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

121–130 of 401 posts

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

#121

Post by msla »

tablespoon wrote: post #96
NyxWulf wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 p…

> Conspiracy theorists can at least be entertaining sometimes

Right up until they're sure that there's a child molestation ring in the basement of a pizza parlor that doesn't have a basement, and someone goes and shoots up the place because the conspiracy theory was so damn entertaining.

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

#122

Post by alphabetting »

Still convinced the intelligence and technology it would require to get here would make us identifying aliens in our ozone impossible. They'd only be seen if they wanted to be. First contact could be seeing a von neumann probe or some other kind of scout type aircraft in space but it wouldn't be like the videos.

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

#123

Post by thjkgfgrrioppo »

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'…

Believe the experts!

Some people want real proof, not having to rely on believing experts.

I guess it is a chasm across society. Some people want to be able to believe.

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

#124

Post by jonnylynchy »

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…

Someone forgot to take their anti-cynicism medication this morning.

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

#125

Post by [deleted] »

user3939382 wrote: post #33
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…

> wishful thinking and the comfort derived from there being a Grand Plan You may not have meant this by your comment, but in general I find a related analysis common among atheists, that religious people believe what they do because it feels good. I find that's often wrong, and when generally applied condescending, as if atheists are simply more emotionally mature. On the contrary many religious people will tell you…

[deleted]

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

#126

Post by xdennis »

playcache wrote: post #67
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 problem with your comment is you just lumped together a string of un-credible events and then summarise you're not convinced. To be frank Roswell and psyops (whatever that is) would not be enough to utterly convince me too. What I do find very interesting though is credible recent eye witness testimonies coming from US Navy pilots and the work at Harvard University for the Galileo Project, along with the other ma…

I'm surprised you're more convinced by eye witness testimonies. People are notoriously unreliable. If anything, this glare is better proof of green men than just talk.

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

#127

Post by smachiz »

chrisco255 wrote: post #119
smachiz wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

I'm a tenth generation American. Pointing out facts is called being a realist. And I'm not impressed with a bunch of armchair generals that think that war with Russia would be easy because their Tik Tok feed told them so.

No post body was provided.

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

#128

Post by jl6 »

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…

> Given the huge benefits of a Dyson Swarm and the fact that it seems to require no exotic materials and no more physics it looks increasingly likely that we are very alone in the Milky Way

There’s still a huge engineering gap between our current tech and the theoretical possibility of a Dyson Swarm. I don’t find it at all implausible that such a thing would need too much energy, effort, collective will, or some other resource, to make it practical. There could still be plenty of stealthy sub-Dyson civilizations, or even supra-Dyson civilizations that have found it in their interest not to be detectable.

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

#129

Post by sudosysgen »

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.

Yes. This happened multiple times. There was an incident where the tree-blade bokeh of a NVD was mistaken for a UFO once, for example.

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

#130

Post by user-the-name »

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.

No post body was provided.
Post reply on HN