Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

As a US Navy fighter pilot, I witnessed unidentified anomalous phenomena

thehill.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

961–970 of 978 posts

Re: As a US Navy fighter pilot, I witnessed unidentified anomalous phenomena

#961

Post by scotty79 »

likeabbas wrote: post #953
scotty79 wrote: post #944

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those 3 videos? https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/weird-news/2020/04/28/pe... Third one is a goose: https://youtu.be/mfhAC2YiYHs Super solid evidence, no doubt. Yeah, let's investigate. Tens of millions of dollars won't spend themselves. And we certainly wouldn't want to spend it on boring actual astronomy and astrophysics. Btw the other video is just of loosing tracking of a plane: https://youtu.be/3viYcYPRdu4

You are refusing to look at the counter-evidence I provide with regards to people trying to de-bunk the 3 navy videos. GOFAST: The "goose" would need to be flying 100 knots to account for the wind speed https://twitter.com/the_cholla/status/1603518927891357696 GIMBAL: If the DoD would confirm the range of the object was 6-8 nautical miles (which has been confirmed by the pilots on the mission) than this object perfor…

GOFAST: The plane traveled at half a speed of sound, speed of wind or a goose is insignificant in comparison. This guy claims he found exact trajectory of a goose from a handful of pixels and numbers on the screen that don't have required precission. Did you notice his 'analysis' doesn't have error bars? That's because they would be very large. It's basically a guy who measures one thing to be 3, other to be 7. Divides those values and draws conclusions from the digit at 6th decimal place.

So he really has no idea how fast goose traveled.

His second objection is that the object was cold in IR (compared to water in the background) which is perfecly consistent with a bird travelling at 2.5 km which is well insulated to be able to fly so high because it's obviously colder up there than at sea level.

FLIR: I see no specific objection and no explanation for why this object looks exactly like other IR recordings of planes from behind where hot exahaust washes out the image and why would speeding off at the end should be rather explained by object violating laws of physics than camera loosing tracking.

GIMBAL: No explanation why the object should show any rotation in sync with camera rotation which proves its shape and angle is optical artifact. Again objections are to details which cannot be accurately established. With complete disregard of the main argument.

What people say that DoD says or doesn't say about it is just heresay. Videos are the data. The only actual data we have.

Goose, plane from behind, and posssibly a debris field of space junk are currently best actually scientific explanations of the data that consists of those 3 videos.

I'm not refusing to address anything, but I'm beginning to think I started a discussion about ufos with avid ufologist. So I don't guarantee I'll still find it worthwhile to respond to your next message if it comes.

Re: As a US Navy fighter pilot, I witnessed unidentified anomalous phenomena

#962

Post by giantrobot »

fidgewidge wrote: post #926
giantrobot wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you were an alien with the technology to cross the vast distances between the stars why in the hell would you need to monitor Earth from within the atmosphere flying your spaceship around? Earth technology exists to read a license plate from orbit. You can somehow build the technology for interstellar travel but can't manage to build telescopes? For the quarter the cost of Twitter you could build a pretty sweet Ea…

You're assuming that interstellar travel is so difficult that if it can be done, anything else can be done too. It's a fallacy a bit like someone from the 1500s assuming that any civilization that can put a man on the moon must have also cured all disease.

If you can build a spaceship that can effectively travel to another star system you have the exact technology needed to build a fucking telescope when you get there. The very ship you use for the trip likely has a very capable telescope as it would be needed to avoid interstellar debris en route.

The scale and scope of "building a telescope" and "building an interstellar spacecraft" are not just comparable but directly related. I'd also assume such a civilization would have a good handle on diseases, at least have a strong understanding of them.

It turns out that the civilization on Earth that landed on the Moon also had a pretty decent understanding of disease. By the time of the Moon landing many diseases that wracked the world in the 1500s were well under control in the first world. Some were even eliminated.

Re: As a US Navy fighter pilot, I witnessed unidentified anomalous phenomena

#963

Post by fidgewidge »

giantrobot wrote: post #962
fidgewidge wrote: post #926

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're assuming that interstellar travel is so difficult that if it can be done, anything else can be done too. It's a fallacy a bit like someone from the 1500s assuming that any civilization that can put a man on the moon must have also cured all disease.

If you can build a spaceship that can effectively travel to another star system you have the exact technology needed to build a fucking telescope when you get there. The very ship you use for the trip likely has a very capable telescope as it would be needed to avoid interstellar debris en route. The scale and scope of "building a telescope" and "building an interstellar spacecraft" are not just comparable but direct…

Telescopes are great but aren't going to tell you much about the exact radar capabilities of a nuclear aircraft carrier, nor what tactics it would use if it did see a craft, nor submarines (one of the incident reports claimed the tictac went underwater). And monitoring Earth is a very general thing, it can even include getting up close with the native wildlife, it isn't restricted as a concept to viewing from a great distance.

Re: As a US Navy fighter pilot, I witnessed unidentified anomalous phenomena

#964

Post by cycomanic »

naasking wrote: post #780
cycomanic wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except for that the reply doesn't actual counter any of the analysis made in the sceptic video, but instead criticises Mike for taking a sceptic approach and disregarding the audio from the pilots (because they essentially see the same thing as we see in the video). This is the typical approach one sees over and over again from most people invested in some sort of conspiracy theory, they never reply to technical crit…

> because they essentially see the same thing as we see in the video If the pilots see the same thing with their eyes then that significantly undermines West's theory, because human eyes wouldn't have the same visual artifacts as these sensors. It would have to be an extreme coincidence for this all to line up just right across multiple sensor systems and human eyes as well. No impossible, but very implausible.

But they couldn't the video was incredibly zoomed in, it is too far to see with the naked eye. The video actually explains this.

Re: As a US Navy fighter pilot, I witnessed unidentified anomalous phenomena

#965

Post by likeabbas »

scotty79 wrote: post #961
likeabbas wrote: post #953

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are refusing to look at the counter-evidence I provide with regards to people trying to de-bunk the 3 navy videos. GOFAST: The "goose" would need to be flying 100 knots to account for the wind speed https://twitter.com/the_cholla/status/1603518927891357696 GIMBAL: If the DoD would confirm the range of the object was 6-8 nautical miles (which has been confirmed by the pilots on the mission) than this object perfor…

GOFAST: The plane traveled at half a speed of sound, speed of wind or a goose is insignificant in comparison. This guy claims he found exact trajectory of a goose from a handful of pixels and numbers on the screen that don't have required precission. Did you notice his 'analysis' doesn't have error bars? That's because they would be very large. It's basically a guy who measures one thing to be 3, other to be 7. Divid…

> The plane traveled at half a speed of sound, speed of wind or a goose is insignificant in comparison

Are you insane? going 100 knots against 30-50 knots of wind requires far more force than a fucking Goose can provide with its wings. Not to mention the object is at 13,000 feet above sea level which would be insanely high for a goose to travel.

You're also discounting the pilot testimony about the GOFAST video. GOFAST and GIMBAL were taken on the same day by the same pilots. There's a longer classified video that shows the object in GOFAST increasing its altitude to meet up with 4 other objects that appear to be of the same kind. Then the GIMBAL object comes into the page which is where the targeting pod locks onto. The 5 objects are in front of the gimbal object, they begin to turn around and that's when the GIMBAL object performs a vertical u-turn as shown on the ASA. Now, I don't disregard that the rotation may have been caused by the camera, but the trajectory of the object itself is interesting in that we don't have a plant that can perform the same kind of vertical u-turn at such slow speeds. They're going less than 1 mach, the object slows to a stop and then turns around going vertically. Any mechanical plane would stop and fall to the Earth, but this thing didn't.

> I see no specific objection and no explanation for why this object looks exactly like other IR recordings of planes from behind where hot exahaust washes

I dare you to ask any military pilot their opinion on what the object in the screen is. According to the pilot, Chad Underwood, who took the video, he was closing in 10-15 miles of the object and at that distance should be able to make out the the wings, the exhaust plumes, the type of aircraft even with the glare from the exhaust. Here's the pilot saying this himself https://youtu.be/7O1SE0IR13o?t=1231

Let's not forget, the Tic-Tac was active jamming (which is an act of war) and the object in the video matches the description of Cmdr Dave Fravor's description of what he saw with his own eyes.

Again, the DoD could shut you up by providing the additional classified data from the mission.

For future reference, you should stay completely out of this conversation because you are not a true scientist. You are an avid skeptic who will one day be ashamed of himself.

Re: As a US Navy fighter pilot, I witnessed unidentified anomalous phenomena

#966

Post by Sightline »

crubier wrote: post #928
ikrenji wrote: post #904

Earlier quoted context omitted.

well he literally saw the object with his own eyes. do we have a debunk for fravors mark 1 eyeball sensor?

Maybe listen to the videos? Do you think human vision is something that is absolutely 100% foolproof? Why are there thousands of known optical illusions examples? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_optical_illusions Have you heard of spatial disorientation? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spatial_disorientation Do you think the human eye stereo baseline is large enough to determine the depth of objects more than 15m…

So his F-18 radar was lying. His eyes were lying. His wingman's eyes were lying. And the ship 30 miles away that picked it up on radar was also lying.

Interesting conclusion.

Re: As a US Navy fighter pilot, I witnessed unidentified anomalous phenomena

#967

Post by Sightline »

crubier wrote: post #959
ikrenji wrote: post #952

Earlier quoted context omitted.

so any reported anomaly should be discarded as an optical illusion?

Not any no. But the 2 cases that he is describing definitely sound like the perfect description of an optical illusion / situational awareness tunneling effect.

Make a bokeh in the shape of a tic-tac.

Re: As a US Navy fighter pilot, I witnessed unidentified anomalous phenomena

#968

Post by Sightline »

simonh wrote: post #924
ikrenji wrote: post #905

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but how come the pilots and other experts who use the system daily and have seen hundreds of hours of it in operation (with and without birds present) don't realize its a bird and some random dude on the internet correctly identifies it as a bird from a 90 sec video?

I have addressed this in another comment, apologies to the HN gods for saying again, but your raising a good point that deserves an answer. These are complex systems, they are working in a high stress distracting environment constantly multitasking, and human beings make mistakes. This not a theory, we know for a fact highly trained people working in these sorts of conditions, even whole teams of them, can get things…

"Your eyes are lying, don't believe anything that may shatter our worldview" he said.

Re: As a US Navy fighter pilot, I witnessed unidentified anomalous phenomena

#969

Post by graderjs »

Shocka1 wrote: post #960
graderjs wrote: post #958

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was a good video! It sounds reasonable, haha :) The other videos...other reports...have not been analysed to insignificance, however. At the same time, it raises the question: why would the DoD permit people to get all in a huff in confusion about this, when it was just (possibly) BS? That sounds really deceptive of them. Shame! To preserve their credibility on this topic and not come across as willingly encoura…

>why would the DoD permit people to get all in a huff in confusion about this I think sometimes we underestimate the power of social media in today's outrage and conspiracy driven culture, which is all but impossible to contain. I've said it what seems like a thousand times now - I believe there would be much more positive than negative as a result of shutting the internet off indefinitely.

I'm not sure I understand the connection, you'll have to state your conclusion explicitly if you don't mind.

Re: As a US Navy fighter pilot, I witnessed unidentified anomalous phenomena

#970

Post by pmarreck »

ceejayoz wrote: post #248
WalterBright wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of them. My dad did accident investigation for the Air Force for a time. One time there was a crash into the sea, amply witnessed by many on board a Navy ship, including pilots. They all said the wings came off the airplane before it hit the water. (The airplane had a reputation for wings coming off.) These people honestly believed that's what they saw. Except for one Navy seaman, on his first trip on a boat. He…

This is really key. Eyewitness accounts are reliably dismal in evidentiary value, even by people with relevant knowledge. Our brains lie to us all the time.

I'm aware of this, but a sufficient amount of it, almost entirely in concordance, should override this noise.
Post reply on HN