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

Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

arxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 97 posts

Re: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

#31

Post by behnamoh »

echelon wrote: post #5
api wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well hey, one possible answer to the Fermi paradox is that there isn't one.

I like to think the reason for non-detection is that an alien civilization already had their AGI moment. The AI proliferated throughout the galaxy, to several galaxies, and ultimately found a way to "break" our classical and limited understanding of physics. That the reason we're not seeing them is because we're looking for industry and megastructures, waste gasses, EM spectrum activity, etc., but that their needs ar…

I think AGI would love to keep increasing its storage and computation power. Unless the very fabric of the universe serves as that, I don't know how an AGI would "break" our classical understanding of physics and not make a super giant computer the size of galaxies... But if that's the case, does it mean we're living in a matrix made by an AGI?

Re: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

#32

Post by beders »

colordrops wrote: post #2

Funny enough I was just reading the book "In Plain Sight" [1] before I flipped over to hacker news. It's a book about the serious investigation into UAPs by various governments, and is heavily sourced, with often times a half dozen references per page, many official and declassified sources. It's hard to come out of reading it without being strongly convinced that these UAP are not of human or natural origin. [1] htt…

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

The fascination around UAP has been around for decades and basically each decade there's new reporting and new pictures or even videos. And also, every decade, once actual scientists and debunkers get their hands on the material, those phenomena are readily explained. It takes a certain expertise and a Navy pilot simply doesn't have that.

These stories make great clickbait though.

Re: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

#33

Post by AgentME »

jiggawatts wrote: post #19
colordrops wrote: post #2

Funny enough I was just reading the book "In Plain Sight" [1] before I flipped over to hacker news. It's a book about the serious investigation into UAPs by various governments, and is heavily sourced, with often times a half dozen references per page, many official and declassified sources. It's hard to come out of reading it without being strongly convinced that these UAP are not of human or natural origin. [1] htt…

> really curious if any of the downvoters could mention their rationale. Not downvoting, but I used to be a huge "UFO fan" around the ages of 8-11. I read book after book, all breathlessly outlining the "reams of evidence" available. I watched documentaries on television, saw UFO topics covered in the newspaper, and I had a shelf full of books all in agreement. Must be true, right? Except that even as young child I s…

A lot of UFO videos seem to be some kind of optical effect. The object rotates exactly in tune to when the HUD shows that the camera is rotating. The object suddenly zips away as soon as the HUD shows that the camera has suddenly stopped rotating to track the object. You see these obvious things in some of the most famously regularly brought up videos like the Tic Tac and Gimbal UFO videos, and almost nobody picks up on these. Seeing UFO fans still bring up those videos is the best evidence they just want to play make-believe instead of understand anything.

Re: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

#34

Post by torotonnato »

jiggawatts wrote: post #24
thedorkknight wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither the comment your responding to nor the paper the submission is on deal with either cattle mutilation nor crop circles

The linked paper on arXiv[1] starts off with: " We observe a significant number of objects whose nature is not clear. Flights of single, group and squadrons of the ships were detected" (emphasis mine) The word "ships" is a bit of a stretch to say the least without some really good evidence. What's their "scientific" evidence? In the synopsis they say: "Adobe colour system" which... umm... how can I put this politely.…

I don't think they are using Photoshop, but that would be hilarious :D It's just the camera sensor's color space (Adobe RGB). Anyway, gamma correction should be problem, unless they shoot raw images and in this case the color space gets out of the equation.

I was curious, so I found another paper by the original authors and the color correction is more carefully considered, since they seem to take into account the sensor response too [0].

[0] - https://arxiv.org/pdf/2106.07403.pdf

Re: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

#35

Post by jablongo »

beders wrote: post #32
colordrops wrote: post #2

Funny enough I was just reading the book "In Plain Sight" [1] before I flipped over to hacker news. It's a book about the serious investigation into UAPs by various governments, and is heavily sourced, with often times a half dozen references per page, many official and declassified sources. It's hard to come out of reading it without being strongly convinced that these UAP are not of human or natural origin. [1] htt…

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The fascination around UAP has been around for decades and basically each decade there's new reporting and new pictures or even videos. And also, every decade, once actual scientists and debunkers get their hands on the material, those phenomena are readily explained. It takes a certain expertise and a Navy pilot simply doesn't have that. These stories make great c…

This comment thread is attached to an article by “actual scientists”

Re: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

#36

Post by TechBro8615 »

defrost wrote: post #15
ducktective wrote: post #10

>Flights of single, group and squadrons of the ships were detected So they are now calling them literal ships, not ufo or uap Also, from their methodology and instrumentation (color cameras) it seems they could have done it in like 80s. Why coming out now?

The paper is by three Ukranian astro photogrammetrypeople .. I was going to comment on "ships" for the bias but figured I can mark that down to non native English speakers and some translation issue. Nothing in the eight pages screams "we believe in aliens", it's essentially about not yet catogorised observed phenomona high up in the troposphere. With limited data on fast objects that appear in only a few frames they…

The phrase “squadron of ships” seems like deliberate word choice. And to me, “squadron” is a more alarming word than “ships,” because it implies cooperation between multiple intelligent entities. But the paper does not describe much compelling evidence for any intelligent “swarming” behavior, so I interpreted the word choice as bias.

Re: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

#39

Post by jiggawatts »

torotonnato wrote: post #34
jiggawatts wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The linked paper on arXiv[1] starts off with: " We observe a significant number of objects whose nature is not clear. Flights of single, group and squadrons of the ships were detected" (emphasis mine) The word "ships" is a bit of a stretch to say the least without some really good evidence. What's their "scientific" evidence? In the synopsis they say: "Adobe colour system" which... umm... how can I put this politely.…

I don't think they are using Photoshop, but that would be hilarious :D It's just the camera sensor's color space (Adobe RGB). Anyway, gamma correction should be problem, unless they shoot raw images and in this case the color space gets out of the equation. I was curious, so I found another paper by the original authors and the color correction is more carefully considered, since they seem to take into account the se…

This paper also doesn't mention "gamma" and uses the word "linear" only in other contexts.

Even if they're using RAW photos, the response curve is still non-linear because the individual pixels "saturate" as they get closer to the maximum exposure. This shifts colours, because a bright colourful source will saturate the pixels of the matching colour first, and then the other colours a bit later. A bright yellow meteor trail will saturate red and green, and then blue.

Their entire method and conclusion all hinges on analysing the relative intensities of RGB colours of photos of very bright meteor trails.

These guys are so unscientific it's almost a parody of science. It reads like a bunch of high school students doing "science" with their dad's camera, and then a kind professor submits their homework to arXiv to make them feel like they're Just Like The Big Boys.

Having said that, there is some amazing real scientific research being done with CotS camera equipment!

Examples:

https://astronomytechnologytoday.com/2018/06/28/miniwasp-par...

https://petapixel.com/2022/07/25/telescope-made-from-multipl...

https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1561833

That last one is a beautiful example of how to do science right, with detailed calibration data and characterisation of every aberration in the system.

Re: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

#40

Post by TechBro8615 »

nomel wrote: post #18
defrost wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The paper is by three Ukranian astro photogrammetrypeople .. I was going to comment on "ships" for the bias but figured I can mark that down to non native English speakers and some translation issue. Nothing in the eight pages screams "we believe in aliens", it's essentially about not yet catogorised observed phenomona high up in the troposphere. With limited data on fast objects that appear in only a few frames they…

The crescent shape looks like it could be side view of the ionized part of a shock wave (maybe there’s a better word for it).

The paper isn’t clear about this, but the crescent in that image is the moon, AFAIU. They’re using it as a baseline for luminosity of the UAPs, which are the multiple (less bright) white speckles in the image.
Post reply on HN