12 ms·
Navy pilots report unexplained flying objects
- nabla9 7y agoNavy Pilot’s 2004 UFO: A Comedy of Errors https://skepticalinquirer.org/2018/05/navy_pilots_2004_ufo_a_comedy_of_errors/?%2Fsi%2Fshow%2Fnavy_pilots_2004_ufo_a_comedy_of_errors https://skepticalinquirer.org/2018/05/navy_pilots_2004_ufo_a...
- RappingBoomer 7y agoearth lights...google hessdalen
- dontbenebby 7y agoJumping from "It's not American" to "Maybe it's extraterrestrial" seems like a big leap. What if they're Chinese?
- spydum 7y agoThen they are probably full of vulnerabilities and exposed to the internet
- dosy 7y agowhy? there's no reason why the universe need conform to what you happen to believe about it. similar reports since 1930s and earlier. that suggests human tech level has nothing to do with it.
- ineedasername 7y agoPilots in planes as early as World War One experienced G-forces as high as 7g. That's plenty high enough to induce hypoxia, visual impairment, and hallucinations. The universe doesn't need to conform to my belief, but there are simpler explanations that don't require belief beyond already observed and known phenomena.
- dosy 7y agoI agree hallucination works as a model for some of the data. It doesn't work for multiply corroborated data from independent observers, or multi-system signals, like the visual, radar, and FLIR data. At that point it comes across as trying too hard to fit the data to the model.
- iSnow 7y agoHum, do we have the same observations from civilian flights? considering thousands of airliners are in the sky daily, we should. The other thing that bugs me is the variance in the observations. One time it's giant tic-tacs, one time it's cubes inside a sphere, flying saucers... It sounds unlikely there are that many different types of UFOs out there
- ssully 7y agoI have read about a few related to civilian flights, but this one always sticks with me [1] [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Air_Lines_flight_1628_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Air_Lines_flight_1628_in...
- dosy 7y agoyeah there's a lot of cellphone videos and reports from commercial pilots but some factors to consider are civilian witnesses can be more easily discredited or their videos said to be fakes to get YouTube views. and commercial pilots are discourage from talking about UFOs and in some cases that cost people their jobs. you can try a Google search, look at MUFON, check out secureteam10 on YouTube. the military witnesses and the team behind to the stars academy is credible. it's highly significant to see something official get behind validating the data. when Roswell happened people were ready to believe it and then 50 years of aerospace disinformation and counter intelligence has pummeled the public psyche into ridiculing and dismissing open discussion. which was a very successful psyop to create some cover for back engineering and development of these technologies. it's funny to see otherwise intelligent engineering folks telling others how to think about this when really they don't realise they're just repeating the aerospace industry's developed talking points that were used to cover up the secret development. space Force, whistleblowers, official data on sightings is a strong trend that suggests the writing's on the wall for disclosure. as to the variety, again there's no reason why the universe need conform to your expectations of it. I think it's pretty cool that there is a variety of sightings. when you consider the variety of animals and plants on planet Earth even the variety of inventions of humans I don't see any reason why you would expect everything would look the same especially when you have to consider that these technologies would be way beyond what most people on earth understand. but it's still pre disclosure which means that people have to choose for themselves right now whether they believe or not, because no authority has yet come out to tell people how to think about it. it's a serious issue and there are strong psychological reasons either way to either believe in anti-gravity, UFOs and aliens, etc, or to not believe in those things. and before we get mass public disclosure of authoritative evidence then it's gonna come down to these two camps with people and their psychological motivations, or choice, to believe or not. the main defence of the debunker camp is shaming, to call the other side crackpots or conspiracy theorists, or to dismiss any and all collected evidence by whatever means such as applying convoluted logic to render the possible existence as something harmless. while the main defence of the believers camp is to call the other side deluded sheep who can't think for themselves, and to substitute faith and belief to interpolate where the evidence might be lacking. neither of these psychological reactions is that helpful I do believe that if a person was able to even handedly look at the collected evidence that would be useful but I think we're still in the era where that sort of thinking is not accessible to the public, because of the trauma of the 50 years of shaming discussion about this. for a place that supposedly is all about intellectual curiosity HN is surprisingly dismissive of and uninterested in looking further into this topic than the aerospace industry's disinformation talking points. it's understandable because peer pressure and conformity is important to this collective of people. if you can't tolerate dissent on web frameworks how are you going to be able to discuss a topic where the stakes are even greater? it all makes sense.
- hendzen 7y agowhy would the chinese take the insane risk of testing an experimental drone in US airspace and near US fighters during a training exercise...
- Barrin92 7y agowhy the hell would aliens take that risk
- dragonsky67 7y agoEasy. You have a fancy new technology that is borderline supernatural, what better way to make use of it that to have your adversary dismiss it as bird poo, ball lightning or some other system bug. Wave it under their nose enough and it becomes like banner adds on a web page, they just don't notice it any more. When you need to use the tech in anger, your may see you coming, but they will dismiss you as just another of those strange glitches that get reported all the time.
- krapp 7y ago>Wave it under their nose enough and it becomes like banner adds on a web page, they just don't notice it any more. >When you need to use the tech in anger, your may see you coming, but they will dismiss you as just another of those strange glitches that get reported all the time. That's the way cynics the internet mught behave, that's not the way the military or intelligence agencies behave.
- dontbenebby 7y agoWhy would the Americans take the insane risk of overflying Soviet territory? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_U-2_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_U-2_incident
- dmix 7y agoBoth of those videos looks like optical illusions or radar bugs. Too bad there isn’t some sort of standard helmet cam so we can see from their direct perspective and get a better idea of how it might happen. Someone’s digging through the radar data too and there could be more multi-source correlations. So far it seems each of these are single source with two people in the plane seeing it? Or two pilots flying in tandem facing the same way and speed.
- pp19dd 7y agoThose videos were FLIR, not radar. These are trained pilots with experience in identifying flying objects, and the thing that stood out to them is they didn't see a source of propulsion. The movement characteristics were unlike anything they've seen. The object in question was flagged for their inspection by radar and they followed up visually. What they saw was baffling. The videos came from the aircraft and have been released by the Pentagon. Regarding how many eyes have seen this. Take a read of the Nimitz Carrier Strike Group report of the incident (PDF) which might answer some of your questions and raise others: https://media.lasvegasnow.com/nxsglobal/lasvegasnow/document_dev/2018/05/18/TIC%20TAC%20UFO%20EXECUTIVE%20REPORT_1526682843046_42960218_ver1.0.pdf https://media.lasvegasnow.com/nxsglobal/lasvegasnow/document... Edit: adding a couple of excerpts from the report. - "AAVs would descend "very rapidly" from approximately 60,000 feet down to approximately 50 feet in a matter of seconds. They would then hover or stay stationary on the radar for a short time and depart at high velocities and turn rates" - "The AAV did take evasive actions upon intercept by the F/A-18 demonstrating an advanced acceleration (G), aerodynamic, and propulsion capability." - "The Anomalous Aerial Vehicle (AAV) was no known aircraft or air vehicle currently in the inventory of the United States or any foreign nation." - "The AAV exhibited advanced aerodynamic performance with no visible control surfaces and no visible means to generate lift." So here's what this comes down to. Three possibilities in order of likelihood: * A: Psyop fakery: doctored videos were released through official channels, trying to fool other countries we saw something unusual. But why? Who benefits from that? What does it show to others, that our own military is unaware of experimental technology? * B: Another country has made a giant leap in technology, possibly physics resulting in aerial combat superiority and this should scare any military leader, because if it's real this means the U.S. is no longer the biggest sky predator. * C: Nonterrestrial origin. I don't think there are any other possibilities. Last two are a game changer. First one is just bizarre. The weirdest thing, again, is that these videos were released by the Pentagon. You can request copies yourself by filing a FOIA request with the following wording "seeking cockpit videos cleared for release to Louis Elizondo in the fall (September-October) of 2017."
- klingonopera 7y agoThe videos in the article are Gimbal[1] and Go Fast[2]. The incident that occured in 2004 is FLIR1[3]. This[4] analysis of Go Fast is pretty good, and sounds plausible, the author concludes that it's most likely a bird. He also analyzes FLIR1[5] and takes a look at Gimbal[6]. To me, it seems like FLIR1 might just be another jet moving away, and the "Tic-Tac" shape is just the IR-cone of a jet exhaust. As to Gimbal, Parabunk has yet to offer an analysis... [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tf1uLwUTDA0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tf1uLwUTDA0 [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxVRg7LLaQA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxVRg7LLaQA [3]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rWOtrke0HY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rWOtrke0HY [4]: http://parabunk.blogspot.com/2018/04/analysis-of-ttsa-2015-go-fast-ufo-video.html http://parabunk.blogspot.com/2018/04/analysis-of-ttsa-2015-g... [5]: http://parabunk.blogspot.com/2018/04/the-2004-uss-nimitz-tic-tac-ufo_22.html http://parabunk.blogspot.com/2018/04/the-2004-uss-nimitz-tic... [6]: http://parabunk.blogspot.com/2018/04/ttsa-gimbal-and-go-fast-videos-from.html http://parabunk.blogspot.com/2018/04/ttsa-gimbal-and-go-fast...
- puranjay 7y agoI do wonder if this is what they've released, what does the unreleased footage looks like?
- floatrock 7y agoYep, none of these are new, and the thing about the navy making it standard operating procedure to report these things to get around the stigma of ufo sightings was a story from a month or two ago. The real reason why this article is newsworthy is about halfway down: > Lieutenants Graves and Accoin, along with former American intelligence officials, appear in a six-part History Channel series, “Unidentified: Inside America’s U.F.O. Investigation,” to air beginning Friday. The Times conducted separate interviews with key participants. Happy memorial day, go enjoy some promoted TV.
- audiometry 7y agoWhen you start knowing to look for it, it’s amazing how many “news articles” are well-disguised PR exercises. I first started realizing this when simultaneously I noticed many articles, in many outlets, about Amelia Earhart. Then I recognized that almost all of them included a remark about an upcoming tv series on the subject...
- pts_ 7y agoNYT doesn't take debit card and I don't have a credit card. Your loss NYT.
- MaikuMori 7y agoThe unsubscribe process is even worse. You have to call them, it's not possible to unsubscribe in the website. Extra fun if you're not from the states.
- nuclear_eclipse 7y agoSet you address as located in California. They are required by state law to allow you to unsubscribe via the web, and they enable that feature only if you say you live in the state.
- ahakki 7y agoOr subscribe via App Store. Unsubscribing is also a pain (10 clicks in obscure places) but no calling.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- onychomys 7y agoThey also are now paywalling private mode browsing. You have to either log in with a free account or pay to read the article. Both of those kind of defeat the purpose of private browsing.
- rpz 7y agoAnybody else notice an uptick of these sorts of articles lately in the mainstream press?
- nabla9 7y agoIt's because there is marketing and PR behind this 2004 incident. Organization called "To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science" is behind it https://coi.tothestarsacademy.com/ https://coi.tothestarsacademy.com/
- hendzen 7y agoits a very successful marketing campaign by the history channel for the show mentioned in the article
- king_magic 7y agoGotta drive that ad revenue somehow!
- busymom0 7y agoI was just reading on the SpaceX subreddit on how a lot of people are reporting the Starlink satellites as UFO: https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/bso4wt/footage_of_starlink_satellites_seen_from_the/?st=jw5r8wrb&sh=074c758b https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/bso4wt/footage_of_s...
- Bombthecat 7y agoThat's actually pretty funny though!
- istjohn 7y agoMy family and I saw the Starlink satellites two days ago at midnight. They were twice as bright as anything else in the sky except the moon. It was surreal to see these bright points of light move across the sky in single-file lockstep motion, like a train on invisible tracks. My best guess was an asteroid had broken up in the atmosphere, but the lights were really too uniform for that to be correct.
- Raphmedia 7y agoI'm kind of worried right now. Is this a temporary configuration or will the Starlinks always be that visible? If it stays the same, the night sky is going to be wild once they lunch all 12,000 of them.
- anotheryou 7y agohttps://youtu.be/GEuMFJSZmpc https://youtu.be/GEuMFJSZmpc
- king_magic 7y agoWell, it’s a year later, and it doesn’t really seem like there’s anything new here. Luis Elizondo (who’s basically Guy Fieri mixed with Fox Mulder) looks and sounds like a crackpot, and keeping this up sure seems like a good way to drive sales of Leslie Kean’s book about UFOs. So I’m really not inclined to believe this is anything really extraordinary, since so little credible, verifiable information has trickled out over the past year. “The incidents tapered off after they left the United States, the pilots said.” Yeeaaaah, sorry, but this sounds like complete bullshit to me. And IMO, way below what The NY Times should deliver.
- deytempo 7y agoDoesn’t look like The NY Times website is delivering much of anything..
- coleifer 7y agoJacques Vallee, a noted computer scientist in his own right, is one of the best reads if you're interested in this stuff. He's not a crackpot and doesn't seem to be pushing an agenda one way or another.
- jml7c5 7y agoEr... "Vallée proposes that there is a genuine UFO phenomenon, partly associated with a form of non-human consciousness that manipulates space and time. The phenomenon has been active throughout human history, and seems to masquerade in various forms to different cultures. In his opinion, the intelligence behind the phenomenon attempts social manipulation by using deception on the humans with whom they interact." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Vallée https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Vallée
- coleifer 7y agoTo wit, there seems to be an intelligent phenomenon going on, and it appears throughout history. He doesn't say anything about what it could be, simply is describing the phenomenon. Also, I've read his books. Wikipedia quotes don't really give the same impression as his writing.
- angstrom 7y agoIt appears to have an observer quality to it. The one that sticks out the most in my recent memory is the 2006 Chicago O'Hare sighting. I remember this going through a pretty quick 1 or 2 day news cycle. Fairly alarming given the number of people witnessing the phenomenon and the backgrounds of the people observing it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_O%27Hare_International_Airport_UFO_sighting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_O%27Hare_International_Ai... Obviously rainbows are an example of a shared hallucination and the phenomena manifests differently dependent on the observer's viewing angle. At the moment I'm not convinced these aren't unexplained atmospheric phenomena because I've never seen one. I know some ideas put forth include ball lightning for at least some UFOs. Assuming these cases to involve intelligence may just be our misinterpretation of the phenomena.
- f02a 7y agoAs someone who has personally seen a couple of these things, I'm convinced that either extraterrestrial anthropologists are observing our planet, or human governments are operating highly advanced, top-secret craft. (I tend to think it's probably both.) Think of it this way: if a group of violent, power-hungry monkeys on a nearby planet invented ICBMs and nuclear weapons, you'd want to keep an eye on them... wouldn't you?
- nothal 7y agoI want to believe... But Occam's razors makes me think it's birds, meteorological phenomena, and other things you can misconstrue for more in a high stress situation (or through IR cameras).
- f02a 7y agoI don't want to believe... it's simpler not to. There's a huge stigma against belief in this sort of thing. It's obvious by the responses on this thread; even if you have radar that corroborates sightings filmed on an IR camera, our collective response is still disbelief. I think this problem is difficult for science to study because it's not readily reproducible. Not only that, but any evidence that /does/ exist has been ridiculed, suppressed, and/or outright ignored for too long. Now we're seeing efforts to reduce the stigma, and I applaud that.
- clouddrover 7y agoWhy would I want to keep an eye on them when "nearby" is an interstellar distance that they have no practical possibility of crossing any time soon, when I have technology that massively outclasses theirs, and when I know where they are but they don't even know I exist? Wouldn't I have better and more interesting things to do with my time?
- f02a 7y agoObviously, for the extraterrestrial theory to work, you have to imagine you can warp or fold spacetime to get where you need to go, rather than using a conventional engine. Then the universe gets a bit smaller.
- vonnik 7y agoI'd just like to point out that Navy pilots are not privy to all US government programs to build new flying objects. Some of those programs are secret.
- jasonhansel 7y ago> It looked to the pilot, Lieutenant Graves said, like a sphere encasing a cube. I'm no expert, but how could this possibly make any aerodynamical sense for a flying vehicle? It makes me suspect that the objects are just meteorological phenomena.
- acct1771 7y agoHologram to denote the shield, quadracopter cube?
- GorgeRonde 7y agoMHD. Also, completely off topic: why not try to make a MHD train instead of hyperloop ?
- RogueAngel 7y agoElectrogravitic manipulation. Amazing, but if the science/tech behind it became public, it would be quickly weaponized. Some day, maybe...
- beautifulfreak 7y ago"It looked to the pilot, Lieutenant Graves said, like a sphere encasing a cube." That was oddly specific. A search on UFO + cube leads to this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPquewvNAE4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPquewvNAE4 with alleged photos of cube-shaped objects in clouds, which look cool.Yah just never know what to believe.
- Causality1 7y agoJust going by pure math conjecture it's unlikely there is intelligent life remotely similar to us in our galaxy. Supposing it takes ten thousand years for a technological civilization to double the number of planets it occupies. In that case it will fill the galaxy in less than a million years, so for two species to meet before one dies out or prevents the other from evolving they have to arise within the same million year period. In a galaxy over thirteen billion years old that's quite unlikely.
- TheOtherHobbes 7y agoThere is no pure math in this space - just hand-waving and conjecture. We have exactly no information about xeno-evolution. It's not even a given that aliens would be motivated to colonise the galaxy, or that they'd do it in a way that would be recognisable to us. It's hard enough to predict where human civilisation is going to be fifty years from now. The idea that we have any clue what an alien civilisation will do over millions of years is... unconvincing.
- postalrat 7y agoI think it disproves the distances are too vast. Nothing more. The rest is in your head.
- arisAlexis 7y agoThis has been posted and upvoted a lot one month ago, why again? No new data.
- _of 7y agoIt's much more likely that this is just because of bugs in the code than aliens. I imagine these systems consist of millions of lines of code, sooner or later there will be a bug like this.
- f02a 7y agoYou might also consider that there are orders of magnitude more stars in our own galaxy than lines of code in any system built on Earth.
- efesak 7y agoUh, It just seems like insect in the sensor
- marksullivan 7y agoHooey! Sounds to me the Navy is in need of more funding and this is how they ask. FUD+$= Huge Penions/Perks.
- godlyman 7y agoThese are angels or spirit beings and their flying vehicles.
- godlyman 7y agoThese are angels or spirit beings