Live data from Hacker News

Famous Navy UFO video was camera glare, evidence suggests

petapixel.com

381–390 of 401 posts

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

#381
post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "These Aliens" Why do you say aliens? It seems more likely they are experimental human developed aircraft.

Because some of the reported changes of speed are not within any technology conceivable for the next 100 years. Like physically doing Mach 200 with no noise or sonic boom and show up 80 Miles ( the way point of the interview...) after a few seconds. ( And how did they know where the way point was?)

Is there hard evidence of objects performing these maneuvers? I keep hearing anecdotes like yours making it sound like we have irrefutable evidence of extraordinary tech.

I don’t think we have any such thing…

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

#382
post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "These Aliens" Why do you say aliens? It seems more likely they are experimental human developed aircraft.

Because some of the reported changes of speed are not within any technology conceivable for the next 100 years. Like physically doing Mach 200 with no noise or sonic boom and show up 80 Miles ( the way point of the interview...) after a few seconds. ( And how did they know where the way point was?)

Fair enough. If you haven't seen these Navy patents, they could be an explanation:

https://patents.google.com/?inventor=Salvatore+Cezar+Pais

Of course, you may have seen them and be in the camp that they are not achievable for the next 100 years. That is completely reasonable and I appreciate that point of view.

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

#383
post #381
post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because some of the reported changes of speed are not within any technology conceivable for the next 100 years. Like physically doing Mach 200 with no noise or sonic boom and show up 80 Miles ( the way point of the interview...) after a few seconds. ( And how did they know where the way point was?)

Is there hard evidence of objects performing these maneuvers? I keep hearing anecdotes like yours making it sound like we have irrefutable evidence of extraordinary tech. I don’t think we have any such thing…

The linked article and video suggest that there is an object behind the glare that the tracking pod is locked on to. I suppose it will be challenging to gather irrefutable evidence if an object is capable of these maneuvers, but the several videos and the radar data is enough refutable evidence to warrant the discussion of it/them being real.

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

#384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of all the life we can see only one (or a few for the more generous of you) species has what humans commonly call intelligence. Intelligence as we commonly refer to it is not a given in evolution. Evolution seeks forward propagation of genetic material, it doesn't seek an "intelligent" state. It's reasonable to assume there is life elsewhere in the universe. It's quite a bit more of a stretch to assume there is _inte…

If we can't define intelligence well, why is it unreasonable to assume there's intelligent life? Maybe most life is intelligent, just not on Earth.

I'm late to respond to your comment, but I qualified my statement with a reference to how we commonly refer to intelligence. Speculating about what's in the universe while ignoring what data we have is fooling, imo.

There are an estimated 8.7 million species on earth. The common interpretation of intelligence puts the ratio of intelligent-to-non-intelligent species we know of at about 1:8,700,000. Nothing I've seen in the literature on evolution suggests that evolution will lead to intelligence under than definition. Mammals led to humans, and only after the dinosaurs were wiped out by a mass extinction event.

So while I can't say for sure that intelligent life is more or less common at a universal scale, it makes far more sense to assume the rest of the universe and the mechanics of evolution are consistent with what we see on Earth. I don't think we'd be that unique in the cosmos, which seems to me to be an egotistical thing to think, anyway.

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

#385
post #71

Well, the only reason they were scrambled to begin with is that they had been tracking these objects for weeks using advanced radar. As I understand it, the radar is based on multiple resolutions. The active radar can point in the direction of objects of interest and get very very precise measurements. It's not just the video, its the radar data. The thing that pushed me over the edge in believing these things is the…

Fravor is a convincing person, but he's also ultimately an asset of the US military. I want to believe him, but unfortunately the simplest and most likely explanation for this situation is that he's lying, and lying in combination with other people. Most likely because they were incentivized or asked to. I listened to maybe half of that interview, and I really really do not buy the response to Lex's question of "Why…

Your interpretation is entirely plausible. At the same time, I found the interview to be very convincing in terms of Fravor's credibility. He mentions details about who was with him, bar scenes, and generally comes across as a professional. Historical sightings (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foo_fighter ) and angelic phenomena ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1561_celestial_phenomenon_over... ) are much older and at least predate the current US military objectives.

It's also totally possible that this is some kind of funding grab. That Rubio et al. are simply pawns being teased and pushed around in the name of national security to fund large and barely monitored government research and military funding. It could be some of both.

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

#386
post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spoken like a true none believer. I shun thee. Even the pentagon said they can't explain the UFOs, clearly they are preparing society for a big reveal. ;) Edit: I'm betting half the downvotes are from people not picking up on my sarcasm, and the other half is from people picking up on my sarcasm.

From the Guidelines https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html : > Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.

I actually thought the comment about voting was kind of funny

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

#387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand the nitpicking over a minor detail in a comment. Why are you talking about top squadron commanders now? What does top even mean? Top 50%? Top 95%? The point is the main individual was highly trained, in a high position and with years of experience.

Did you read that poster's comment? > 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" isn't good enough for thoughtful people. So yeah I'm nitpicking that the poster inserted an invented fact that these were the Navy's "top pilots" to support their position while being a dismissive jerk. He or she deser…

> an invented fact that these were the Navy's "top pilots"

I don't think it is an invented fact. Top is ambiguous and has to refer to >50 percentile at a minimum. A commander of a squadron of f18s in the navy that graduated the navy's top gun program is most definitely above the 50th percentile (I would argue he would be in a very elite group of pilots that is much better than just half of others).

I definitely don't support condescending comments, but you too were dismissive.

There are multiple plausible hypothesis to explain these things, just dismissing the whole conversation as not worth discussing or being impossible seems very unscientific.

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

#388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He was trying to get anti-aircraft weapons to fire at his helicopter and reveal their locations, so that he could then watch jets destroy them

Cool :)

That is the correct clarification, we were essentially the unarmed bait being flown around, and that’s not the explicit mission.

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

#389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its a common assumption made by layman that the existence of a weapon that can kill a system means its now obsolete. That is incorrect. Systems do not become obsolete because they can be killed. They become obsolete when they no longer serve utility. Either something else does the job better, more efficiently or effectively or the nature of war has changed to the degree that its now irrelevant. This mistake is most o…

I hope you'll excuse some pushback from another layperson--isn't the situation with Aircraft Carriers categorically different? In the examples you provided above (Cavalry, Tanks, and Battleships), there has never been a push-button solution to eliminating every single unit in the service of the enemy. Given the technology mentioned by GP, the small number of Carriers in service and the utter impossibility of hiding t…

As long as its useful to have a self propelled airbase that can launch strike aircraft from anywhere it goes air craft carriers will be relevant.

Emerging threats may change tactics, operations and spur development of countermeasures but they wont make an entire weapons system obsolete unless the change the nature of war.

>Given the technology mentioned by GP, the small number of Carriers in service and the utter impossibility of hiding them, it would appear that such a solution does exist for Carriers.

Carriers are not impossible to hide. A CSG that doesn't want to be found can do so. The ocean is a very big place. There are also grades to knowing "where" something is. Just knowing there is a carrier in the South China sea is valid for strategic planning but not much else. Knowing its somewhere to the south west of Taiwan can help plan operations but wont put warheads on foreheads.

A complete kill chain involves getting very precise and timely targeting information. This is something that needs to be done with some kind of sensor, RADAR, Thermal, Sonar etc. It must be timely because carriers are moving targets. A mere set of GPS coordinates is not good enough. By the time your missile gets there they will be wrong. So that means you need something nearby with a datalink and proper sensors to give targeting data. This could be a sub listening with sonar, a strike aircraft painting the carrier with radar or using an IRST to pick up its heat signature. It could be a warship of your own.

Point is, these kill chains are long and complicated and if you break it at any point your attack will fail or wont happen at all. Hypersonic missiles have very long kill chains, some of the longest. And they haven't been proven out in combat. "Finding" a CSG is much easier said than done.

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

#390
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> shutting down engines and gliding over campfires then lighting up after burners when right over them I find it very, very, very hard to believe that a fighter pilot would _shut down_ his engines in flight, at night, even more so if it's for a stunt. Slightly more believable if he went to idle, and then full military power. Slightly.

I'm sure it was idle or just heavily lowered, but people dug around and found reports on old internet boards about time frame seeing him do it from the same timeframe and location.

If he never did it he pranked/lied about doing the prank and that is no better for credibility.

Post reply on HN