag and aerodynamic heating if done right, that would also explain the anomalous thermal signature.

especially at hypersonic velocities

Being a drone would explain accelerations that would kill humans.

Post reply on HN