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

201–210 of 401 posts

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

#201

Post by MauranKilom »

zionic wrote: post #75
billsmithwicks wrote: post #4

I like Mick West, and even though camera glare isn't usually picked up on radar by the navy, it's sufficient to fulfill Occam's razor.

Mick West is a buffoon, and his “debunking” videos intentionally mislead his audience. I say this because he has had this explained to him again and again but he still ignores evidence. When you have infrared, multiple radar, and visual observations simultaneously of an object and pretend all you have is a grainy infrared video REPEATEDLY it goes beyond skepticism into deceit.

Nothing in this analysis or conclusion contradicts the radar observations - how are they being "ignored"? And it is unclear to me (as an uninitiated person) how "visual" observations lend any more credence to the story when they are just retellings of the exact same kind of footage, except impossible to further analyze/corroborate.

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

#203

Post by Banana699 »

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

This doesn't account for the fact that you don't know what - if any - benefits do exotic materials and funky physics might bring if they exist and are feasible to exploit. The benefits might be so much larger than Dyson Swarms, that it would be wastful\unnecessary to use Dyson Swarms, except maybe as a hobby or as a low tech fallback for civilizations like camping enthusiasts and survivalists. Why bother with stars when you have tech to live in the 21 dimensions that those born-yesterday biologicals can't even sense yet ?

The Dyson 'Paradox' doesn't strike me as much of a paradox, imagine if a group of ants looked at the sky and wondered why aren't extraterrestials building tunnels inside the moon's regolith like ants do on Earth. It's just assuming too much. It's of course a valid scenario, it just isn't the only one.

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

#204

Post by MauranKilom »

deutschew wrote: post #90

It is bewildering that they expect people to actually believe intelligent people to discount the IR footage from the F-18 just based on this article that reads like the "it was a weather balloon" trope we often get whenever we ask questions. edit: holy crap, there are actually lot of people on HN buying it!

Do you have some factual counterpoint to the analysis, or just "the conclusions sounds like something I don't want to hear"?

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

#205

Post by bostonsre »

stonemetal12 wrote: post #89
bostonsre wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are you utterly convinced when it can't be proven true or false and don't have any other explanation for it? Why close all those doors without sufficient evidence to close them? We don't have extraordinary evidence therefore it's not possible that it's anything weird doesn't seem very scientific.

>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.

How are you supposed to discover something new about the universe if all doors are closed from the start? How do you go from zero evidence where something isn't worth being investigated further because there isnt sufficient evidence to there being sufficient evidence for it to be considered acceptable to investigate? The seems like a feedback loop that will result in nothing new ever being discovered unless something magical drops all evidence in your lap.

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

#206

Post by bostonsre »

kingofpandora wrote: post #135
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"…

> Navy's top pilots Relative to what? Other pilots who fly the same aircraft? All fighter jet pilots in the Navy? All pilots of all types of navy aircraft?

A squadron commander doesn't get into that position by being incompetent. Fighter jets are incredibly complex and demanding and there are lots of different aircraft to pilot in the navy.

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

#207

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#208

Post by tptacek »

tejohnso wrote: post #195
xmaayy wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

There is no way to watch this video and come away with the understanding that there was no object at all. It spends a tedious several minutes demonstrating the connection between glare and objects emitting light, and multiple long, tedious disclaimers that it is not arguing that there is no object at all in the video. You have to want it to be saying something else to take away a different message.

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

#209

Post by pavelrub »

marcusverus wrote: post #155
thereddaikon wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its a common assumption made by layman that the existence of a weapon that can kill a system means its now obsolete. That is incorrect. Systems do not become obsolete because they can be killed. They become obsolete when they no longer serve utility. Either something else does the job better, more efficiently or effectively or the nature of war has changed to the degree that its now irrelevant. This mistake is most o…

I hope you'll excuse some pushback from another layperson--isn't the situation with Aircraft Carriers categorically different? In the examples you provided above (Cavalry, Tanks, and Battleships), there has never been a push-button solution to eliminating every single unit in the service of the enemy. Given the technology mentioned by GP, the small number of Carriers in service and the utter impossibility of hiding t…

No. Because you have to consider:

1. Current or future means of intercepting hypersonic missiles.

2. The ability to disable or reduce the enemy’s ability of launching hypersonic missiles, or of pinpointing and accurately tracking the exact location of aircraft carriers.

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

#210

Post by tptacek »

subsubzero wrote: post #138
willidiots wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "saucer" shape and its rotation were IR glare, that's the point of the video. He's very clear that he's NOT debunking the existence of an object. The exhaust of a jet engine, or another high-heat signature, could cause such glare. AFAICT no pilots saw this shape with their naked eye. They were miles away from the target and relying on what they saw via their sensors.

So actually Commander Fravor saw the object with his own eyes, he is one of the pilots who was sent in to engage the craft after it appeared on radar from the carrier group, here is a detailed video of him talking about the incident with Lex Fridman(AI reasearcher - MIT) on his podcast - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aB8zcAttP1E

I'm literally learning about this "gimball video" from this video, so I don't have all the background, but the video we're looking at wasn't taken by David Fravor; it was taken by Chad Underwood? In the video we're looking at, we don't so much have to guess how far away the object was; the camera video itself indicates it. It's too far away to discern shape and rotation accurately with a naked eye. The video goes into detail about this, and the details aren't complicated.
Post reply on HN