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

131–140 of 401 posts

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

#131

Post by adriand »

stouset wrote: post #22
zmgsabst wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

Exactly. Zero of the GPs objections are inconsistent with this explanation. The carrier group tracked an unknown object and scrambled fighters to investigate. The pilots may have visually observed the object, but it would have been too far away to really ascertain any visual detail. Instead they relied on infrared sensors which… suffered from glare, and so rendered incorrect visuals for the object. Its strange shape…

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.

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

#132

Post by MarkMarine »

cma wrote: post #17
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.

> The pilots are trained Fraver (not sure he was one of the ones in this incident) has a history of UFO pranks, shutting down engines and gliding over campfires then lighting up after burners when right over them, explicitly to give a UFO experience, and someone found a contemporaneous report of him doing it, so it wasn't just a story.

As a former member of USMC Aviation, it's valid to point out that skilled navy pilots can have some of the same range of differences in belief, action and motivation that the general populace does. I flew with a pilot on a transport helicopter that was blasting Eye of the Tiger and taking every turn at maximum bank, constantly looking for AA to get to fire at us so he could call in F-18s and watch the fireworks. Some of them are cranks.

BUT... I don't think any US military pilot expects their cockpit recordings or FLIR video to be public at some later time, I'm not sure what the motivation would be to lie about this stuff. The harm to you as a respected pilot would be fairly severe, and you'd have to get your co-pilot to go along with it.

"Three may keep a secret if two of them are dead." - Benjamin Franklin

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

#133

Post by user-the-name »

tsimionescu wrote: post #97
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.

We have a grainy infrared video, and claims of other infrared, radar and visual observations. Claims are easy to make and hard to analyze. Video is all we can analyze, and the video is unconvincing. Why then should we believe the claims?

No post body was provided.

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

#134

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#135

Post by kingofpandora »

StanislavPetrov wrote: post #109
stonemetal12 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why close all those doors without sufficient evidence to close them? Because there isn't sufficient evidence to open them in the first place. Might as well claim it is unicorns and dragons, you don't have any evidence it isn't.

We have unexplained phenomena. We have eyewitness accounts from the Navy's top pilots as well as instrument data and IR footage. If we cannot explain this phenomena with what we know, then we must consider the possibility its something that we don't know. Simply putting your head in the sand or attempting to debunk this documented phenomena with patently absurd explanations like "a lens flare" or "it was only Venus"…

> Navy's top pilots

Relative to what? Other pilots who fly the same aircraft? All fighter jet pilots in the Navy? All pilots of all types of navy aircraft?

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

#137

Post by quesera »

water8 wrote: post #65
user3939382 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> wishful thinking and the comfort derived from there being a Grand Plan You may not have meant this by your comment, but in general I find a related analysis common among atheists, that religious people believe what they do because it feels good. I find that's often wrong, and when generally applied condescending, as if atheists are simply more emotionally mature. On the contrary many religious people will tell you…

Quoted post unavailable.

There's a high correlation between arrogance and anyone who wants you to believe as they do.

This applies to all of the most visible proselytizers of religion, politics, economics, operating systems, and text editors, among others.

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

#138

Post by subsubzero »

willidiots wrote: post #98
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.

The "saucer" shape and its rotation were IR glare, that's the point of the video. He's very clear that he's NOT debunking the existence of an object. The exhaust of a jet engine, or another high-heat signature, could cause such glare. AFAICT no pilots saw this shape with their naked eye. They were miles away from the target and relying on what they saw via their sensors.

So actually Commander Fravor saw the object with his own eyes, he is one of the pilots who was sent in to engage the craft after it appeared on radar from the carrier group, here is a detailed video of him talking about the incident with Lex Fridman(AI reasearcher - MIT) on his podcast - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aB8zcAttP1E

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

#139

Post by mardifoufs »

bratwurst3000 wrote: post #113
water8 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Same said about arrogance and theist. Most religions are based on beeing something special and not a shitload of atoms nobody will remember as time pase by

I disagree. Religion usually involves deifying a entity that you consider to be superior, because it is not human. As an example, the word Islam literally means "submission" in reference to submitting to God. I'm not sure how that's arrogant. If anything being just a creature of god inherently means that we're nothing special in the grand scheme of things.
Post reply on HN