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

231–240 of 401 posts

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

#231

Post by sho_hn »

ynniv wrote: post #212
tptacek wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Of course you can, the submitted article does exactly that. His emotions convey that he knows exactly what's going on, and he states, repeatedly, that it is lens flare. Rationally we can see that this is missing the forest for the trees, but anyone who doesn't think as critically will deduce that this is only a camera artifact. He operates this way on purpose, so that people who want to believe him have the proof the…

I didn't read the article. I only watched the video.

The video to me made a convincing case that the object seen in the video file is a glare at the location of a heat-emitting object.

I'd now be ready for a follow-up discussing whether the motion of the object (accounting for the gimbal system) is unusual or not. The video didn't get into it one way or another, but it's the obvious next question to ask.

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

#232

Post by ynniv »

tptacek wrote: post #214
ynniv wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course you can, the submitted article does exactly that. His emotions convey that he knows exactly what's going on, and he states, repeatedly, that it is lens flare. Rationally we can see that this is missing the forest for the trees, but anyone who doesn't think as critically will deduce that this is only a camera artifact. He operates this way on purpose, so that people who want to believe him have the proof the…

He says literally the opposite thing, and at great, tedious length.

He says that it is glare, at tedious length. As of last year he thought it was the exhaust of another aircraft[1], plus he has stated his goal is to debunk UFO videos. He could have spent some of his tedious length and extensive reconstruction demonstrating the apparent position and velocity of that other plane, but he chose to spend it going on about what he should think is an inconsequential detail.

[ 1 https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jun/11/i-stud... ]

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

#233

Post by bonestamp2 »

tptacek wrote: post #211
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.

I don't know much about this whole story (I'm not a UFO person) and am learning most of what I know about it from this video and this thread, but: the people saying that this video depicts an actual object rotating in the sky appear to be making the extraordinary claim here: the connection between the rotation and the camera system seems compelling. The horizon is moving as the camera/plane moves; the object is not m…

> The shape we're looking at is, in part, an artifact of the camera, unless the aliens are somehow reprogramming the camera to fuck with us.

It's possible the IR glare is an intentional countermeasure produced by the craft. It might sound far-fetched, but the military can already jam some cameras already, and they apparently license this technology too:

https://techlinkcenter.org/technologies/selective-camera-jam...

The US Navy has (admittedly controversial) patents for technologies that could produce a craft with these flight characteristics:

https://patents.google.com/?inventor=Salvatore+Cezar+Pais

The first time these craft were spotted on radar was during a Navy exercise where they were testing new radar equipment, and the craft were coming from the direction of San Clemente island (an island that is a Navy base). Here's a short video that talks about the radar sighting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKyP79v9e84

In the Nimitz case, the "UFO" disappeared, and then met the pilots at their rendezvous point. How did it know where the rendezvous point was?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBpcfeHI0Kk

Sightings of these UFOs have only ever been mentioned by US forces.

Who knows what is going on, but if I had to make a guess and I considered all of this information, it seems likely that the "UFOs" are experimental US aircraft.

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

#234

Post by argvargc »

likeabbas wrote: post #223
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…

Why should a peaceful demonstration of technical superiority terrify anyone?

It's clear whomever, or whatever, possesses this superior technology could fly circles around and/or obliterate us on a whim, but has expressly decided not to, and instead simply announced: "Hey, I have this."

If they/it perceived us as a threat, we'd surely be gone already. That leaves only our hopefully sane response, to influence what happens next.

Being terrified would be exactly wrong.

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

#235

Post by belter »

avl999 wrote: post #194
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.

References?

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

#236

Post by nwallin »

avl999 wrote: post #227
nwallin wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

You're not characterizing the report correctly. The report that was released to the public is a 9 page preliminary assessment. It is almost entirely fluff. It does state that of the 144 reported cases of UAP over the course of the period of study, there were 21 reports written. Those would be the interesting reports, and precisely none of the those were released to the public, redacted or otherwise.

Here's the report for anyone who's interested.

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

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

#237

Post by bonestamp2 »

beebeepka wrote: post #143
colordrops wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was also tracked on radar.

Weather balloon launched by swamp gas burp

Maybe. That would be 14 weather balloons in this case:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKyP79v9e84

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

#238

Post by willidiots »

likeabbas wrote: post #223
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…

I agree that there's something in these videos - at least in Gimbal. I don't think it's a saucer-shaped thing or necessarily of extraterrestrial origin. It could be a drone (either ours - another branch of DoD/govt - or another nation's) etc. Still an interesting mystery, but no proof of anything extraordinary IMHO.

In the case of relying on Christopher Mellon's credentials, I'd point out that he has a commercial interest of some kind with To The Stars Academy, the production company which seems to be behind all of these videos' presence on the History channel.

In their 2021 annual meeting notes [https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5b5a458fe749405f83225...], To the Stars Academy notes that "Christopher Mellon, a member of TTSA’s advisory board, [is] no longer with the company" implying he was employed by them in some fashion. Thus prior to 2021, he likely stood to benefit commercially from these films' distribution, particularly when he was quoted alongside them.

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

#239

Post by zionic »

MauranKilom wrote: post #201
zionic wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The core claim of this joke of a production is that it’s just lens flare.

They use weasel words to hedge their bets, but their intention is pretty clear.

The facts are that these pilots also saw these things with their own eyes and got radar locks in addition to IR. These are “targeting” pods remember? It can’t just be lens flare.

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

#240

Post by zionic »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #159
zionic wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://youtu.be/ro29w4ESw44 Has an actual fighter pilot’s reaction.

Actual video from the pilot https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tyw4JA00AMc

This link is much better, thanks. It’s too late for me to edit my post I should have used this.
Post reply on HN