Live data from Hacker News

Famous Navy UFO video was camera glare, evidence suggests

petapixel.com

181–190 of 401 posts

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

#181

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?

This podcast generates millions it is one of the most popular pop sci podcasts. David Favor is not a random pilot he was Top Gun instructor at the time.

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

#182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> But with only one sample, we have no data either way.

Sure we do, that one instance of life pushes the needle in favor of life. A fun exercise is to imagine or visualize the concept of nothingness, as far as you can take it. Eventually you realize even the "idea of nothingness" negates the meaning of "nothingness." You reach a paradox in awareness that you're incapable of resolving because to do so would mean the idea didn't exist in the first place. Applying it to life, the existence of life negates the existence of no-life, and increases the probability in our favor.

Functionally I think life is more commonplace than anyone realizes, and we're probably just incapable of understanding life outside of our perception of reality.

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

#185
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…

Of all the life we can see only one (or a few for the more generous of you) species has what humans commonly call intelligence.

Intelligence as we commonly refer to it is not a given in evolution. Evolution seeks forward propagation of genetic material, it doesn't seek an "intelligent" state.

It's reasonable to assume there is life elsewhere in the universe. It's quite a bit more of a stretch to assume there is _intelligent_ life elsewhere in the universe, aside from the problem of defining what intelligence is.

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

#186
post #121

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. 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.

That's exactly why I said "sometimes." It might have been more precise to mean occasionally, but the clear intended meaning was that it was a minority of the time.

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

#187
post #110

What is the point of this story? Someone lacking context could watch this and arrive at the conclusion that "the Navy video of a UFO has a simple conventional explanation", which is how the presenter delivers his arguments. He meticulously demonstrates that the shape of the object which is the subject of the video is an artifact of camera glare from overexposure. In case you are not convinced, he breaks it down into…

He literally says something to the effect of "I'm only saying that the glare is obscuring the true shape of the object" in the first minutes of the video.

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

#188

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?

Are you serious?

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

#189
post #39
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…

>Luis Elizondo is has not been charge of any UFO stuff.

The late Senator Harry Reid of Nevada disagreed with you. https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/politics/article/luis-elizondo...>

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

#190

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

Those are 3 very, wildly, different men that you're comparing.
Post reply on HN