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

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

#261

Post by jrapdx3 » Thu, Mar 17, 2022, 12:03 AM UTC

oldstrangers wrote: post #182

DennisP wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

Excellent thinking, unassailable logic. I'd go a step further to state we truly are incapable of "understanding" nothingness, we're not constructed to know (in any sense) what that state is like. Precisely the reason we can't truly anticipate death, it's completely foreign to our sensibilities.

Humans evince resistance to an obvious reality, we can't know what is unknowable, that is to say, that which we are incapable of experiencing. I can't know what another person experiences let alone some living entity built according to some alternate template.

Logic dictates a conclusion that other life likely exists in the universe. Also the odds favor that we can't know what it is given the intrinsic limits to what humans are capable of knowing.

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

#262

Post by teawrecks » Thu, Mar 17, 2022, 12:06 AM UTC

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…

Science deals with the data we can see, not the infinite number of unfalsifiable hypotheses we could construct in the space we don't see. Believing in the god of the gaps doesn't make you "open minded".

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

#263

Post by teawrecks » Thu, Mar 17, 2022, 12:19 AM UTC

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…

The intention of the video is to show that there is no advanced technology or unexplainable phenomena captured in the video. If this is already evident to you, then the video isn't for you. But there are a lot of people who watch this video and think the object itself is rotating or deforming strangely, when in reality, all evidence suggests it's just some kind of terrestrial aircraft. Whether they know who/what is driving the aircraft is up to the Navy.

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

#264

Post by chrisco255 » Thu, Mar 17, 2022, 12:20 AM UTC

jdminhbg wrote: post #259

chrisco255 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Carriers are most likely partly obsoleted by hypersonic missiles that travel and maneuver at mach 20 (which Russia and China have), in addition to 100 megaton nuclear torpedoes that travel at 120mph (which Russia has). https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/03/russias-new-pos... https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2019/10/14/will-ground-bas...

> in addition to 100 megaton nuclear torpedoes that travel at 120mph (which Russia has) If you use nuclear weapons on another nuclear power, carriers are going to be the least of your concerns.

And thus the old quote about sticks and stones being used to fight world war 4.

I'm not sure about Russia's or China's anti ballistic technology. I know their hypersonic tech is superior to our own currently.

But what if a country could deploy nuclear weapons against another nation and defend themselves against incoming missiles, due to a temporary technological advantage? It changes the game. I'm not sure if that's where we're at currently, but I know that the hypersonic and nuclear tech is why we are so hesitant to enter the Ukrainian war outright.

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

#265

Post by glenstein » Thu, Mar 17, 2022, 12:20 AM 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…

>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.

My working theory for what creates the lowest common denominator of internet comments, is that you have to believe whatever is necessary to believe to keep the conversation going.

If a skeptic debunks something by appeals to mundane facts relating to camera angles and physics principles, that closes the conversation. And for internet comment sections that is a problem. But, if them being right means they are arrogant, then we can talk about how arrogant they are, the nothing gets turned back into a something and the conversation can keep going.

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

#266

Post by notfbi » Thu, Mar 17, 2022, 12:21 AM UTC

zionic wrote: post #243

notfbi wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

UFO-ers were using things like the rotation speed as definitive evidence of some like other-worldly advanced technology. Demonstrating that it was the glare/gimble brings it back into the realm of just a normal far-away plane. It also casts doubt on the expertise of the pilots/military who didn't realize what happened.

Except they had RADAR locks, experienced jamming, and had visual identification in some cases. The whole “lens flare from a far away plane” hypothesis has been throughly debunked. You have to ignore evidence to reach that conclusion.

Isn't the visual identification and jamming from other events?

Can you share where it is best thoroughly debunked? The stuff linked so far in this thread (Friedman podcast; pilot Lehto analysis) isn't good.

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

#267

Post by greedo » Thu, Mar 17, 2022, 12:23 AM UTC

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…

Weapons on their own are dumb, stupid devices. Weapons in a system can be dangerous when deployed appropriately. For ASBM or hypersonic missiles, there are several steps in a successful engagement:

1. Detect the carrier. Sounds easy but they can move at 30+ knots, and can be quite difficult to detect when they want to hide.

2. Provide targeting data. This is needs to be much more accurate than just detecting that a carrier is operating "near" this point. Most weapons will require relatively precise data for this.

3. Transmit this data rapidly to the launch systems. Every minute counts as old targeting data is relatively useless.

4. Launch the weapon. This means keeping aircraft or missile batteries safe from attack, and getting the weapons in range of the carrier.

5. Have the weapon reach the target area. This means a reliable weapon with a low failure rate.

6. Have the weapon avoid any ECM or other countermeasures that might affect its targeting.

7. Have the weapon avoid any defenses, either the layered defenses (SAMS, point defence guns), fighters, etc.

8. Have the weapon detonate properly, in the best spot.

Lots of things to go wrong in this "kill-chain." Lots of places to interrupt, disrupt or out-right kill the weapon.

And sure we hear a lot about Russian super weapons like Zircon and the silly torpedoes. But as the Ukraine war is showing, a lot of Russian stuff sounds great until you see it in action. Or it's a Potemkin weapon, or too expensive.

Look at all the burning Russian tanks. These aren't monkey models sent to client states like Iraq. These are top of the line, with ERA etc. Yet most don't have Arena/Trophy, and are getting killed by a weapon designed 30 years ago.

Now perhaps the DF-21 deployed by the PLAN is more reliable than the Russian crap. But unless things get hot in the South China Sea we'll never know.

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

#268

Post by RobertMiller » Thu, Mar 17, 2022, 12:29 AM UTC

justsomehnguy wrote: post #213

RobertMiller wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They’re barely even using fighter jets. Maybe because they've barely been training those pilots and know the planes would likely be lost if used above Ukraine? Pilots in the Russian Air Force have supposedly been averaging less than 100 flight hours a year, which is next to nothing.

With all their operations in (and supporting) Syria I would doubt the number. It is not the amount of USAF pilots, but should be more than that.

That number supposedly comes from official Russian sources. I say supposedly because I don't understand Russian and have to trust western sources about this, but these numbers have been widely disseminated for years and seem to be broadly treated as credible.

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

#269

Post by greedo » Thu, Mar 17, 2022, 12:30 AM UTC

chrisco255 wrote: post #264

jdminhbg wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> in addition to 100 megaton nuclear torpedoes that travel at 120mph (which Russia has) If you use nuclear weapons on another nuclear power, carriers are going to be the least of your concerns.

And thus the old quote about sticks and stones being used to fight world war 4. I'm not sure about Russia's or China's anti ballistic technology. I know their hypersonic tech is superior to our own currently. But what if a country could deploy nuclear weapons against another nation and defend themselves against incoming missiles, due to a temporary technological advantage? It changes the game. I'm not sure if that's…

You know this? You have intel (that's probably classified NOFORN) or you've just read about Zircon? The Russians can hype their wunderwaffen til the cows come home, but they haven't demonstrated reliable, deployable systems.

If you think hypersonic weapons are any deterrent to the US involvement in Ukraine, you're just being silly. The Russians don't even have enough Kalibr cruise missiles to take out a 3rd rate military. They don't have enough money (or perhaps just too much corruption) to install active defenses for their MBTs (no Arena/Trophy).

The only reason we don't have US troops in Ukraine is because of the SS-18 Satan and Bulava SLBM.

And no one has an effective defense against the number of ICBMs/SLBMs on each side. The ABM systems around Moscow are too few to counter the number of warheads assigned, and the US missile defense is too raw (and also out of position) to defend against Russian missiles.

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

#270

Post by discardedrefuse » Thu, Mar 17, 2022, 12:36 AM UTC

JaimeThompson wrote: post #217

mark-r wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there really are aliens out there, wouldn't you like to have some proof of it?

Given how horribly interactions between more technologically advanced and lesser technologically advanced societies seem to harm the lesser ones I'm not sure it would turn out well for humanity.

A civilization capable of interstellar space travel has probably overcome "The Great Filter". I like to think there's a decent chance they're enlightened; instead of conquerors. But even if they are here to conquer, we may be better off for it. I mean, it doesn't really look like humanity is going to make it past the filter on their own.