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

321–330 of 401 posts

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

#321

Post by pengaru »

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.

> 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?

I don't think we can trust the accounts of anyone in the employ of the government, past or present, when it comes to this kind of thing.

For all we know to misinform is the mission, propaganda if you will.

Consider how much of what you said above is practically verbatim regurgitation of their vernacular. Jargon is often abused to sound qualified, smart, and authoritative. AKA B.S. alert.

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

#322

Post by aksss »

sswaner wrote: post #313
discardedrefuse wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

To play on earthboundkid’s comment, some “enlightened” explorers traveled in advanced craft from the Old World to the New World. They brought genocide and near total devastation on every society they encountered. 1492. Columbus. But the literal and figurative descendants of those aliens put up a statue of him in New York and called him a hero.

Well, what he did was pretty damn amazing and consequential, even if not all the consequences were positive or amazing. It was inevitable that the New World would eventually be contacted by the Old World, whether by Asia or Europe or perhaps Africa, and inevitable that when that happened, the isolated peoples of the new world would be devastated by pathogens they’d never been exposed to. Anyway, I see no issue making a statue to the guy. I kinda like statues in principle. At the end of the day that’s all they are. The world was bigger than the Americas, and still is.

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

#323

Post by krapp »

aksss wrote: post #322
sswaner wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To play on earthboundkid’s comment, some “enlightened” explorers traveled in advanced craft from the Old World to the New World. They brought genocide and near total devastation on every society they encountered. 1492. Columbus. But the literal and figurative descendants of those aliens put up a statue of him in New York and called him a hero.

Well, what he did was pretty damn amazing and consequential, even if not all the consequences were positive or amazing. It was inevitable that the New World would eventually be contacted by the Old World, whether by Asia or Europe or perhaps Africa, and inevitable that when that happened, the isolated peoples of the new world would be devastated by pathogens they’d never been exposed to. Anyway, I see no issue making…

>It was inevitable that the New World would eventually be contacted by the Old World, whether by Asia or Europe or perhaps Africa, and inevitable that when that happened, the isolated peoples of the new world would be devastated by pathogens they’d never been exposed to.

It's not the pathogens people object to, so much as the slavery and genocide. Particularly, celebrating the originator and perpetrator of those crimes on the land where they were perpetrated.

By all means, write about Christopher Columbus in the history books (after Leif Erikson, who unlike Columbus actually set foot in America) but let's stop normalizing erecting statues to villains.

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

#324

Post by [deleted] »

discardedrefuse wrote: post #319
sswaner wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To play on earthboundkid’s comment, some “enlightened” explorers traveled in advanced craft from the Old World to the New World. They brought genocide and near total devastation on every society they encountered. 1492. Columbus. But the literal and figurative descendants of those aliens put up a statue of him in New York and called him a hero.

I don't know why you would call the conquistadors "enlightened". I'm talking about a civilization that's developed planet ending technology...and yet managed to not end their planet.

[deleted]

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

#325

Post by stouset »

bostonsre wrote: post #224
stouset wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We fundamentally don't have the hardware capable of doing it. So we use context clues and intuition. And both of those can easily be misleading.

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

#326

Post by xcvasdfasfwe »

bonestamp2 wrote: post #233
tptacek wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...…

No post body was provided.

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

#327

Post by pyinstallwoes »

bonestamp2 wrote: post #233
tptacek wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...…

Thanks for the links. I am not really sure why you are being down-voted. All good points!

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

#328

Post by ck2 »

Always find "UFO are aliens" belief so non-logical.

Like a FTL civilization would even be curious about earth, having such advanced sensor technology to avoid dust at beyond light speed that they actually need to cruise around in the atmosphere?

Or that their ship would be so small? There's no penalty for mass in space, why not make it the size of a city? Certainly a FTL civilization has no construction limitations.

We have small plane-sized craft because of our limitations on power and mass and construction abilities. Aliens that can "visit" would be nothing like us.

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

#329

Post by bonestamp2 »

tptacek wrote: post #276
bonestamp2 wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No worries, I could have been more clear.

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

#330

Post by rasz »

zmgsabst wrote: post #7
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 analysis even admits that there’s an object required for the “glare” to exist. This analysis doesn’t reject an actual object being tracked: it confirms it and describes it as one that causes IR glare!

The object might of existed for a millisecond. Test of a new stealth tech - quick directional laser burst to temporarily damage/blind IR camera. After that Jet was flying in circles trying to track its own camera glitch.
Post reply on HN