Live data from Hacker News

Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

arxiv.org

51–60 of 97 posts

Re: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

#51
post #32

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…

Blah, blah, blah. The usual rebuttal.

Like climate deniers, debunkers gonna debunk.

It's strange that these people are trusted to handle and launch nukes, but apparently when squadrons of UAPs show up simultaneously on the most advanced sensor systems in the world they suddenly can't be trusted.

Re: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

#52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mete…

>These guys are so unscientific... Naaaaa, this is not my field, so I assume I'm missing some crucial pieces of information (which the paper apparently lack too, I agree on that). >A bright yellow meteor trail will saturate red and green, and then blue. Here I assume that they can do their job, but maybe you are right. Since they are doing their observations at two "meteor stations", maybe they know what they are tal…

They're not accounting for exposure levels anywhere that I can see, but to be honest I just skimmed it quickly looking for the expected formulas.

It's easy to write garbage in the style of a scientific paper. Use LaTeX, the right fonts, layout, and tone and most people will immediately stop questioning the content. Pepper it with formulas and it starts to look like wisdom delivered by serious men in white lab coats.

I studied physics with a particular focus on optics because I wanted (and achieved) a career in computer graphics. I wanted a good solid background on light transport and physically accurate rendering techniques.

This paper covers about 5% of what you would expect to see in a serious publication, if that. The calibration "technique" they use is hilariously bad. The assumptions are invalid. Obvious instrument limitations aren't even mentioned let alone corrected for.

Compare to the last link in my previous post. The difference is night and day.

Similarly, for a vaguely related recent example, take a look at how the JWST telescope calibration is done: https://jwst-pipeline.readthedocs.io/en/latest/jwst/linearit...

Take a look at the menu on the left! There's section after section after section that covers every aspect of this instrument! Fundamentally, it's "just" a fancy camera with a CCD/CMOS sensor, optics, and similar limits. It's the same problem space, so it's a good example of how this can be done properly.

Admittedly, JWST has a huge budget, but even amateurs do similar things when performing "image stacking", and that's just for making pretty pictures, not for scientific publication: http://deepskystacker.free.fr/english/theory.htm#Calibration

If I were given a budget of just a few thousand dollars and a year to write a PhD or something, I would:

- Get a few identical cameras and lenses, ideally prime lenses. Budget permitting, the best kind are the B&W digital ones, like this one: https://leica-camera.com/en-AU/photography/cameras/m/m10-mon...

- Mount three or more of them on something sturdy facing the same patch of sky, at least a hundred meters apart in a large triangle or other similar shape. Ideally, several at each spot aligned in parallel but using different, well-characterised filters. Or a single camera with rapidly swappable filters, which would be within reach of a student's budget using 3D printing.

- At each location have a GPS receiver as a timing source. Handheld receivers suffice, and many Arduino-type boards have modules for this. Also have a "weather station" measuring wind speed, humidity, and temperature. Also have a thermal probe stuck to the sensor of the camera, or very near it.

- Perform detailed lab calibration of each camera and lens pair. Repeat for each filter if using filters. Use a proper instrument like a spectrophotometer, which every physics lab will most likely have lying around somewhere. This need to be performed at the same focus ("infinity") and across a range of intensities. Ideally at different temperatures also.

- Calibrate in the field. E.g.: align the photos using stars or perform similar cross-checks between each camera. Use GPS data relayed from airliners to verify the altitude computation from stereopsis. Use aircraft that you know are "white" to cross-check atmospheric conditions. Fly drones up a few kilometres with blinking LED lasers on them of various wavelengths. Etc...

- Use manual focus, synchronized camera settings, and take photos every second or so using GPS timing for accurate sync. Ensure to stay well within the "middle" of the dynamic range of the sensors.

- Collect the information for analysis, ideally over weeks or months. Multiple cameras with different perspectives allows massively more accurate estimates of a range of parameters, especially height, speed, size, etc... It simultaneously helps eliminate spurious sensor problems, bugs, birds, raindrops, and other confounding factors.

This could be done with a few thousand dollars and the data could keep many students busy publishing good papers for years. You could write papers on cloud formation, bird migration, raptor hunting statistics, accuracy of aircraft transponders, lightning frequency, meteors, satellites, and even cover military topics such as spotting drones! Computer Science students could get involved with AI analysis of the data, efficient storage, real-time analysis and tracking with longer telephoto lenses, etc...

This is what real science looks like, even if done on a budget. There are teams out there basically doing this or some variant right now!

Re: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

#53

>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?

This exactly, seems like this could have been done from the 80s and entirely automated from the mid-90's.

I'm all for setting up something like this [1], it's just good science to have automated cameras recording the sky to keep an eye on things. In the very simplest straightforward business case, three synchronized cameras detecting a meteor can trace its path through the athmosphere and help locate anything that hits the ground. For more niche use cases include tracking aircraft flying around with their transponders turned off, just to keep everyone honest. After a few dozen more scientic use cases, then, maybe, some UFO tracking.

Sky Hub [2] tried it, combining recording with some ML detection, but they went bust last year.

[1] - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275829635_Project_f...

[2] - https://www.space.com/spotting-ufos-sky-hub-surveillance

Re: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

#54

Reason to be skeptical: For the last 10 years (?) or so most everybody has a mobile phone with high-quality camera in it and most people carry their phone with them all the time. Shouldn't that mean that the quality and quantity of UFO evidence should have exploded since about 10-15 years ago? But I haven't seen any articles about how much more and how much better quality UFO evidence we have now that anybody whose s…

But there is video. It just looks crap or CGI because it's hand held, because who expects to see a UFO, and shot by amateurs.

Re: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

#55

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…

> Except that even as young child I started noticing that all of the photos were blurry. All of them. Focus dispels UFOs just like turning on the light dispels the monster in the bedroom.

Not exactly. Jacques Vallée and others have spent a lot of time addressing the question of why UFO photos are always blurry and out of focus. His ideas about it are fascinating. There’s also a lot of photos that aren’t blurry, such as the 1971 Cote UFO. It doesn’t mean they are alien, but there’s definitely something real getting photographed that’s still unidentified. I’ve also been interested in how writers like Arthur C. Clarke and Liu Cixin address the topic of how an advanced alien species could control physics, the noosphere, and the human mind itself.

Re: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

#56
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Blah, blah, blah. The usual rebuttal. Like climate deniers, debunkers gonna debunk. It's strange that these people are trusted to handle and launch nukes, but apparently when squadrons of UAPs show up simultaneously on the most advanced sensor systems in the world they suddenly can't be trusted.

At that level, trust and skill are specialisms, not generic statements.

By analogy, I'm a skilled software developer, graduated 2006, learned to read from a Commodore 64 user manual etc., but I make iOS apps, put me on a Rust project and don't even know the syntax.

I trust a fighter pilot to be really good at spotting potential hazards in the air, and also things which are not responding to the appropriate IFF signals. While I know too little about what they do to guess much of what else they're good at, I suspect that suggesting they're too good to make mistakes is like suggesting I'm too good to write bugs.

Re: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

#57

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…

>It's just the camera sensor's color space (Adobe RGB)

Sensors don't have a color space. It's a transformation applied in the camera software. Unfortunately no commercially available camera either exposes using the sensor data output itself, leading to often considerable non linearity between the measurable output values and the actual exposure. This is applied to the raw file for exposure and post processing raw conversion. You need to analyse the non de-bayered raw files directly to assess what's happening in the captured data.

Re: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

#58

There are a few interesting documentaries online. Check out unacknowledged, disclosure and close encounters of the fifth kind. What's interesting to me is that the ce5 protocol meditation is almost identical to some Taoist meditation I learnt 20 years ago. Of course there's also loads of bullshit too, but for me the UFO question was answered years ago. They're here. The AATIP/UAP angle is a good one to rebrand the su…

Where did you learn this taoist meditation? Do you recall the name?

Re: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

#59

Fun topic because the question of under what conditions would we as humans would contact another less advanced civilization in space opens up some pretty interesting but simple criteria. We would need for that civilization to not be a danger to us, not only from a technology angle, but from an ontological perspective. When you look at how insane other creatures in nature are and the biological economics of their surv…

> The question I have would be, what would we as a species need to demonstrate to be allowed "off leash," in a community of other spacefaring civilizations? What consistent understanding would each person as a random human need to have to be able to be relied upon to interact safely with a spacefaring being?

I think that Martin Luther King, Jr. answered this question in 1967:

> Modern man suffers from a kind of poverty of the spirit, which stands in glaring contrast to his scientific and technological abundance. We've learned to fly the air like birds, we've learned to swim the seas like fish. And yet we haven't learned to walk the earth like brothers and sisters.

Re: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

#60
post #43

Fun topic because the question of under what conditions would we as humans would contact another less advanced civilization in space opens up some pretty interesting but simple criteria. We would need for that civilization to not be a danger to us, not only from a technology angle, but from an ontological perspective. When you look at how insane other creatures in nature are and the biological economics of their surv…

Honestly? Not to be such savages. With which I mean is that we are hilariously incompetent when it comes to basic rights, freedoms and most of all structuring society. If we worked together in true unison, we have enough riches/resources to feed, clothe and give a home to anyone who needs it. Just for a moment imagine if the military budgets didn’t need to be spend. Note I am not advocating any ideology or political…

> we are indeed underdeveloped savages

We really are. I’ve been trying to improve myself, and I’ve been practicing a form of cultivating metta. If anyone reading this wants to experiment with their mind, this is a truly difficult practice. The next time someone wrongs you or hurts you, intentionally or unwittingly, try to show some compassion and understanding for them. That act goes against our very nature, and undermines our savagery at a very deep level. I did this last week to someone who accidentally wronged me at work, and it was an amazing experience. My anger completely disappeared and I felt terrible for this person once I began to understand what was going on inside their mind. I think that this and other practices hold the key to our uplift.

Post reply on HN