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

81–90 of 401 posts

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

#81

Post by nabla9 »

RobertMiller wrote: post #3

Mick West debunked these to my satisfaction ages ago. The only question I have left is whether the whole thing was a US Navy psyop or whether the navy was just looking the other way and playing coy when those pilots were creating a retirement career in UFOlogy.

People read "Navy confirms authenticity of the video" as "This is important and Navy can't explain it." (if they try).

Only thing Navy does it confirms that the video is real. They don't say that they have even tried to identify or that there is any reason to identify. They have hundreds or thousands of hours of video or radar images of drones etc. they don't care to identify.

Navy does not engage with these hustlers from "To the stars academy" at all. That's the only good response. To the Stars Academy of Arts & Sciences (media & entertainment company) makes this stuff up and sells it.

https://tothestars.media/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_the_Stars_(company)

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

#82

Post by netsharc »

bally0241 wrote: post #30

I suppose the radar signature was camera "glare" too, smh. This is pretty weak.

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!

But nah, of course you know better!

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

#83

Post by ceejayoz »

bally0241 wrote: post #30

I suppose the radar signature was camera "glare" too, smh. This is pretty weak.

It's probably worth at least skimming the article prior to dismissing it. He's not saying nothing's there.

> He says that his video does not address the object itself as it’s not clear what the object is and there is nothing to say that it isn’t special or exemplary in some way. He just argues that his analysis shows that it isn’t actually exhibiting any incredible behavior and opens the door to other “mundane possibilities” like a distance small jet just flying away and the heat of the engines is what is creating a large glare on the thermal camera.

He's saying the supposedly magical behavior is explicable. Without that, it's a fairly boring "someone's probably flying a drone near our ships" sort of incident.

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

#84

Post by [deleted] »

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...

[deleted]

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

#85

Post by colordrops »

NyxWulf wrote: post #2

So the anomaly that the carrier group tracked, then scrambled fighter jets for. The object that four different pilots saw visually, and was confirmed on multiple different sensors. That was camera glare? The video is only one piece of the evidence. The pilots are trained, and other sensor systems confirmed what the camera was showing. This analysis is pretty flimsy.

It was also tracked on radar.

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

#86

Post by colordrops »

stouset wrote: post #60
bostonsre wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This analysis is saying it's likely 10 miles away, that doesn't track with the other evidence, does it?

What other evidence is this inconsistent with?

RADAR and visual confirmation.

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

#87

Post by RobertMiller »

zionic wrote: post #55
RobertMiller wrote: post #3

Mick West debunked these to my satisfaction ages ago. The only question I have left is whether the whole thing was a US Navy psyop or whether the navy was just looking the other way and playing coy when those pilots were creating a retirement career in UFOlogy.

Mick West utterly failed to “debunk” these videos, and actual fighter pilots have debunked his “debunk”. https://youtu.be/ro29w4ESw44

Do you happen to have a copy of this supposed debunking debunking that isn't given by Alvin the Chimpmunk? Wtf dude.

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

#88

Post by [deleted] »

chrisco255 wrote: post #77
water8 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#89

Post by stonemetal12 »

bostonsre wrote: post #61
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…

How are you utterly convinced when it can't be proven true or false and don't have any other explanation for it? Why close all those doors without sufficient evidence to close them? We don't have extraordinary evidence therefore it's not possible that it's anything weird doesn't seem very scientific.

>Why close all those doors without sufficient evidence to close them?

Because there isn't sufficient evidence to open them in the first place. Might as well claim it is unicorns and dragons, you don't have any evidence it isn't.

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

#90

Post by deutschew »

It is bewildering that they expect people to actually believe intelligent people to discount the IR footage from the F-18 just based on this article that reads like the "it was a weather balloon" trope we often get whenever we ask questions.

edit: holy crap, there are actually lot of people on HN buying it!

Post reply on HN