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

Japan to Draw Up UFO Encounter Protocols After U.S. Footage

nippon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 104 posts

Re: Japan to Draw Up UFO Encounter Protocols After U.S. Footage

#41

Post by BobbyJo »

jiggawatts wrote: post #17
m3kw9 wrote: post #12

I find it curious that all unclassified UFO videos are blurry and very hard to decipher

Currently, the human race has several billion cameras readily available to take footage of rare occurrences. Not just mobile phones, but think also of CCTV security cameras, dash cams, etc... The simple logical conclusion is that footage of rare but real events ought to be more readily available. And in fact, that's exactly what's observed! There is now a wide variety of high quality videos to choose from, if what yo…

Well, camera phones, even really good ones, suck for filming anything more than 50+ yards away. Try to film a Jet with it that is clearly visible to your eye.

Secondly, meteors aren't rare. Go anywhere with a clear sky and you can see shooting stars many times pretty much every night of the week.

Thirdly, there are plenty of pictures and videos of flying saucers, balls, lights, etc. out there, but everyone's response is "that's fake". I mean, that's the correct response, but your argument is wrong in light of that.

Re: Japan to Draw Up UFO Encounter Protocols After U.S. Footage

#42

Post by catalogia »

lend000 wrote: post #26
MarcScott wrote: post #22

I thought this was a pretty good explanation of the 3 sightings: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7jcBGLIpus

Mick West's explanation of "Go Fast" seems highly plausible (the video could be reproduced by a weather balloon, with parallax producing the difficulty of getting a radar lock and the appearance of fast movement). But for the other two, even ignoring witness testimony, it seems like grasping at straws to fit a narrative to a predetermined conclusion.

If he's right about the Go Fast video, doesn't that call into question the others as well? They all come from the same organization; figuring out that one of the videos is obvious horseshit should have us extra suspicious of the others, no?

Re: Japan to Draw Up UFO Encounter Protocols After U.S. Footage

#43

Post by erdos4d »

ComputerGuru wrote: post #7

It’s hard to believe that every nation with an airforce doesn’t already have some sort of protocol in place about what to do if you see a flying object not flying any known colors that you cannot hail on radio. Edit: unless they all do dating back to the Cold War, and it’s “shoot first, ask questions later.”

There is a protocol. It's called "Shut the fuck up or they will think you are smoking dope and you will lose your wings." Seriously, that's been the way of handling these sorts of things for the past 50+ years.

Re: Japan to Draw Up UFO Encounter Protocols After U.S. Footage

#44

Post by hindsightbias »

lend000 wrote: post #38
ak217 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20019375

I have a thread, too. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22353309 Frankly, I don't think these videos alone are the highest quality evidence of this kind of thing, but they are interesting because it is difficult to dispute the credibility of the witnesses and the timeline of events described by them. Usually you get some tangible evidence (video) or solid witness testimony, not both at the same time. I've never cl…

“When we update this prior in light of the Fermi observation, we find a substantial probability that we are alone in our galaxy, and perhaps even in our observable universe (53%–99.6% and 39%–85% respectively). ’Where are they?’ — probably extremely far away, and quite possibly beyond the cosmological horizon and forever unreachable.”

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1806.02404.pdf

Done and done.

Re: Japan to Draw Up UFO Encounter Protocols After U.S. Footage

#45

Post by beaner »

lend000 wrote: post #26
MarcScott wrote: post #22

I thought this was a pretty good explanation of the 3 sightings: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7jcBGLIpus

Mick West's explanation of "Go Fast" seems highly plausible (the video could be reproduced by a weather balloon, with parallax producing the difficulty of getting a radar lock and the appearance of fast movement). But for the other two, even ignoring witness testimony, it seems like grasping at straws to fit a narrative to a predetermined conclusion.

The parallax explanation for the gofast video seems less believable when you view the video and consider the beginning of the footage, when the camera seems near-fixed and the object is flying quickly by it, and the operator has to actively track and lock-on to the moving object.

Re: Japan to Draw Up UFO Encounter Protocols After U.S. Footage

#46

Post by lend000 »

hindsightbias wrote: post #44
lend000 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a thread, too. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22353309 Frankly, I don't think these videos alone are the highest quality evidence of this kind of thing, but they are interesting because it is difficult to dispute the credibility of the witnesses and the timeline of events described by them. Usually you get some tangible evidence (video) or solid witness testimony, not both at the same time. I've never cl…

“When we update this prior in light of the Fermi observation, we find a substantial probability that we are alone in our galaxy, and perhaps even in our observable universe (53%–99.6% and 39%–85% respectively). ’Where are they?’ — probably extremely far away, and quite possibly beyond the cosmological horizon and forever unreachable.” https://arxiv.org/pdf/1806.02404.pdf Done and done.

Did you even try to understand the paper? They rightfully point out the uncertainty in estimating even the order of magnitude in the Drake equation, then build a model on uncertain, if not completely speculative facts including the Kardashev civilization model, and the validity of the "Fermi observation," which is in fact being debated in this very thread.

Re: Japan to Draw Up UFO Encounter Protocols After U.S. Footage

#47

Post by lytigas »

beaner wrote: post #45
lend000 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mick West's explanation of "Go Fast" seems highly plausible (the video could be reproduced by a weather balloon, with parallax producing the difficulty of getting a radar lock and the appearance of fast movement). But for the other two, even ignoring witness testimony, it seems like grasping at straws to fit a narrative to a predetermined conclusion.

The parallax explanation for the gofast video seems less believable when you view the video and consider the beginning of the footage, when the camera seems near-fixed and the object is flying quickly by it, and the operator has to actively track and lock-on to the moving object.

The field of view of the camera is only 1.5x1.5 degrees[1], roughly 3x the size of the moon viewed from the ground.

[1] "NAR" in the upper left, and https://forums.vrsimulations.com/support/index.php/A/A_Forwa...

Re: Japan to Draw Up UFO Encounter Protocols After U.S. Footage

#48

Post by lend000 »

catalogia wrote: post #42
lend000 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mick West's explanation of "Go Fast" seems highly plausible (the video could be reproduced by a weather balloon, with parallax producing the difficulty of getting a radar lock and the appearance of fast movement). But for the other two, even ignoring witness testimony, it seems like grasping at straws to fit a narrative to a predetermined conclusion.

If he's right about the Go Fast video, doesn't that call into question the others as well? They all come from the same organization; figuring out that one of the videos is obvious horseshit should have us extra suspicious of the others, no?

We don't know that he's right, and the Navy has officially verified the videos belong to them just last week -- these aren't a product of the organization that released them. However, the Go Fast video was not the interesting one from a witness testimony standpoint. See the Nimitz incident [0], in which the object was observed by dozens of witnesses from several vantage points, including three fighters (at two different times), the passive radar on the Nimitz (intermittently for over a week), and an AWACS.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Nimitz_UFO_incident

Re: Japan to Draw Up UFO Encounter Protocols After U.S. Footage

#49

Post by hindsightbias »

lend000 wrote: post #26
MarcScott wrote: post #22

I thought this was a pretty good explanation of the 3 sightings: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7jcBGLIpus

Mick West's explanation of "Go Fast" seems highly plausible (the video could be reproduced by a weather balloon, with parallax producing the difficulty of getting a radar lock and the appearance of fast movement). But for the other two, even ignoring witness testimony, it seems like grasping at straws to fit a narrative to a predetermined conclusion.

The go fast parallax explanation exposes just how impressive the Navy tech is, whereas we’re asked to believe Mark 1 eyeballs with very fuzzy videos or radar claims.

Same group claims USAF officers showed up demanding the E-2 Hawkeye tapes before they could even be secured. Did they use teleports or HALO to board a carrier that quick?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and these aren’t it. Tell me where the AF or VQ (Navy) ELINT aircraft were or what direction the antennas on St. Nicholas island were pointed.

Re: Japan to Draw Up UFO Encounter Protocols After U.S. Footage

#50

Post by joan_kode »

jiggawatts wrote: post #17
m3kw9 wrote: post #12

I find it curious that all unclassified UFO videos are blurry and very hard to decipher

Currently, the human race has several billion cameras readily available to take footage of rare occurrences. Not just mobile phones, but think also of CCTV security cameras, dash cams, etc... The simple logical conclusion is that footage of rare but real events ought to be more readily available. And in fact, that's exactly what's observed! There is now a wide variety of high quality videos to choose from, if what yo…

On the contrary, there are rare but real phenomena that have no good videos. Meteors aren't that rare, try ball lightning instead. The only videos we have are blurry unclear blobs of pixels, totally unconvincing. Here's the "highest quality" video ever made of one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXm3zDM_v80
Post reply on HN