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

141–150 of 401 posts

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

#141

Post by bvbrandon »

nabla9 wrote: post #39
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.

That "four different pilots" stuff has not been confirmed as far as I know. All people involved in these stories are hustlers, including that one ex-pilot who peddles the story. You must look at every statement they make separately. They give one fact that can be verified and then they tie lies or unverified stuff on that. btw. Luis Elizondo is has not been charge of any UFO stuff. https://theintercept.com/2019/06/01…

Curious to hear your thoughts on this https://twitter.com/gadinbc/status/1386872125835812864?s=21

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

#142

Post by DennisP »

oldstrangers wrote: post #37
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…

You can't really extrapolate being alone in the universe from "aliens aren't visiting us." The fact that we exist at all, especially as a random occurrence of events, would suggest it's not that bizarre of an event. If we were single celled organisms having this conversation, then yeah, life outside of earth would seem more unlikely. But we have 4.543 billion years worth of evidence showing that life REALLY likes to…

For all we know, it takes a whole universe banging molecules together before metabolizing self-replicating life randomly arises. If it has only emerged one time in the entire universe, nothing would look different to us than it does right now.

Or maybe it happens all the time. But with only one sample, we have no data either way.

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

#143

Post by beebeepka »

colordrops wrote: post #85
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.

Weather balloon launched by swamp gas burp

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

#144

Post by zardo »

StanislavPetrov wrote: post #109
stonemetal12 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

We have unexplained phenomena. We have eyewitness accounts from the Navy's top pilots as well as instrument data and IR footage. If we cannot explain this phenomena with what we know, then we must consider the possibility its something that we don't know. Simply putting your head in the sand or attempting to debunk this documented phenomena with patently absurd explanations like "a lens flare" or "it was only Venus"…

We have what appears to be a shiny floating object. What data do we have that can't be explained by a shiny balloon?

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

#145

Post by cma »

bostonsre wrote: post #49
cma wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The pilots are trained Fraver (not sure he was one of the ones in this incident) has a history of UFO pranks, shutting down engines and gliding over campfires then lighting up after burners when right over them, explicitly to give a UFO experience, and someone found a contemporaneous report of him doing it, so it wasn't just a story.

So your are saying the one with evidence was a prank because he screwed around on a training mission?

He explicitly said he did those as UFO pranks.

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

#146

Post by cma »

Teever wrote: post #32
cma wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The pilots are trained Fraver (not sure he was one of the ones in this incident) has a history of UFO pranks, shutting down engines and gliding over campfires then lighting up after burners when right over them, explicitly to give a UFO experience, and someone found a contemporaneous report of him doing it, so it wasn't just a story.

Source?

What ceejayoz linked below

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

#147

Post by [deleted] »

bvbrandon wrote: post #141
nabla9 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That "four different pilots" stuff has not been confirmed as far as I know. All people involved in these stories are hustlers, including that one ex-pilot who peddles the story. You must look at every statement they make separately. They give one fact that can be verified and then they tie lies or unverified stuff on that. btw. Luis Elizondo is has not been charge of any UFO stuff. https://theintercept.com/2019/06/01…

Curious to hear your thoughts on this https://twitter.com/gadinbc/status/1386872125835812864?s=21

[deleted]

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

#148

Post by scoopertrooper »

colordrops wrote: post #86
stouset wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What other evidence is this inconsistent with?

RADAR and visual confirmation.

Got a source on that?

I feel like people just want to believe. But this is a pretty satisfying explanation.

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

#150

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN