Live data from Hacker News

Famous Navy UFO video was camera glare, evidence suggests

petapixel.com

271–280 of 401 posts

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

#271
FYI, Mick West is not an "expert". He has no experience with military hardware. Everyone involved in the incident, or has background knowledge of the classified details, says there are multiple sensors confirming the footage, including direct visual by the pilots. This can not possibly be explained by "lens flair".

People say trust the experts. Well, in this case, the experts are the ones who know the military hardware, who flew the plane, who tracked the objects (plural) on radar. That is not Mick West. Mick West is a professional debunker, which means he analyses these videos with a baked-in assumption that it's "fake", not from an unbiased view.

If you fall for Mick West's BS, you aren't any different from UFO nuts who fall for Steven Greeer's. I suggest thinking for yourself instead.

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

#272
post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

Russia has been rather subdued in the Ukraine invasion, but they have won 95%+ of every military engagement in Ukraine: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_engagements...

They have taken nearly the entire Black Sea coastline and most major cities east of the Dnieper River. That entire eastern part of Ukraine will collapse imminently under Russian advances.

And meanwhile none of the aforementioned weapons systems have been engaged.

Detecting a carrier is trivial. They are large above surface vessels that leave a huge wake. 30 knots is nothing. And once locked its trivial for satellites or spy planes to track. We even publish the location of our carriers: https://www.marinevesseltraffic.com/vessels/USS-Enterprise-(...

Russia is a spacefaring, highly advanced military. They have all of the targeting capabilities you describe.

100 megaton nuclear torpedoes aren't silly. They're extremely dangerous. They can trigger tsunamis, and destroy anything within tens of miles and cause third degree burns out to hundreds of miles.

I'm not sure you understand the scale of what you're dismissing.

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

#273
post #43
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean... assuming the Russians have anything that works is probably not a great assumption based on their performance in Ukraine. But I think they provide overlapping, but different, roles. But missiles and torpedoes is why aircraft carriers travel in carrier groups that have defensive capabilities against torpedoes and missiles.

It wouldn’t make much sense for Russia to show their cards and use modern war tech on Ukraine, a country with a (relatively) primitive military. They’re barely even using fighter jets.

They are using modern tech, and it's getting wiped out. Their tanks are modern, their artillery is modern, their fighters are modern. And they're all getting wiped out.

Tanks being used by Russia in Ukraine:

T-72A T-72B3 OBR.2016 T-80BV T-80U T-80BVM T-90A

IFVs:

BMP2 BMP3 BMD4M

SAMs:

Tor Buk Pantsir

Fighters and Helos:

SU-25 SU-30/35 Su-34

Mi-24/35 KA-52 Mi-28

None of this is "monkey model" stuff like the the USSR sent to client states. These are all top of the line. Same with the artillery and missiles used. All the best the Russians have in any decent numbers.

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

#274
post #220
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?

Unfortunately, radar data - from all the incidents in question - will never be released, as the hardware involved is highly classified. We only get footage from the IR camera because the IR tech is not "classified" (basically off-the-shelf FLIR cameras with fancy object tracking software).

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

#275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

From the Guidelines https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html:

> Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.

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

#276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would have to be a countermeasure that not only produces glare, but does so in a way that precisely tracks the orientation of the rotating camera on the F18. Again: an extraordinary claim; it's not impossible, but you'd need evidence to make it persuasive.

Just to be clear, I'm saying the object may be producing the IR as a countermeasure, I'm not suggesting that the countermeasure produces the rotation captured in the video -- the linked article suggests the rotation is an artifact of the tracking system. From the submitted article: > 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 becaus…

Gotcha, sorry to be knee-jerk.

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

#277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We also need to be really honest about what we want this to be, and how that desire influences what we believe about it. I personally want this to be an alien spacecraft, because that's super interesting and exciting. I think the same is true of lots of other people. Unfortunately, there are much more mundane explanations which fit the evidence much better.

Why do you want it to be alien spacecraft? Are you some sort of glutton for punishment?

The investors in Tom DeLonge's aliens startup would probably like to make a profit.

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

#278
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 it looks increasingly likely that we are very alone in the Milky Way and even if we aren’t it requires an awful lot of hubris to suggest a species would spend the considerable effort and tens of thousands of years to come here and hide. Robin Hanson has the most plausible ET hypothesis to explain t…

The idea of panspermia isn't a new one. There are several variations.

The very early universe was relatively warm. Simple or even complex life could've evolved and spread through parts of the Universe with relative ease given the much shorter distances. It seems highly unlikely though given the rarity of metals (in the astronomical sense; meaning anything other than hydrogen and helium) and the likely needed timescales. This probably means at best it was organic molecules of some level of complexity.

There are later versions of this where panspermia occurred much more recently, either intentionally or not.

Whatever the case it's all unprovable speculation. If we ultimately the same unlikely patterns repeating on different wrolds then I guess we can revisit.

So how recent in this hypothesis did this occur? There are fossil records for people going back millions of years. Are we talking all life? Or just people? If it's all life then we need to go back billions of years, at which point we're just talking about spreading amino acids. Such a connection will be similar to our fraternal bond with bananas.

> However at some point between the tech to travel between stars and full Dyson spheres

This seems unlikely. Why? Because the tech for a Dyson Swarm is basically stainless steel, solar panels and the ability to build things in space in large quantities. The last one is significant of course but is largely gated on the high cost of getting things into orbit, which is something likely to plummet in the coming centuries.

Saying we could build a self-sustaining orbital within 1,000 years I don't think is a stretch. Only industrial scale separates building 1 and building a million.

But there's another problem: people often neglect the energy cost of interstellar travel. It's... massive. And this is even assuming you solve the reaction mass problem. Interstellar travel almost seems predicated on a Dyson Swarm simpsly to have sufficient energy.

> ... also concerning as a fast growing civilization that contravenes their anti-growth norms.

This is a well-trodden avenue of thought on the Fermi Paradox. What if alien civilizations just stop growing? If there's 1, sure that might be possible. But what if there were 1,000? Would they all follow this path? It gets increasingly unlikely that not one would grow significantly. Non-growth civilizations would be at an extreme disadvantage with another who has vastly more energy and matter at their disposal. Like you almost have to grow just in case someone else does.

But all of this just seems like highly selective curve overfitting to reach the desired conclusion that UFOs are alien in origin.

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

#279
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.

This was basically the plot of Falling Skies. The invaders justified the invasion with humanity's own history.
Post reply on HN