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

91–100 of 401 posts

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

#91

Post by tsimionescu »

oblib wrote: post #63

Sitting here knowing we have a helicopter and a land rover on Mars it doesn't feel like it's entirely impossible for an alien craft to be here, looking at us. I can't make the leap to believe without doubt there is, or even to believe there probably is. But it is not impossible. We've already proved it's not, and we're not really all that smart.

Anyone on Mars would have very clearly seen the Rover landing and known exactly what it was and where it was coming from. They also didn't arrive in Mars from the opposite end of the Galaxy, they arrived from the next planet over.

Most importantly, no one on Mars would think that the rover or helicopter are defying theaws of physics, bending space time or anything like that, which are real claims made by army personnel about the objects seen in some of these videos.

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

#92

Post by ssully »

oblib wrote: post #63

Sitting here knowing we have a helicopter and a land rover on Mars it doesn't feel like it's entirely impossible for an alien craft to be here, looking at us. I can't make the leap to believe without doubt there is, or even to believe there probably is. But it is not impossible. We've already proved it's not, and we're not really all that smart.

Yup, that's kind of where I am at. I think I lean more towards "this definitely isn't aliens", but if it's aliens then I definitely think these are unmanned drones keeping an eye on us.

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

#93

Post by stouset »

oblib wrote: post #63

Sitting here knowing we have a helicopter and a land rover on Mars it doesn't feel like it's entirely impossible for an alien craft to be here, looking at us. I can't make the leap to believe without doubt there is, or even to believe there probably is. But it is not impossible. We've already proved it's not, and we're not really all that smart.

Space is really big. The difference in effort between getting an oversized RC car to Mars and getting a huge supermaneuverable space-and-aircraft to the nearest habitable planet is about the same as walking down tree driveway to get your paper and… well, getting a huge supermaneuverable space-and-aircraft to the nearest habitable planet.

Then doing it over and over just to play mind games with the primitive apes on the planet while somehow evading anything resembling a decent camera or photographer?

I’m not going to say it’s strictly impossible. But it sure as hell isn’t plausible.

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

#95

Post by RobertMiller »

nabla9 wrote: post #81
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…

> People read "Navy confirms authenticity of the video" as "This is important and Navy can't explain it."

Precisely. There is a huge gap between what the Navy has actually claimed about the videos and what people think the Navy has claimed. 'The video is authentic' is not the same as 'the video shows what it's purported to show.'

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

#96

Post by tablespoon »

NyxWulf wrote: post #10
zmgsabst wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This analysis even admits that there’s an object required for the “glare” to exist. This analysis doesn’t reject an actual object being tracked: it confirms it and describes it as one that causes IR glare!

So the claim is...these highly trained pilots and the other sensor systems didn't realize that objects cause IR glare, but this guy did. Case closed.

> So the claim is...these highly trained pilots and the other sensor systems didn't realize that objects cause IR glare, but this guy did. Case closed.

And frankly the "this guy" appears to be someone with no expertise and who is strongly biased towards particular investigatory outcomes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mick_West:

> Mick West is a British science writer, skeptical investigator, and retired video game programmer. He is the creator of the websites Contrail Science and Metabunk, and he investigates and debunks pseudoscientific claims and conspiracy theories such as chemtrails and UFOs.

Not to say he isn't right in this case, but I'm equality unenthusiastic about "skeptics" like that as I am about conspiracy theorists.

Edit: on second thought, I'm somewhat more unenthusiastic "skeptics" like that. Conspiracy theorists can at least be entertaining sometimes, while "skeptics" tend to just bore you with self-assured arrogance while they take pot shots at low-hanging fruit.

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

#97

Post by tsimionescu »

zionic wrote: post #75
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.

We have a grainy infrared video, and claims of other infrared, radar and visual observations. Claims are easy to make and hard to analyze. Video is all we can analyze, and the video is unconvincing. Why then should we believe the claims?

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

#98

Post by willidiots »

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.

The "saucer" shape and its rotation were IR glare, that's the point of the video. He's very clear that he's NOT debunking the existence of an object. The exhaust of a jet engine, or another high-heat signature, could cause such glare.

AFAICT no pilots saw this shape with their naked eye. They were miles away from the target and relying on what they saw via their sensors.

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

#99

Post by oblib »

zionic wrote: post #59
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'…

https://youtu.be/ro29w4ESw44 Has an actual fighter pilot’s reaction.

That was pretty painful to watch with the fast forward going on for so long. I didn't try to take that in.

Seems to me like our gov's own investigation would've found gimbal glare to be the culprit if that were the case. But they didn't. What they said is:

"Of the 144 reports we are dealing with here, we have no clear indications that there is any non-terrestrial explanation for them — but we will go wherever the data takes us..."

And:

"We absolutely do believe what we're seeing are not simply sensor artifacts."

[https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/25/politics/ufo-report-pentagon-...]

Post reply on HN