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

171–180 of 401 posts

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

#171

Post by notfbi »

Johnny555 wrote: post #19

Isn't he only debunking the image that appeared on the video as being glare as opposed to the actual object? So the object is real, but what appeared in the video is glare, not an actual representation of the object? West contends that what is being seen in the video is actually infrared glare that hides a hot object behind it and only rotates in the way it does because the camera rotates when tracking the target fro…

UFO-ers were using things like the rotation speed as definitive evidence of some like other-worldly advanced technology. Demonstrating that it was the glare/gimble brings it back into the realm of just a normal far-away plane. It also casts doubt on the expertise of the pilots/military who didn't realize what happened.

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

#172

Post by mark-r »

birdyrooster wrote: post #156
adriand wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We also need to be really honest about what we want this to be, and how that desire influences what we believe about it. I personally want this to be an alien spacecraft, because that's super interesting and exciting. I think the same is true of lots of other people. Unfortunately, there are much more mundane explanations which fit the evidence much better.

Why do you want it to be alien spacecraft? Are you some sort of glutton for punishment?

If there really are aliens out there, wouldn't you like to have some proof of it?

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

#173

Post by nkassis »

russdpale wrote: post #167

Im pretty suspicious, why does an MIT AI researcher have a youtube channel? Does he not get paid enough with his salary? Also, this is a four hour video, what is the timestamp of the comments you refer to?

Some people have YouTube channels as hobbies ? I don't see the issue.

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

#175

Post by outworlder »

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...

> Carriers are most likely partly obsoleted by hypersonic missiles that travel and maneuver at mach 20

That's assuming they can actually hit and inflict sufficient damage.

Also, you need to re-read your own sources.

> 100 megaton nuclear torpedoes that travel at 120mph (which Russia has).

The article is estimating that it's at most 2 megatons (still a lot, but 50x smaller) and that it's NOT supercavitating, so it would not travel at 120mph.

The other article does not support the conclusion that carriers are obsolete, at all. It poses the question, but does not answer it.

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

#176

Post by cronix »

scoopertrooper wrote: post #148
colordrops wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

RADAR and visual confirmation.

Got a source on that? I feel like people just want to believe. But this is a pretty satisfying explanation.

Here's a 60 Minutes piece discussing it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBtMbBPzqHY

Here's a 4 hour interview with the pilot, David Fravor, on Lex Fridman's show where he goes into much more detail than you'll probably read elsewhere: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aB8zcAttP1E

This wasn't just a single radar. It was an AEGIS system compromised of multiple ships with state of the art radars, multiple plane radars, and visual confirmation by several pilots. They were tracking it for multiple days.

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

#177

Post by e40 »

russdpale wrote: post #167

Im pretty suspicious, why does an MIT AI researcher have a youtube channel? Does he not get paid enough with his salary? Also, this is a four hour video, what is the timestamp of the comments you refer to?

There's an index in the video notes.

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

#178

Post by vo2maxer »

russdpale wrote: post #167

Im pretty suspicious, why does an MIT AI researcher have a youtube channel? Does he not get paid enough with his salary? Also, this is a four hour video, what is the timestamp of the comments you refer to?

> Im pretty suspicious, why does an MIT AI researcher have a youtube channel? Does he not get paid enough with his salary?

Could you please elaborate on why you think that an MIT researcher having a YouTube channel where is had some very interesting interviews somehow makes it suspicious?

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

#179

Post by drc500free »

russdpale wrote: post #167

Im pretty suspicious, why does an MIT AI researcher have a youtube channel? Does he not get paid enough with his salary? Also, this is a four hour video, what is the timestamp of the comments you refer to?

removed needlessly snarky comment

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

#180

Post by outworlder »

cma wrote: post #17
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 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.

> shutting down engines and gliding over campfires then lighting up after burners when right over them

I find it very, very, very hard to believe that a fighter pilot would _shut down_ his engines in flight, at night, even more so if it's for a stunt.

Slightly more believable if he went to idle, and then full military power. Slightly.

Post reply on HN