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

221–230 of 401 posts

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

#221

Post by bostonsre »

RobertMiller wrote: post #108
bostonsre wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

"Known prankster pulls another prank" vs "Known prankster says aliens are here and you should believe him because he's a professional." Hmm.

Have you listened to the joe rogan episode where he talks about it?

It seems a little ridiculous to compare the one where he turned his engine off and on one time at night over a couple campers to the episode where multiple pilots see it, with multiple sensors seeing it from planes and from ships. He engaged in horseplay once, therefor anything he ever says should not be believed seems lame.

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

#222

Post by jmyeet »

DennisP wrote: post #142
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…

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.

So we only have one data point of a planet producing what will quite possibly be a spacefaring civilization or, in the very least, one able to comprehend as such.

But if you accept that the Dyson Swarms are a likely outcome then we have a while bunch of negative data points in systems within even thousands of light years of us.

That then brings into focus the hypothesis about Dyson Swarm. Such a thing can be built incrementally, requires no material stronger than stainless steel and requires no energy tech beyond solar power. It is a massive engineering challenge to be sure but not requiring new physics is significant.

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

#223

Post by likeabbas »

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.

^This is the key point. These objects have been tracked on radar, FLIR, and multiple pilot witness testimony off both coasts for decades now. Attempting to debunk a single one of these three leaked videos is pointless because they do not show the entire context of the events happening.

I implore everyone to watch these two interviews with Christopher Melon, the former Deputy Secretary of Defense for Intelligence. And to read the DNI report on UAPs It will change your entire perception of these incidents and show you to view them as true national security issues.

1. https://open.spotify.com/episode/2V0uWX1C4m8xEL0HHYqbnE?si=e...

2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdxcgS4spRM&t=1393s

3. https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Prelima...

There are unknown objects flying with impunity in our restricted military airspace, some that exhibit characteristics that nothing of human origin can accomplish. This should terrify you.

Edit: Why the downvotes? Please explain to me your logic. I'm just listing things that people with credibility in our government said, including the Department of National Intelligence.

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

#224

Post by bostonsre »

stouset wrote: post #106
colordrops wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

RADAR and visual confirmation.

I’d be floored if the radar data didn’t back this up. A carrier group would have scrambled fighters well before anything unidentified got within a hundred miles, much less ten. Visual confirmation I don’t find remotely compelling. Besides the notorious general unreliability of human observers, humans simply cannot distinguish between small, nearby objects traveling slowly and large, far objects traveling quickly with…

It was picked up on radar over several different days and a training mission was scrubbed so that they could go investigate what they saw on radar.

You don't think humans could get better at judging distance of objects with practice? It seems like if any humans on earth could reliably do it, it would be seasoned fighter pilots that have thousands of hours of experience doing that exact thing.

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

#225

Post by mr_toad »

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

Dyson Swarms are only plausible if your society is still stuck in an exponential growth mode. It assumes technological advancement, but stagnant sociological development, or perhaps even worse; pathological development, like a hegemonising swarm.

I think that many UFO theories make the same mistakes. They assume high tech aliens with low tech motives.

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

#226

Post by rhema »

zardo wrote: post #220
rhema wrote: post #71

Well, the only reason they were scrambled to begin with is that they had been tracking these objects for weeks using advanced radar. As I understand it, the radar is based on multiple resolutions. The active radar can point in the direction of objects of interest and get very very precise measurements. It's not just the video, its the radar data. The thing that pushed me over the edge in believing these things is the…

> its the radar data Did the Navy release the radar data, or an analysis based on it?

Not that I know of, so I take your point there. Here's a related video with some radar data https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rh4QngYJG4I . In the interview, Frevor does talk about the radar and instrumentation on the plane, but it's been a while since I listened to it.

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

#227

Post by avl999 »

nwallin wrote: post #216
avl999 wrote: post #193

> 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…

> the US Navy/Pentagon who have found no explanation of this phenomenon thus far. "Released no explanation to the public" != "have found no explanation". The DoD is simply not in a habit of releasing information to the public unless they're instructed to do so by the executive branch.

They did not have an explanation as of last spring when they were forced to disclose everything they knew about the phenomenon by an act of congress. There wasn't even a redacted appendix.

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

#228

Post by nwallin »

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…

Correct.

IR video tends to bloom. If the object is hot enough, (for instance, a jet engine exhaust, a burning vehicle, a refinery flare...) you'll have a blob of smudge around/behind it on the video. The video is contending that the rotation of what is seen on the video isn't the object itself rotating. Instead, the blob is elongated as a result of glare/lens flare/diffraction gradient, and this elongation is aligned with the rotational axis of the gimbal. As the gimbal nears gimbal lock, it is forced to rapidly rotate to continue tracking the object. This rapid rotation of the gimbal causes the glare to rapidly rotate.

I do have a background in IR video, gimbals, and translating between gimbal telemetry and real life coordinates and the explanation in the video looks good to me.

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

#229

Post by Talanes »

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…

> Not to say he isn't right in this case, but I'm equality unenthusiastic about "skeptics" like that as I am about conspiracy theorists.

Yeah, it can be interesting to hear a dubunking from someone with an actual background in the field, but someone who's whole schtick is debunking is just as motivated to prove things wrong as the conspiracy theorists are to prove things right.

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

#230

Post by recuter »

tptacek wrote: post #210
subsubzero wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 int…

Spoken like a true none believer. I shun thee. Even the pentagon said they can't explain the UFOs, clearly they are preparing society for a big reveal. ;)

Edit: I'm betting half the downvotes are from people not picking up on my sarcasm, and the other half is from people picking up on my sarcasm.

Post reply on HN