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

Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

dni.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 244 posts

Re: Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

#191

Post by tailspin2019 »

jablongo wrote: post #165
tailspin2019 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm also not really impressed by their idea to use "advanced algorithms" and "machine learning". Are UFO encounters so frequent we need to resort to big data? I had that same thought - on first read this report seems to contain summary analysis of 144 UAP incidents. Not the sort of numbers that immediately make me think "I need ML to process those!"

I think one proposal is to have advanced wide-field cameras placed in "locations of interest". This would be much like an optical observatory and would generate petabytes of data.

Do you have more details on this or a source? I’m curious!

Re: Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

#192

Post by larsiusprime »

dadver wrote: post #122
f02a wrote: post #103

Just a reminder that Fermi's paradox is no longer a paradox if "they" are already here. ;-) I'm not saying there are little green men in these unidentified aircraft, but if you were part of an interstellar civilization in this galaxy, and you identified there was a life-supporting planet a few light years away, you'd send probes there for sure... wouldn't you? We certainly would, if we had the means.

I don't think anthropomorphizing aliens is a good way to speculate on how they possibly would behave. I really don't have a better system, but I see this tendency in alot of discussions about 'them'. (Disclaimer: I usually play as isolationist in Stellaris)

You can look to how other animals behave on the Earth if you want to step outside of the "anthropomorphic" lens. Perhaps it would still be a "terrestropmorphic" but I think it's well established on Earth that beings that need certain conditions to continue existing seem to be interested in signs that lead them to other areas that advertise those conditions. Species all across the phylogenetic tree exhibit this behavior regardless of intelligence, size, etc.

Re: Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

#193

Post by saltyfamiliar »

1337biz wrote: post #4

Are there any plausible theories why this stuff is getting released right now? It looks like there is no immediate reason for action. And no real reason why they wouldn't have gone on for another decade denying it.

The longest period of time that anything can legally be kept classified without exceedingly special circumstances is 75 years. Roswell was 74 years ago.

Re: Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

#194

Post by ineedasername »

mkl wrote: post #178
ineedasername wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I honestly don't know what you mean. If it's a plane, but not detected as such, then by definition they don't know it's a plane to put it into a "normal plane" category. We know ever recorded flight path of every aircraft. If it is plane-like and isn't one if those planes and we don't know precisely what or whose plane it is, there are two categories in the list that are the most likely explanations. -USG or Industry…

That list is a list of possible causes of UAP. UAPs are things that have not been categorised. None of those listed categories are categories UAPs have been put into. Instead, they are categories that UAPs could be put into in the process of becoming identified aerial phenomena. We know every recorded flight path, sure, but it would hardly be surprising for some ordinary plane flights not to be recorded (e.g. of smal…

Small planes:

1) Still often file a flight path in advance, and must do so if they are using instruments to fly, which is anytime they are flying at night, reduced vision, or even mildly poor weather. Even those who choose not to file will still have their takeoff/landing activity recording in flight logs.

2) If the transponder fails they will still be in radio contact. They are required to radio control, and will be proactively contacted by control as well, and then be tagged on radar.

3) If both radio & transponder are not functioning, it is a serious enough incident to require an incident report afterward as it will require an emergency landing performed with significant risk & without coordination of control.

In all of the above circumstances there will be easy data available to identify the aircraft.

At best, your argument says there are circumstances where a normal plane will-- very briefly during flight-- be a UAP as control attempts to regain coms or land the plane safely. They will never make it to the point of needing to be accounted for in a National Intelligence report on UFO's and their possible causes.

Re: Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

#195

Post by greydius »

xbar wrote: post #76
tailspin2019 wrote: post #2

Direct link to the PDF report: https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Prelima... > "Most of the UAP reported probably do represent physical objects given that a majority of UAP were registered across multiple sensors, to include radar, infrared, electro-optical, weapon seekers, and visual observation." > "Some UAP appeared to remain stationary in winds aloft, move against the wind, maneuver abruptly, or…

80 encounters with multiple sensors. 143 reliable encounters with one sensor (144 minus 1 balloon). RF emission in a few encounters. They could conceive of no explanation for any of them.. They have a lot of data and cannot explain much.

> reliable encounters with one sensor

There's no such thing. An anomaly that doesn't appear on multiple sensors is a defect with your sensor.

Re: Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

#196

Post by nomoreplease »

Animats wrote: post #130
xbar wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

80 encounters with multiple sensors. 143 reliable encounters with one sensor (144 minus 1 balloon). RF emission in a few encounters. They could conceive of no explanation for any of them.. They have a lot of data and cannot explain much.

The "multiple sensors" part is important. Anything that has video or radar returns from multiple points is much more interesting than a single-point view. Most illusions break down when observed from multiple widely separated points, like several warships operating together. So little hard data is being released.

Does multiple sensors mean multiple sensors on a single plane/ship or sensors on multiple planes/ships?

After looking at the document, I took this to mean the former (multiple on same plane/ship)

Re: Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

#197

Post by rasz »

xbar wrote: post #76
tailspin2019 wrote: post #2

Direct link to the PDF report: https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Prelima... > "Most of the UAP reported probably do represent physical objects given that a majority of UAP were registered across multiple sensors, to include radar, infrared, electro-optical, weapon seekers, and visual observation." > "Some UAP appeared to remain stationary in winds aloft, move against the wind, maneuver abruptly, or…

80 encounters with multiple sensors. 143 reliable encounters with one sensor (144 minus 1 balloon). RF emission in a few encounters. They could conceive of no explanation for any of them.. They have a lot of data and cannot explain much.

but then you look at one of the examples like the pyramid one and YT analysis that took couple of days to pinpoint the direct cause https://olhardigital.com.br/en/2021/04/27/colunistas/suposto... NVD with 3 blade iris

Re: Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

#198

Post by krferriter »

238475235243 wrote: post #174
krferriter wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And they all saw the same object from the same perspective which could have resulted in similar visual effects leading them to misjudge how far away the object was. They reported that it was very far away but the sensor readings in the thermal video and other alternate theories about what the object was suggest that it wasn't as far away as they thought. Which if true would explain why they thought it was moving fast…

> And they all saw the same object from the same perspective This just isn't true if you listen to their interviews. I'm going to assume you're just the disinformation guy now.

I mean that they saw it from in the air at the same distance, and all most likely mistakenly thought the object was farther away from them than it actually was. Especially since they have all been in communication and crosstalk plants seeds in other people's heads. If one pilot says "hey that object looks like it's 10 miles away" then all the other people will by default have that thought, even if it is actually only 5 miles away. This is true especially when in the air because it is extremely difficult to judge distances and sizes.

FAA doc on visual perception in the air:

https://www.faa.gov/pilots/safety/pilotsafetybrochures/media...

Failures in visual perception for pilots and people in boats are widely known shortcomings of human eyes. We just aren't evolved to see things at that scale accurately.

Re: Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

#199

Post by bellyfullofbac »

rasz wrote: post #197
xbar wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

80 encounters with multiple sensors. 143 reliable encounters with one sensor (144 minus 1 balloon). RF emission in a few encounters. They could conceive of no explanation for any of them.. They have a lot of data and cannot explain much.

but then you look at one of the examples like the pyramid one and YT analysis that took couple of days to pinpoint the direct cause https://olhardigital.com.br/en/2021/04/27/colunistas/suposto... NVD with 3 blade iris

Wtf is NVD? An acronym database lists many explanations like Natural Vaginal Delivery.

Re: Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

#200

Post by bellyfullofbac »

drcode wrote: post #66
DoreenMichele wrote: post #40

A reminder that UFO stands for Unidentified Flying Object. This is just a report on what the military saw in the air and could not identify. It neither confirms nor denies popular ideas about aliens visiting earth. In most cases, you can guess these are probably aircraft from other countries. In some cases, they may be experimental aircraft being developed in secret by some organization or other. I am someone who thi…

Do you really think there is a single human being that reads HN and thinks "UFO" means 100% aliens? I sorta doubt anyone here needs such a reminder.

Ctrl-F, "If UFOs are real", someone actually wrote that in this comments section. Yes, the concept of objects that are in the air/flying and you can't identify what they are, is real, and that commenter was using the incorrect definition of UFO=aliens...
Post reply on HN