Famous Navy UFO video was camera glare, evidence suggests • Hacker News Board

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

#191

Post by potatoman22 » Wed, Mar 16, 2022, 9:59 PM UTC

bun_at_work wrote: post #185

oldstrangers wrote: post #37

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…

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 _inte…

If we can't define intelligence well, why is it unreasonable to assume there's intelligent life? Maybe most life is intelligent, just not on Earth.

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

#192

Post by ARandomerDude » Wed, Mar 16, 2022, 10:00 PM UTC

bratwurst3000 wrote: post #116

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…

Totaly true . Look at alex jones. He is a full blown crazy person that believes in the supremacy of the christian race… oh yes racism goes also realy well with religion

What? Christianity is not a race.

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

#193

Post by avl999 » Wed, Mar 16, 2022, 10:01 PM UTC

> But a new detailed analysis by self-described debunker, skeptic, and UFO investigator Mick West

Ignored as soon as I read the name "Mick West". The guy's brand is to be a debunker which in of itself is not bad but I am not gonna trust a video game developer's (brand aligning) explanations of this phenomenon compared to trained fighter pilots and the US Navy/Pentagon who have found no explanation of this phenomenon thus far.

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

#194

Post by avl999 » Wed, Mar 16, 2022, 10:03 PM UTC

belter wrote: post #165

- David Fravor and his colleagues, are highly credible witnesses of something they observed visually. - This is certainly a very interesting interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIUBjvY4PnQ - There are visual observations, and what are, ( by military standards), flimsy short images/video. - This analysis partially explains one part of it, without excluding the presence of an object. - There is also Radar data,…

These observations have also been made by military adjacent organizations in UK, France and China. It is definitely not a US pilot specific thing.

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

#195

Post by tejohnso » Wed, Mar 16, 2022, 10:03 PM UTC

xmaayy wrote: post #187

ynniv wrote: 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.

Yet the title of the article says the video was camera glare. Which doesn't even make sense. But what it suggests is that the entire contents can be explained away as camera glare. So blame the media in this case perhaps?

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

#196

Post by nocturnial » Wed, Mar 16, 2022, 10:04 PM UTC

zardo wrote: post #144

StanislavPetrov wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I might be overly pedantic with this point but saying a shiny balloon fits the limited data we have, doesn't mean it was a shiny balloon.

The thing that bothers me the most about this sort of discussions is that it's all done on "paper"[1]. It would be helpful to actually release a balloon, or whatever object you think it was, and check if you can reproduce the glare and other sensor data.

If it's very easy to reproduce then we can be more confident in that explanation and probably nail down more detailed characteristics of that object. Once we have that we can look where this object could've come from. For example, if it points to a balloon, did a company/organization lose a balloon in that time frame? Once we have all this info we would have an explanation that's more robust than someone saying: "It might be possible this and potentially that"

This requires money, time and the hardware. So I guess it's unlikely that will ever happen.

[1] Not saying it's useless. Those calculations and/or simulations are very useful to limit the types of objects it could be.

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

#197

Post by phendrenad2 » Wed, Mar 16, 2022, 10:09 PM UTC

Nitpick: This isn't "evidence", this is "analysis". The title of the video itself is "Gimbal UFO - A New Analysis". A photography magazine can't be expected to understand the difference though, I guess.

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

#198

Post by dang » Wed, Mar 16, 2022, 10:10 PM UTC

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?

We detached this offtopic subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30703907.

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

#199

Post by d35007 » Wed, Mar 16, 2022, 10:10 PM UTC

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, while "skeptics" tend to just bore you with self-assured arrogance while they take pot shots at low-hanging fruit.

I don't know about skeptics in general, but I found Mr. West's video to be pretty entertaining. He built some pretty impressive-looking simulations to support his claims.

I think conspiracy theories can be interesting and entertaining, but a lot of their theorists are kinda pathetic.

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

#200

Post by ARandomerDude » Wed, Mar 16, 2022, 10:13 PM UTC

tsimionescu wrote: post #80

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'…

The US Air force and Navy have a pretty bad track record of incompetent pilots. They have a history of losing numerous planes in training excercises, for example.

Incredible speed + low altitude flying + statically unstable aircraft + sensors + weapons + offense + defense + communications + ...

Yeah. These guys must really suck.