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

Flight characteristics of anomalous unidentified aerial vehicles (2019)

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–118 of 118 posts

Re: Flight characteristics of anomalous unidentified aerial vehicles (2019)

#111

Post by pmarreck »

danbruc wrote: post #109
pmarreck wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where are you getting that size information from? My concerns: 1) I don't think the camera isn't stationary (the first few seconds make this pretty clear). Wouldn't a parallax speed illusion require a moving observer? and in this case a RAPIDLY moving observer? (Edit: It seems this was in fact on an F/A-18, just at very long range.) 2) I don't see any wings. 3) If this system trivially locked onto birds, I'm pretty s…

I took one frame, frame 384 to be precise, where the system has locked onto the object and tracks it. The frame is 428 pixels wide and high. The AN/ASQ-228 ATFLIR has three selectable fields of view and during the entire video it is set to NAR with zoom 1.0 wich means 0.7°. Dividing this by the frame dimension gives us the angular size of one pixel as 0.0016355°. The system reports the distance to the object as 4.4 N…

Where are you getting the numbers from such as the equivalency of zoom 1.0 meaning 0.7 degrees?

There's a lot of math here and although I don't initially disagree with it, any error at any point could result in a wildly different final estimate

Re: Flight characteristics of anomalous unidentified aerial vehicles (2019)

#112

Post by pmarreck »

nobody9999 wrote: post #101
pmarreck wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this sufficiently extraordinary? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBtMbBPzqHY 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)

>Is this sufficiently extraordinary? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBtMbBPzqHY I have no idea. I'm not going to watch some random video. Where is the associated published, peer-reviewed paper? In the absence of hard data to support whatever the above purports to show, it's just as believable as this[0]. >Also, it's already conceptually possible to get around the spacetime problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcu…

The Von Neumann probe, or any indefinitely self-replicating machine, is only theoretical and has never been demonstrated in any plausible capacity, unless one assumes that the human body is just a squishy machine demonstrating the veracity of the idea, which becomes simply circular reasoning. It does remind me of that one 3D printer that can print itself, however (although it too needs human assistance).

> I'm not going to watch some random video. Where is the associated published, peer-reviewed paper?

Not all truth can be contained in papers. In fact (unfortunately), only a small amount of it can. Sometimes you need to actually hear someone speak their experience. Imagine conducting a relationship via papers alone, for example. (Ever get into an argument over text that had to move to voice or in-person in order to resolve it?) Anyway, I think it is worth watching.

That said, we live in a time when science is basically under fire, so I can't in good faith argue against you here.

Re: Flight characteristics of anomalous unidentified aerial vehicles (2019)

#113

Post by danbruc »

pmarreck wrote: post #111
danbruc wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I took one frame, frame 384 to be precise, where the system has locked onto the object and tracks it. The frame is 428 pixels wide and high. The AN/ASQ-228 ATFLIR has three selectable fields of view and during the entire video it is set to NAR with zoom 1.0 wich means 0.7°. Dividing this by the frame dimension gives us the angular size of one pixel as 0.0016355°. The system reports the distance to the object as 4.4 N…

Where are you getting the numbers from such as the equivalency of zoom 1.0 meaning 0.7 degrees? There's a lot of math here and although I don't initially disagree with it, any error at any point could result in a wildly different final estimate

The field of view is from the manufacturer [1], there are a some specifications at the very end. That the three options are indicated by WFOV (Wide FOV), MFOV (Medium FOV) and NAR (Narrow FOV) I first found in a flight simulator documentation [2] and it matches what you actually see in videos. The zoom is on top of the selected field of view, with a zoom of 2.0 the field of view would shrink to 0.35° in NAR.

There is one thing that I noticed in the flight simulator documentation, the field of views are given as 6°, 3°, and 1.5° while the manufacturer states 6°, 2.6°, and 0.7°. That seems a bit odd as they are seemingly trying to make a very realistic simulation and I don't understand why they would deviate from the real values here. In the end I decided to just stick with the value Raytheon gives without digging too much into this difference.

The frame and object sizes in pixel are certainly correct, everyone can check this. The distance is also easy to read in the video and therefore certainly correct unless you want to argue that the distance measurement didn't work properly and reported a wrong value. Finally the field of view should also be certainly correct, only that the flight simulator documentation gives different values causes me a tiny bit of doubt.

Further questions about the size? If not, what's next? Altitude, temperature, speed, wings, ...? Or does the size alone convince you that it is just a bird?

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20091211103559/http://www.raythe...

[2] https://forums.vrsimulations.com/support/index.php/A/G_Advan...

Re: Flight characteristics of anomalous unidentified aerial vehicles (2019)

#114

Post by pmarreck »

danbruc wrote: post #113
pmarreck wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where are you getting the numbers from such as the equivalency of zoom 1.0 meaning 0.7 degrees? There's a lot of math here and although I don't initially disagree with it, any error at any point could result in a wildly different final estimate

The field of view is from the manufacturer [1], there are a some specifications at the very end. That the three options are indicated by WFOV (Wide FOV), MFOV (Medium FOV) and NAR (Narrow FOV) I first found in a flight simulator documentation [2] and it matches what you actually see in videos. The zoom is on top of the selected field of view, with a zoom of 2.0 the field of view would shrink to 0.35° in NAR. There is…

There was apparently (based on the audio recorded) a fleet of them (although this neither proves nor disproves the bird hypothesis). Could also be drones or missiles of some sort. But they're also claiming that this occurs on a daily basis, which supports the bird hypothesis I guess. The claims of physics-defying direction changes and speeds does not, though.

Re: Flight characteristics of anomalous unidentified aerial vehicles (2019)

#115

Post by danbruc »

pmarreck wrote: post #114
danbruc wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The field of view is from the manufacturer [1], there are a some specifications at the very end. That the three options are indicated by WFOV (Wide FOV), MFOV (Medium FOV) and NAR (Narrow FOV) I first found in a flight simulator documentation [2] and it matches what you actually see in videos. The zoom is on top of the selected field of view, with a zoom of 2.0 the field of view would shrink to 0.35° in NAR. There is…

There was apparently (based on the audio recorded) a fleet of them (although this neither proves nor disproves the bird hypothesis). Could also be drones or missiles of some sort. But they're also claiming that this occurs on a daily basis, which supports the bird hypothesis I guess. The claims of physics-defying direction changes and speeds does not, though.

Then speed it is? This will take me a few days, I started with size because it was quick and easy, but for the speed I will have to extract information from all or at least many frames instead of just looking at one.

Re: Flight characteristics of anomalous unidentified aerial vehicles (2019)

#116

Post by the_af »

pmarreck wrote: post #110
the_af wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 But this is again a non-argument. It proves nothing and adds nothing of value. "Of course you are only hearing from bullshitters, reasonable people are afraid to speak" is indistinguishable from "reasonable people don't…

> There is no long list of reliable witnesses nor solid scientific evidence, contrary to your claims. Alright, I'll call your bluff for the sake of falsification: What is the reasonable number, and quality, of witnesses that you would accept as sufficiently persuasive?

It's not a bluff. Trust me, if there was scientific evidence of ET intelligent life visiting us, it would be all over the news.

More than zero reliable witnesses for the existence of extraterrestrial intelligent life visiting us would be a good starting point. Vetoed by the scientific community, not associated to UFOlogist conspiracy groups, who understand the scientific method and who understand unexplained phenomena is just that: unexplained, and who are not trying to sell a book or a story for a made-for-TV movie.

Example template of unreliable and unscientific witnesses: experimental jet pilot who claims to have seen/recorded footage of a strange flying object that, according to his proven experience, cannot be flying according to known physics, and he has never seen anything like this. Also, one of his friends is an astronomer and told him what he saw is likely ET life. Also, his commanding officers told him to drop the issue. Someone made a documentary out of this and it's now on Netflix.

Why this isn't good evidence by a solid witness:

- Experienced pilots are not scientists nor physicists nor biologists. They are in no position to judge what is or is not possible, or what is a hint of ET life.

- Experienced pilots also lie and exaggerate.

- Unexplained phenomena is just that: unexplained. It can be equipment malfunction OR a genuine interesting physics phenomenon that is not easily explained... yet. An interesting puzzle, sure. Evidence of ET life? Very unlikely.

- Commanding officers dismissing him may be due to this being classified intel, them being annoyed at the UFO weirdo, or simply not having the time for that nonsense. The least likely explanation is that they are suppressing evidence of ET visitations.

- Random astronomer/scientist friends are not evidence when they assert things in isolation. _Doubly_ so if it's outside their area of expertise.

- Vetoing by the wider scientific community is necessary.

- Documentaries on Netflix or articles on magazines or websites are not evidence.

- Occam's Razor must be wielded before deciding this was indeed a UFO piloted by extraterrestrial beings instead of simply a natural occurrence on Earth.

Your turn.

Re: Flight characteristics of anomalous unidentified aerial vehicles (2019)

#117

Post by pmarreck »

the_af wrote: post #116
pmarreck wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is no long list of reliable witnesses nor solid scientific evidence, contrary to your claims. Alright, I'll call your bluff for the sake of falsification: What is the reasonable number, and quality, of witnesses that you would accept as sufficiently persuasive?

It's not a bluff. Trust me, if there was scientific evidence of ET intelligent life visiting us, it would be all over the news. More than zero reliable witnesses for the existence of extraterrestrial intelligent life visiting us would be a good starting point. Vetoed by the scientific community, not associated to UFOlogist conspiracy groups, who understand the scientific method and who understand unexplained phenomen…

Can you just... please... at least just watch the damn 7-minute video (shit, if you watch it at 1.5 speed it's only 5 mins!), because as it turns out, not all truths can be reached via scientific papers, with some truths you have to actually listen to people talking about their subjective experiences (more pedestrian cases in point: kids claiming they are trans or gay despite no obvious mechanistic explanation for it, women claiming they were sexually assaulted, guys claiming that blueballs exist (did you know there's no actual evidence for that and that the predominant explanation is "testicular torsion", which is insane, as that condition is an extremely rare medical emergency, according to my nurse friend?), anyone reporting anything as an eyewitness to a police or legal authority... etc. etc. etc.)

I'm not trying to sell you anything. I'm not making any money on this (and neither are these folks), and 60 Minutes is a (mostly) reputable information source with a long history.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygB4EZ7ggig

Re: Flight characteristics of anomalous unidentified aerial vehicles (2019)

#118

Post by the_af »

pmarreck wrote: post #117
the_af wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a bluff. Trust me, if there was scientific evidence of ET intelligent life visiting us, it would be all over the news. More than zero reliable witnesses for the existence of extraterrestrial intelligent life visiting us would be a good starting point. Vetoed by the scientific community, not associated to UFOlogist conspiracy groups, who understand the scientific method and who understand unexplained phenomen…

Can you just... please... at least just watch the damn 7-minute video (shit, if you watch it at 1.5 speed it's only 5 mins!), because as it turns out, not all truths can be reached via scientific papers, with some truths you have to actually listen to people talking about their subjective experiences (more pedestrian cases in point: kids claiming they are trans or gay despite no obvious mechanistic explanation for it…

> as it turns out, not all truths can be reached via scientific papers, with some truths you have to actually listen to people talking about their subjective experiences

It turns out claims of intelligent ET life visiting Earth is one of those things that requires scientific evidence and cannot be based on "subjective experiences".

Unsurprisingly, your video seems to tick many of the boxes in my template example. 60 minutes is not reputable in the sense you mean, nor is it the right venue for subject matter experts.

Anyway, this exchange has become fruitless. I'm not at all interested in hearing from "subjective experiences" of space aliens that are beyond the reach of "scientific papers". Please continue believing whatever you want, and have a nice day.

Post reply on HN