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

Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

dni.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 244 posts

Re: Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

#181

Post by throwaway316943 »

lend000 wrote: post #78

From a first skim, it looks intentionally vague and noncommittal, and in classic form, released on a Friday afternoon to minimize coverage. Also of note: there was no input at all drawn from the CIA, which is the agency most frequently associated with the topic for a variety of reasons, aside from the Air Force. "The majority of UAP data is from U.S. Navy reporting [i.e. not in-the-know] , but efforts are underway to…

That’s presuming they actually have more information. If these phenomena really are of a nature that we have no previous experience with then they may be as much in the dark as the rest of us. That situation could be entirely due to the stigma they mention that surrounds reporting such things or if these incidents represent some unknown technology far beyond what we are capable of then it may be next to impossible to gather more information beyond chance radar returns and images without some concentrated effort.

Re: Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

#182

Post by 1337biz »

pkaye wrote: post #23
1337biz wrote: post #4

Are there any plausible theories why this stuff is getting released right now? It looks like there is no immediate reason for action. And no real reason why they wouldn't have gone on for another decade denying it.

Senator Rubio added it into one of the COVID bills last year requesting disclosure of this information. It also funds the continued investigation of UAP sightings.

But the could have just made up some national security bs like they do whenever else they dont want to answer. What is different this time.

Re: Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

#183

Post by King-Aaron »

jimhefferon wrote: post #79
238475235243 wrote: post #25

The only thing they left out was swamp gas as a possible explanation (RIP Hynek). Seems like another whitewash, "it can't possibly be happening" report. If you spend some serious effort on this and stay away from the crazies you'll come to the opposite conclusion of this report. A good starting point is Vallee's books.

Not a person who has looked much into this stuff, but the videos you see online lately sure seemed impressive. FWIW, I felt educated by videos by Mick West, who is a debunker. Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwa-yYCEGEc&t=1316s is one that a technical person such as an HN reader might like.

I find it hard to listen to Mick West, because he's built a brand around debunking things - I like to remain sceptical around most things however when you have a vested interest in being 'anti' towards a topic it's as biased as being a 'believer' in something.

Re: Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

#184

Post by BobbyJo »

beaner wrote: post #116
krferriter wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They referenced 18 cases in which "observers reported unusual UAP movement patterns or flight characteristics". Of course this does not mean the object/phenomenon actually exhibited unusual movement or flight characteristics, rather that the person who observed it thought it might have been. They need to list each of those 18 key cases they referenced, as well as what their current state of knowledge about each is. O…

> They also point out that the reports disproportionately come from the area immediately surrounding US military testing/training facilities. Is that because the observers are disproportionately likely to be near US military testing/training facilities?

The report points that out as a likely reason.

Re: Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

#185

Post by throwaway316943 »

nynx wrote: post #9

Nothing too crazy here. Exactly as expected.

Except for the dozen or so incidents that had multiple sensor contacts from some of the most advanced technology we can produce while in close proximity to military training groups and no one knows what the F they were or how they were staying in the air. No big deal really. At least this report seems to open a path to normalizing basic reporting of such things so more information can be gathered. It’s worrying that they mention near mid air misses.

Re: Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

#186

Post by throwaway316943 »

wydfre wrote: post #49

The best quote I've got on UFOs is from Leroy Chiao, a former ISS commander. "Probably some sort of secret military program" [0]. Cannot find original on youtube any longer. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1eWnHHMrck&t=30s

Well that is one of the categories and is probably what the classified briefing was about but it doesn’t apply to the incidents they weren’t able to explain.

Re: Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

#187

Post by nosmokewhereiam »

jablongo wrote: post #160
guerrilla wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering that they were not directly in contact with the object, it is 100% necessarily true, so the statement is entirely meaningless without specifics like the ones you request.

The RF emissions acknowledged here are something I'd never heard of before. Stating the obvious; even though this report is completely vague on that front (and all others), the fact that this was mentioned means that there was likely an RF abnormality in a few event reports. It's not really logical to assume they are talking about something trivial that a plastic bag would 'produce'. But yea - agreed, this is missing…

Think SIGINT, MASINT, and EW platforms. That's what RF means to me.

Re: Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

#188

Post by throwaway316943 »

LarryEt wrote: post #80

I just can't imagine these are not non-US Military drones. I think the problem is in the US we think of drones as the DJI phantom and not FPV drones. I mean if you look at FPV pilots like Johnny FPV or Mr Steele on youtube then extrapolate out a few billion $ on research and development you would end up with something completely alien.

So how are they getting so close to naval groups? Aren’t those training missions in part based around detecting enemy ships and aircraft? Wouldn’t failing to detect some nearby vessel launching a surveillance drone be a massive piece of incompetence? How far behind would the navy be if all it takes to get the jump on them is a battery powered drone?

Re: Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

#190

Post by stride »

ALittleLight wrote: post #30

This seems awfully brief and doesn't have much detail. The tittle says it's a "preliminary" report. Is this the expected UAP report or just a preliminary document about it? I would want to see summary statistics for each reported incident and descriptions of the most compelling phenomenon. This document raises a lot of questions and answers few. The document says they have 21 reports of UAP that "appear to demonstrat…

You might have misunderstood the point of the ML strategy. The idea is to train a model on explainable event data such as weather balloons or wildlife as collected via various existing sensors. Then take this model and use it on historical sensor data to identify events that do not match the traits of the known events. I feel like this is a pretty reasonable use for ML.
Post reply on HN