Here's my most recent thought. Pilots spent years up there and the only thing they see are other planes. If they see something it must be a plane, from the size they can estimate the distance. But when they suddenly see smaller drone, their pilot-brain thinks it's a plane, but because it is much smaller than a plane, they think it must be far away. And when it flys same speed as plane, in "projected" large distance t…
Flight characteristics of anomalous unidentified aerial vehicles (2019)
91–100 of 118 posts
Re: Flight characteristics of anomalous unidentified aerial vehicles (2019)
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are trained in identifying aircraft and grok flight characteristics, and for the lack of better phrasing because I'm eating a taco at lunch, how one's senses can be wrong or skewed.
But some of those pilots made critical mistakes describing the tic tac, things like FOV changes on the camera were interpreted by them publicly as velocity changes of the object.
Re: Flight characteristics of anomalous unidentified aerial vehicles (2019)
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
The radar and FLIR aren't as easy to 'trick' though.
They could be, with RF and laser equipment running reasonably-advanced software to spoof such sensors . There are a lot of gotchas to work out here, but it's my best guess, aside from "craft that defy physics." Source: worked on such military equipment, back in the early 90s.
craft that defy KNOWN physics. Remember, the Alcubierre drive, as a mere concept (and not as an execution which is yet more complicated), was invented/discovered only a few years ago.
Re: Flight characteristics of anomalous unidentified aerial vehicles (2019)
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They could be, with RF and laser equipment running reasonably-advanced software to spoof such sensors. How would such RF and laser equipment spoof sensors that are thousands of feet in the air and moving at hundreds of miles per hour and moving in unpredictable ways? Radar is off the table--that would presumably have been detected, right? How would our spoofer spoof multiple sensors, separated by significant distan…
>Of course, the most likely answer is that these reports are some simply untrue. If someone has an impossible story that you can't independently verify, there's no good reason to believe them. As Carl Sagan (among others) pointed out, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Or, more recently, what Matt O'Dowd calls the "Space Time[0] Mantra": "It's never aliens. Until it is." I'm going to wait for that…
Also, it's already conceptually possible to get around the spacetime problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive (This doesn't imply such a thing would be easy to build; but at least it's theoretically possible, maybe)
Re: Flight characteristics of anomalous unidentified aerial vehicles (2019)
#95Here's my most recent thought. Pilots spent years up there and the only thing they see are other planes. If they see something it must be a plane, from the size they can estimate the distance. But when they suddenly see smaller drone, their pilot-brain thinks it's a plane, but because it is much smaller than a plane, they think it must be far away. And when it flys same speed as plane, in "projected" large distance t…
At least those videos [1] are just birds, see for example this analysis [2]. Skip to the meat of it, if you dislike the style of the video. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkPn-YMp9vI [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfhAC2YiYHs
Re: Flight characteristics of anomalous unidentified aerial vehicles (2019)
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
You need to listen to the interview with the pilots who filmed this. They were chasing it, and couldn't catch up.
Which is what you’d see of a bit of gum stuck to the sensor lens. I’m not saying that’s what this is, I’m pointing out that what the pilots perceive is not to be taken at face value.
Re: Flight characteristics of anomalous unidentified aerial vehicles (2019)
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
Regarding whether the anti- view exists, two points. The first is almost every sighting story comes with how their commanding officers and authorities silenced them. The second is I would suggest that if I were a scientist who implied something originated from an extraterrestrial advanced civilization, I would be actively isolated and discredited, which to me implies a very strong anti-ET bias. As an experiment, let'…
> The first is almost every sighting story comes with how their commanding officers and authorities silenced them. This is a telltale symptom of quacks and cranks. "My truth is being suppressed". The more normal explanation of superiors telling someone to shut up is either because it's top secret information about military tech or plain old bullshit. Only quacks come to the conclusion that "they want to shut me up".…
Yes. This is a textbook example of the Conspiracy Fallacy. The problem is that the Conspiracy Fallacy doesn't actually disprove a conspiracy- it only says that you can't use a lack of evidence ("the clintons are hiding the bodies, of course, because they're guilty!") AS evidence. And when it comes to reporting UFO's, talk to anyone in the past 70 years who's reported them and ask them how it affected their reputation; this is a real risk to anyone who may be reporting a real thing.
> UFOlogy is the realm of woo
So is science, sometimes. Turns out that humans are flawed and bring judgment into everything, such as anyone who initially called out The Ether, Miasma theory or, eh, pretty much all of psychology into question.
> Who wants to be associated with some weirdo claiming he was sexually abused by space aliens?
No one. Which is why only the weirdos who don't have much to lose, report that. Survivorship fallacy... You don't know any of the reports non-weirdos would make if they could do it without harming their own reputations (disclaimer: I know of at least one, a CEO of a 100+ person firm, who only told me his story if I did not retell it... it's amazing what people will tell you when they feel you will not judge or shame them!). Which is why it's dangerous to bring shame and judgment into any such claim.
> instead of shaky footage and unreliable witnesses
The footage seems to be getting better and there's such a long list of reliable witnesses at this point that to claim otherwise is extremely willfully ignorant.
Re: Flight characteristics of anomalous unidentified aerial vehicles (2019)
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
The radar and FLIR aren't as easy to 'trick' though.
The analysis in this article is just plain bad; it came up in another UFO discussion about nine months ago. e.g. see here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27355333 The article is published in a journal the subject matter of which has nothing to do with UFOs, or flight dynamics or anything similar. It does so happen that the principal author of the paper is the editor-in-chief of that journal however; and the pub…
So you mean to tell me that a person who does not need to fear harm to their reputation used their own science-focused business to take on the analysis of a phenomenon that is wrought with fallacious appeals to shame?
> and the publisher of the journal has been on-again-off-again the lists of predatory publishers for some years.
MDPI? I don't have time to research this thoroughly but aren't they just a multidisciplinary republisher from other journals who are ostensibly the responsible parties for ensuring proper peer review?
> MDPI was included on Jeffrey Beall's list of predatory open access publishing companies in 2014[13][15] but was removed in 2015 following a successful appeal[14] while applying pressure on Beall's employer.[16] Some journals published by MDPI have also been noted by the Chinese Academy of Sciences and Norwegian Scientific Publication Register, two major scientific bodies, for lack of rigour and possible predatory practice.[
Jeffrey Beall has an obvious anti-open-access bias, and I believe that's why the "pressure on his employer" was successful. As an open-source developer, this makes it difficult for me to judge his claims fairly; the "ivory tower of accredited scientists working in secret and retaining sole access to prestigious journals while divvying out Truth From On High" is a model that I think needs to be put to bed (even if there are some drawbacks to that). What I can say is that capitalism does not seem to mesh well with basic science research and it can result in problems such as poor peer review.
Re: Flight characteristics of anomalous unidentified aerial vehicles (2019)
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
These VFX artists have a fun video where they analyze some Pentagon UFO footage, one of the hypothesis they have is that is just parallax. https://youtu.be/jHDlfIaBEqw?t=274
Which leads me to the question: why isn’t the Pentagon/Navy doing basic analyses and arriving at conclusions such as simple optical effects vs. UAP (aliens!?) If you assume the Pentagon/Navy is not incredibly incompetent and can indeed understand things such as parallax, I’m led to think this entire change in stance around UFOs is some sort of shitty psyops campaign designed to obscure information around secret/next-…
Re: Flight characteristics of anomalous unidentified aerial vehicles (2019)
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
But some of those pilots made critical mistakes describing the tic tac, things like FOV changes on the camera were interpreted by them publicly as velocity changes of the object.
The information from multiple different radar signals tracking the same objects would seem to rule such things out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBtMbBPzqHY