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

Famous Navy UFO video was camera glare, evidence suggests

petapixel.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 401 posts

Re: Famous Navy UFO video was camera glare, evidence suggests

#71

Post by rhema »

Well, the only reason they were scrambled to begin with is that they had been tracking these objects for weeks using advanced radar. As I understand it, the radar is based on multiple resolutions. The active radar can point in the direction of objects of interest and get very very precise measurements. It's not just the video, its the radar data.

The thing that pushed me over the edge in believing these things is the long podcast interview between Commander David Fravor and Lex Fridman.

Re: Famous Navy UFO video was camera glare, evidence suggests

#72

Post by honkdaddy »

jmyeet wrote: post #27

I honestly don’t know what to make of these observations other than I’m utterly convinced they’re not alien, super high tech or break the laws of physics (eg inertia). There was no alien crash in Roswell. I also file believe any government is competent enough for the claimed cover up and associated psyops. What I do find interesting is the overlap between people who buy into various conspiracy theories and people who…

The Dyson Swarm is more or less a science fiction concept. Is its lack of existence really your reason for believing we’re alone in the universe?

You seem keen to make fun of dogmatic people but attaching a hypothetical concept which is so trivial and fringe to your mental model seems like pretty dogmatic behavior. If you’d never heard of a Dyson Swarm, like the vast, vast majority of people haven’t, would your view of extraterrestrial life have significantly changed?

Re: Famous Navy UFO video was camera glare, evidence suggests

#73

Post by netsharc »

toptal wrote: post #14

Didn’t they actually see the object on multiple radars using multiple types of detection methods? Assuming that’s true, the camera glare story seems unlikely.

The video states that there's something there, but its heat signature is causing the glare (the video is in IR). Was the object flying steadily and rotating weirdly throughout the video? You can't see how the object is flying, the smooth motion and weird rotation you perceive is the effect of the glare!

Re: Famous Navy UFO video was camera glare, evidence suggests

#74

Post by s1artibartfast »

chrisco255 wrote: post #25
a9h74j wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the carrier group tracked Naive question: If a carrier group cannot, in essentially real-time, document three dimensional trajectories at this point (four if you include speed), what possible defense can they claim to have against evasive incoming missiles, etc.

Carriers are most likely partly obsoleted by hypersonic missiles that travel and maneuver at mach 20 (which Russia and China have), in addition to 100 megaton nuclear torpedoes that travel at 120mph (which Russia has). https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/03/russias-new-pos... https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2019/10/14/will-ground-bas...

Obsolete is a binary term, not scalar.

Carrier effectiveness and utility is diminished by some weapon systems, but they are still effective for many roles and purposes.

Re: Famous Navy UFO video was camera glare, evidence suggests

#75

Post by zionic »

billsmithwicks wrote: post #4

I like Mick West, and even though camera glare isn't usually picked up on radar by the navy, it's sufficient to fulfill Occam's razor.

Mick West is a buffoon, and his “debunking” videos intentionally mislead his audience. I say this because he has had this explained to him again and again but he still ignores evidence.

When you have infrared, multiple radar, and visual observations simultaneously of an object and pretend all you have is a grainy infrared video REPEATEDLY it goes beyond skepticism into deceit.

Re: Famous Navy UFO video was camera glare, evidence suggests

#76

Post by ssully »

zionic wrote: post #62
ssully wrote: post #13

Mick West has some interesting videos and does a good job debunking a lot of crap, but to me he is on the complete opposite spectrum of a UFO truther in that he doesn't seem to leave any room for the possibility that he might be wrong. With that said, I suggest reading this New Yorker piece [1] on the subject. It's actually how I came to learn about Mick. He is covered a bit in the story and gives decent counter poin…

What? Mick west does a terrible job, all of his arguments that I’ve seen are preposterous, and require ignoring tons of evidence.

I think I could have gone harder on my second sentence. I do think he has some good debunking video's, but I would agree with you in that he does ignore a lot of evidence. When I say he is on the opposite spectrum of a UFO truther, I mean that I don't take him serious because his only goal seems to be to get a debunk video out regardless of merit.

Re: Famous Navy UFO video was camera glare, evidence suggests

#77

Post by chrisco255 »

water8 wrote: post #47
chrisco255 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Carriers are most likely partly obsoleted by hypersonic missiles that travel and maneuver at mach 20 (which Russia and China have), in addition to 100 megaton nuclear torpedoes that travel at 120mph (which Russia has). https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/03/russias-new-pos... https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2019/10/14/will-ground-bas...

Why is china building carriers then? Hypersonic weapons still need to know where to go. Theres a reason an ICBM which flies upwards of mach 20 is ineffective against carriers

They are good at projecting power against lesser foes in a sub-nuclear confrontation. I think if we went to all out war against Russia and/or China our carriers would be some of the first casualties.

Re: Famous Navy UFO video was camera glare, evidence suggests

#79

Post by RobertMiller »

mcast wrote: post #43
smachiz wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean... assuming the Russians have anything that works is probably not a great assumption based on their performance in Ukraine. But I think they provide overlapping, but different, roles. But missiles and torpedoes is why aircraft carriers travel in carrier groups that have defensive capabilities against torpedoes and missiles.

It wouldn’t make much sense for Russia to show their cards and use modern war tech on Ukraine, a country with a (relatively) primitive military. They’re barely even using fighter jets.

> They’re barely even using fighter jets.

Maybe because they've barely been training those pilots and know the planes would likely be lost if used above Ukraine? Pilots in the Russian Air Force have supposedly been averaging less than 100 flight hours a year, which is next to nothing.

Re: Famous Navy UFO video was camera glare, evidence suggests

#80

Post by tsimionescu »

oblib wrote: post #38

Interesting how so many are willing to accept "camera flare" as a concrete explanation. One thing that bothers me about this explanation is we know those pilots had a lot of experience with those systems so I'd expect they'd know "camera flare" when they saw it on those displays. But it's clear from the audio they did not recognize it as that. And there was more than one pilot seeing it, and from different angles. I'…

The US Air force and Navy have a pretty bad track record of incompetent pilots. They have a history of losing numerous planes in training excercises, for example.
Post reply on HN