Live data from Hacker News

Famous Navy UFO video was camera glare, evidence suggests

petapixel.com

51–60 of 401 posts

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

#51
post #43
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean... assuming the Russians have anything that works is probably not a great assumption based on their performance in Ukraine. But I think they provide overlapping, but different, roles. But missiles and torpedoes is why aircraft carriers travel in carrier groups that have defensive capabilities against torpedoes and missiles.

It wouldn’t make much sense for Russia to show their cards and use modern war tech on Ukraine, a country with a (relatively) primitive military. They’re barely even using fighter jets.

Except for the fact that they are

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2022/03/14/us/r...

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

#54
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That "four different pilots" stuff has not been confirmed as far as I know. All people involved in these stories are hustlers, including that one ex-pilot who peddles the story. You must look at every statement they make separately. They give one fact that can be verified and then they tie lies or unverified stuff on that. btw. Luis Elizondo is has not been charge of any UFO stuff. https://theintercept.com/2019/06/01…

Have any of them made any money from this? What is the hustle?

Oh yes.

To the Stars Academy of Arts & Sciences (media & entertainment company) makes this stuff up and sells it.

https://tothestars.media/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_the_Stars_(company)

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

#55

Mick West debunked these to my satisfaction ages ago. The only question I have left is whether the whole thing was a US Navy psyop or whether the navy was just looking the other way and playing coy when those pilots were creating a retirement career in UFOlogy.

Mick West utterly failed to “debunk” these videos, and actual fighter pilots have debunked his “debunk”.

https://youtu.be/ro29w4ESw44

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

#57
post #32
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.

Source?

Jets do this regularly over the Colorado River and various, otherwise desolate gathering places around AZ. I've witnessed such shenanigans a dozen or so times over the last 3 decades. One jet distracts onlookers while another sneaks up to buzz low over the deck(or, perhaps it's just incidental to their training Ops, IDK). These maneuvers are tests of skill, technology & amusement.

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

#58
post #27

I honestly don’t know what to make of these observations other than I’m utterly convinced they’re not alien, super high tech or break the laws of physics (eg inertia). There was no alien crash in Roswell. I also file believe any government is competent enough for the claimed cover up and associated psyops. What I do find interesting is the overlap between people who buy into various conspiracy theories and people who…

I mostly agree with your take, but I'll pick on this sentence:

> Given the huge benefits of a Dyson Swarm and the fact that it seems to require no exotic materials and no more physics it looks increasingly likely that we are very alone in the Milky Way

The fact that we can come up with the idea of a Dyson Swarm doesn't mean that not finding any in our observations results in we "being alone in the galaxy". It's also Main Character Syndrome, in a way.

Even discarding the idea of alien life being so different from ours that we wouldn't recognize it even if we were looking right at it, and assuming a "human like civilization", it's perfectly possible for there being unknown physics to us that make the idea of a Dyson Swarm unnecessary. Using our own civilization as an example, in the 1950s and 60s we did all of our data broadcasting over radio waves, and built huge powerful antennas that screamed about our presence to the wider universe. People then thought "well, if we're broadcasting all this stuff, where are the alien broadcasts? why can't we hear them? we must be alone in the galaxy". Fast-forward to now. Our current tech allows pretty much all communications to be over cables, and we're being much less wasteful with our emmiting; our radio emissions are diminishing over time.

So, not a century has passed, and already newer technology has proven our assumptions of alien life wrong. Why would it be any different with Dyson Swarms? You can't know how more advanced technology looks like, you can only extrapolate with what we have now.

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

#59
post #38

Interesting how so many are willing to accept "camera flare" as a concrete explanation. One thing that bothers me about this explanation is we know those pilots had a lot of experience with those systems so I'd expect they'd know "camera flare" when they saw it on those displays. But it's clear from the audio they did not recognize it as that. And there was more than one pilot seeing it, and from different angles. I'…

https://youtu.be/ro29w4ESw44

Has an actual fighter pilot’s reaction.

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

#60
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!

This analysis is saying it's likely 10 miles away, that doesn't track with the other evidence, does it?

What other evidence is this inconsistent with?
Post reply on HN