7 ms·

The US Navy just confirmed these UFO videos are the real deal

50 points by hellofunk 7y ago

johnchristopher 7y ago
So, anyone on HN knows what it's likely to really be ?
- quakeguy 7y ago
  Black projects by foreign powers? Idk really, the flight specs (if believable) are insane. So common sense says reading/sensory data error.
  - Zardoz84 7y ago
    on both sensors at same time, getting the same fake signal at the same spot ?
    - voldacar 7y ago
      Yeah and the pilots conversing about it in real time as well. It's definitely a much higher-quality datum than most so-called UFO videos for sure
  - aalleavitch 7y ago
    That wouldn't make any sense, though, because they've been detected by multiple different types of sensors and apparently very frequently. Unless someone were making these errors appear on purpose it wouldn't be reasonable to expect a software/hardware error.
- opwieurposiu 7y ago
  My pet theory is that they are mylar balloons launched by russian submarines. The subs launch the balloons as radar targets to elicit a response from the navy. Then the subs gather intel on our radars, response time, order of battle, etc.
  - aalleavitch 7y ago
    This isn't the most unreasonable idea, are their movements really consistent with balloons, though?
    - js8 7y ago
      They flew towards it, it was static, and then it rapidly shifted to the left as they overtook it close from the right.
      - aalleavitch 7y ago
        It wasn’t static, though, it was traveling at Mach 0.5
        klatuu 7y ago
        There is more than one incident. In one incident (2004 Nimitz FLIR1, west coast), the object is static and then initiates non-newtonian acceleration. In the next (GIMBAL, undated, east coast), the same behavior of static hovering with non-newtonian motion. In another, your example (2015 GOFAST, west coast) a slightly different elongated object is cruising at Mach 0.5 at low altitude, close to the water.
    - tomatotomato37 7y ago
      The upper atmosphere is a mess of violent winds, so it wouldn't be out of the ordinary. Don't forget a weightless balloon is a lot more sensitive to turbulence than a multi-ton computer-stabilized fighter jet, and those winds can already drop a multi-hundred-ton 747 by tens of feet.
      - aalleavitch 7y ago
        But they’ve been seen traveling against the wind at high speeds
  - greedo 7y ago
- lend000 7y ago
  People on HN tend to be skeptical to a fault. In this case, even the usual skeptics just say "we can't rush to conclusions."[0] When the Navy released this footage and the story with a number of highly credible witnesses and recorded sensor video, I decided to be more open minded when there was such unexplainable evidence of things that I couldn't possibly dream up a terrestrial explanation for. My guess is that it was a machine operated by something from a different system, far more advanced than us, observing us from a distance similar to how we might observe the Sentinelese. I suspect some percentage of UFO reports that don't have such solid evidence are also valid and related. Everyone on HN says "of course we're not alone in this vast universe!" but when confronted with possible evidence of them being here, monitoring us, it's a bit too much for their reality. Perhaps it's the feeling of loss of free will and self determinism that it implies. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Nimitz_UFO_incident#Skeptical_views https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Nimitz_UFO_incident#Skepti...
  - olliej 7y ago
    Do you have any evidence to suggest that there isn’t a terrestrial explanation? You’ve gone straight from “I don’t know what this is” to “I think it’s something from another system monitoring us”. That’s an astonishingly large leap to a very major conclusion. As such it requires a substantial amount of compelling evidence. Short low quality video is not that, so I assume you have either additional data about the events, or you are already in the “government hushing up aliens” group - in which case you aren’t actually being open minded, you’re simply anchoring to anything that supports your preexisting viewpoint. Nothing particularly wrong with that - that’s human nature - but it’s important to recognize that what you’re demonstrating is not being open minded
    - lend000 7y ago
      I would have left a very similar comment a few years ago. As you said, it's human nature to hold on to beliefs, especially when those beliefs strongly define their worldview. Read the wiki link -- it isn't just a video, and the sensor that took it is ~$3mm a pop. I could direct you to find some links describing how many other "potentially life-friendly" systems are thought to exist in the galaxy, let alone the observable universe, and then do some math on the odds of us being the most advanced. Once receptive to the idea of there likely being at least one more-advanced space-faring civilization in our galaxy, then what? Should we blindly bow down to alien overlords whenever we can't explain something? No, but we should certainly investigate it with an open mind when there is credibility (e.g. the most advanced military on Earth releases a WTF video and sailor/pilot testimony) and the null hypothesis ("we are alone and this phenomena is something we can explain with existing science.") can't be proven. In my case, I have some family anecdata which is worthless to you, but which I had dismissed until this video came out along with a similar one from the Chilean Navy, and I decided I lean toward these being intelligent phenomena not from this system. I consider most of the examples in the following video to be on the credible side, and I'm fascinated by the implications of it all: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaSY2Zc0goQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaSY2Zc0goQ It saddens me that science-oriented folks would shut themselves out from something so interesting (and statistically probable by mainstream estimates), but again, just human nature.
- dewclaw 7y ago
  High intensity, collimated laser arrays and phased array transmitters that project EM energy at intersecting cross points to produce three-dimensional plasma shapes. The lasers and beams are invisible, and multiple platforms (satellite & submarine & stealth aircraft) participate in the creation and movement. The beams focus on a programmed point to start the phenomenon, and then hand off to an operator to steer the cooperative system from a spotter's perch. In this case probably submarine. As for who owns it? Not the Navy. A secret operation conducted either by The U.S. or Russia, or maybe China.
- ak217 7y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20019375 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20019375
  - johnchristopher 7y ago
    Well. I like that.
- lazyjones 7y ago
  https://patents.google.com/patent/US10144532B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US10144532B2/en
ipunchghosts 7y ago
What is with all these links to "To the Stars Academy." I just don't get what that organization is trying to do.
- logjammin 7y ago
  It's bizarre. What's with the name? The bits don't fit together. Sounds like a low-rent acting school. If it's an an academy, can I take classes? And it's ... The Blink-182 guy?
  - cududa 7y ago
    They’ve always been huge alien conspiracy theorists. They have multiple songs on the topic and joke about it at their shows
- i_call_solo 7y ago
  Listen to Tom Delonge on The Joe Rogan Experience to see just how crazy he and that organization are. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5n_3mnJfHzY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5n_3mnJfHzY
  - rozab 7y ago
    I stopped watching when he said they were in the process of building a time machine. I can't even imagine how crazy it gets later on. I can't believe these people are being given a platform. They weren't the first to come out with the videos, were they?
- yasp 7y ago
  Sell books.* [1] * And securities! [2] [1] https://tothestars.media/collections/sekret-machines https://tothestars.media/collections/sekret-machines [2] https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5b5a458fe749405f83225fe8/t/5d28c46a6c0dd40001030e53/1562952811903/TTSA_Reg+A+%232_Offering+Circular_FINAL.pdf https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5b5a458fe749405f83225...
- internetprimate 7y ago
anewguy9000 7y ago
ugh, these videos are as old as time but every few months since 2015 a new article comes out with a clickbait headline referencing the same thing. there are a few sources that have reported on this objectively (nbc sandiego isnt one), if you look.
7532yahoogmail 7y ago
Wouldn't another plausible explanation be someone has hacked the radar? Because then implausible movement and speed would be explainable.
- klatuu 7y ago
  That hypothesis and also video/optical/signal "lens flares" and other such technical glitch theories have been discussed widely. The reason none of that holds up is because of the way advanced "sensor fusion" and direct observers with the naked eye have all agreed and converged on highly detailed accounts from multiple angles. You might imagine that "sensor fusion" involves some centralized control plane that collects and controls the redistributed captures at a focal choke point, where maybe the NSA (or a foreign APT implant, or some such high tech evil-doer) could sneak in and spoof some deep fake concoction into the mix, but these are fault tolerant systems, including direct observations from boots on the ground in visual contact with the objects. You have personnel with ordinary binoculars. You have vehicles with weapons systems that expect jamming and hostile environments. Sensor fusion is one tool, and not the only tool in the kit. They have ships with eyes in multiple spectrum bands, especially radio, microwave, IR and broad daylight. People looking at unfused radar, sending planes to a radar return, and then seeing and following the object by visual flight rules. This isn't a situation where a single point of failure introduces doubt. In fact, it is the very opposite: multiple independent sources of high integrity, at least if you trust The U.S. Navy.
  - admax88q 7y ago
    To some degree the sensor fusion actually helps the case for sensor malfunction. It would explain why it was detected by multiple "independent" systems if in fact those systems are not independent.
- cududa 7y ago
  I’m going to guess someone in the military thought of this and checked.
methodover 7y ago
Gofast is just a weather balloon. https://youtu.be/PLyEO0jNt6M https://youtu.be/PLyEO0jNt6M Gimbal is a jet. The perceived rotation is an artifact of the camera rotating on a gimbal. https://youtu.be/4X1PRDbtiF0 https://youtu.be/4X1PRDbtiF0 Nimitz is also a jet. It’s far away, and blurry. https://youtu.be/s1oTg0kxzDs https://youtu.be/s1oTg0kxzDs It would be really cool if these were alien spaceships. They’re likely not.
- hellofunk 7y ago
  It's interesting to see you speak matter-of-factly about what they are, despite the Navy saying they are indeed unidentified.
  - derefr 7y ago
    For a military, "identifying" a craft is less about saying what something is, and more about saying who something is. If you know that something is a jet, but you can't recognize the make of it well-enough to know whose embassy to complain to for it being in your airspace, then it's still "unidentified." It's sort of like a criminal investigation. If you know that "a tall, Caucasian male" is responsible for the crime, that's not worth issuing a formal finding about, because you still haven't identified a suspect to pursue. You have some details, but not enough to "go on." (Also, many things that aren't jets try to pretend to be jets in various ways, many jets try to pretend to not be jets in various ways, and many jets try to pretend to be other jets in various ways. If you just see "a jet", you can't be sure which of these cases is in play. Identification involves finding a non-repudiable signature—a tell that indicates a particular make of device, that cannot be faked by any other currently-known device. Sort of like a (well-made) virus signature.)
    - hellofunk 7y ago
      > For a military, "identifying" a craft is less about saying what something is, and more about saying who something is. Except that the article says: > And while officials said they don't know what the objects are

50 points by hellofunk 7y ago

johnchristopher 7y ago

So, anyone on HN knows what it's likely to really be ?

quakeguy 7y ago
Black projects by foreign powers? Idk really, the flight specs (if believable) are insane. So common sense says reading/sensory data error.
- Zardoz84 7y ago
  on both sensors at same time, getting the same fake signal at the same spot ?
  - voldacar 7y ago
    Yeah and the pilots conversing about it in real time as well. It's definitely a much higher-quality datum than most so-called UFO videos for sure
- aalleavitch 7y ago
  That wouldn't make any sense, though, because they've been detected by multiple different types of sensors and apparently very frequently. Unless someone were making these errors appear on purpose it wouldn't be reasonable to expect a software/hardware error.
opwieurposiu 7y ago
My pet theory is that they are mylar balloons launched by russian submarines. The subs launch the balloons as radar targets to elicit a response from the navy. Then the subs gather intel on our radars, response time, order of battle, etc.
- aalleavitch 7y ago
  This isn't the most unreasonable idea, are their movements really consistent with balloons, though?
  - js8 7y ago
    They flew towards it, it was static, and then it rapidly shifted to the left as they overtook it close from the right.
    - aalleavitch 7y ago
      It wasn’t static, though, it was traveling at Mach 0.5
      - klatuu 7y ago
        There is more than one incident. In one incident (2004 Nimitz FLIR1, west coast), the object is static and then initiates non-newtonian acceleration. In the next (GIMBAL, undated, east coast), the same behavior of static hovering with non-newtonian motion. In another, your example (2015 GOFAST, west coast) a slightly different elongated object is cruising at Mach 0.5 at low altitude, close to the water.
  - tomatotomato37 7y ago
    The upper atmosphere is a mess of violent winds, so it wouldn't be out of the ordinary. Don't forget a weightless balloon is a lot more sensitive to turbulence than a multi-ton computer-stabilized fighter jet, and those winds can already drop a multi-hundred-ton 747 by tens of feet.
    - aalleavitch 7y ago
      But they’ve been seen traveling against the wind at high speeds
- greedo 7y ago
lend000 7y ago
People on HN tend to be skeptical to a fault. In this case, even the usual skeptics just say "we can't rush to conclusions."[0] When the Navy released this footage and the story with a number of highly credible witnesses and recorded sensor video, I decided to be more open minded when there was such unexplainable evidence of things that I couldn't possibly dream up a terrestrial explanation for. My guess is that it was a machine operated by something from a different system, far more advanced than us, observing us from a distance similar to how we might observe the Sentinelese. I suspect some percentage of UFO reports that don't have such solid evidence are also valid and related. Everyone on HN says "of course we're not alone in this vast universe!" but when confronted with possible evidence of them being here, monitoring us, it's a bit too much for their reality. Perhaps it's the feeling of loss of free will and self determinism that it implies. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Nimitz_UFO_incident#Skeptical_views https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Nimitz_UFO_incident#Skepti...
- olliej 7y ago
  Do you have any evidence to suggest that there isn’t a terrestrial explanation? You’ve gone straight from “I don’t know what this is” to “I think it’s something from another system monitoring us”. That’s an astonishingly large leap to a very major conclusion. As such it requires a substantial amount of compelling evidence. Short low quality video is not that, so I assume you have either additional data about the events, or you are already in the “government hushing up aliens” group - in which case you aren’t actually being open minded, you’re simply anchoring to anything that supports your preexisting viewpoint. Nothing particularly wrong with that - that’s human nature - but it’s important to recognize that what you’re demonstrating is not being open minded
  - lend000 7y ago
    I would have left a very similar comment a few years ago. As you said, it's human nature to hold on to beliefs, especially when those beliefs strongly define their worldview. Read the wiki link -- it isn't just a video, and the sensor that took it is ~$3mm a pop. I could direct you to find some links describing how many other "potentially life-friendly" systems are thought to exist in the galaxy, let alone the observable universe, and then do some math on the odds of us being the most advanced. Once receptive to the idea of there likely being at least one more-advanced space-faring civilization in our galaxy, then what? Should we blindly bow down to alien overlords whenever we can't explain something? No, but we should certainly investigate it with an open mind when there is credibility (e.g. the most advanced military on Earth releases a WTF video and sailor/pilot testimony) and the null hypothesis ("we are alone and this phenomena is something we can explain with existing science.") can't be proven. In my case, I have some family anecdata which is worthless to you, but which I had dismissed until this video came out along with a similar one from the Chilean Navy, and I decided I lean toward these being intelligent phenomena not from this system. I consider most of the examples in the following video to be on the credible side, and I'm fascinated by the implications of it all: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaSY2Zc0goQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaSY2Zc0goQ It saddens me that science-oriented folks would shut themselves out from something so interesting (and statistically probable by mainstream estimates), but again, just human nature.
dewclaw 7y ago
High intensity, collimated laser arrays and phased array transmitters that project EM energy at intersecting cross points to produce three-dimensional plasma shapes. The lasers and beams are invisible, and multiple platforms (satellite & submarine & stealth aircraft) participate in the creation and movement. The beams focus on a programmed point to start the phenomenon, and then hand off to an operator to steer the cooperative system from a spotter's perch. In this case probably submarine. As for who owns it? Not the Navy. A secret operation conducted either by The U.S. or Russia, or maybe China.
ak217 7y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20019375 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20019375
- johnchristopher 7y ago
  Well. I like that.
lazyjones 7y ago
https://patents.google.com/patent/US10144532B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US10144532B2/en

ipunchghosts 7y ago

What is with all these links to "To the Stars Academy." I just don't get what that organization is trying to do.

logjammin 7y ago
It's bizarre. What's with the name? The bits don't fit together. Sounds like a low-rent acting school. If it's an an academy, can I take classes? And it's ... The Blink-182 guy?
- cududa 7y ago
  They’ve always been huge alien conspiracy theorists. They have multiple songs on the topic and joke about it at their shows
i_call_solo 7y ago
Listen to Tom Delonge on The Joe Rogan Experience to see just how crazy he and that organization are. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5n_3mnJfHzY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5n_3mnJfHzY
- rozab 7y ago
  I stopped watching when he said they were in the process of building a time machine. I can't even imagine how crazy it gets later on. I can't believe these people are being given a platform. They weren't the first to come out with the videos, were they?
yasp 7y ago
Sell books.* [1] * And securities! [2] [1] https://tothestars.media/collections/sekret-machines https://tothestars.media/collections/sekret-machines [2] https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5b5a458fe749405f83225fe8/t/5d28c46a6c0dd40001030e53/1562952811903/TTSA_Reg+A+%232_Offering+Circular_FINAL.pdf https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5b5a458fe749405f83225...
internetprimate 7y ago

anewguy9000 7y ago

ugh, these videos are as old as time but every few months since 2015 a new article comes out with a clickbait headline referencing the same thing. there are a few sources that have reported on this objectively (nbc sandiego isnt one), if you look.

7532yahoogmail 7y ago

Wouldn't another plausible explanation be someone has hacked the radar? Because then implausible movement and speed would be explainable.

klatuu 7y ago
That hypothesis and also video/optical/signal "lens flares" and other such technical glitch theories have been discussed widely. The reason none of that holds up is because of the way advanced "sensor fusion" and direct observers with the naked eye have all agreed and converged on highly detailed accounts from multiple angles. You might imagine that "sensor fusion" involves some centralized control plane that collects and controls the redistributed captures at a focal choke point, where maybe the NSA (or a foreign APT implant, or some such high tech evil-doer) could sneak in and spoof some deep fake concoction into the mix, but these are fault tolerant systems, including direct observations from boots on the ground in visual contact with the objects. You have personnel with ordinary binoculars. You have vehicles with weapons systems that expect jamming and hostile environments. Sensor fusion is one tool, and not the only tool in the kit. They have ships with eyes in multiple spectrum bands, especially radio, microwave, IR and broad daylight. People looking at unfused radar, sending planes to a radar return, and then seeing and following the object by visual flight rules. This isn't a situation where a single point of failure introduces doubt. In fact, it is the very opposite: multiple independent sources of high integrity, at least if you trust The U.S. Navy.
- admax88q 7y ago
  To some degree the sensor fusion actually helps the case for sensor malfunction. It would explain why it was detected by multiple "independent" systems if in fact those systems are not independent.
cududa 7y ago
I’m going to guess someone in the military thought of this and checked.

methodover 7y ago

Gofast is just a weather balloon. https://youtu.be/PLyEO0jNt6M https://youtu.be/PLyEO0jNt6M Gimbal is a jet. The perceived rotation is an artifact of the camera rotating on a gimbal. https://youtu.be/4X1PRDbtiF0 https://youtu.be/4X1PRDbtiF0 Nimitz is also a jet. It’s far away, and blurry. https://youtu.be/s1oTg0kxzDs https://youtu.be/s1oTg0kxzDs It would be really cool if these were alien spaceships. They’re likely not.

hellofunk 7y ago
It's interesting to see you speak matter-of-factly about what they are, despite the Navy saying they are indeed unidentified.
- derefr 7y ago
  For a military, "identifying" a craft is less about saying what something is, and more about saying who something is. If you know that something is a jet, but you can't recognize the make of it well-enough to know whose embassy to complain to for it being in your airspace, then it's still "unidentified." It's sort of like a criminal investigation. If you know that "a tall, Caucasian male" is responsible for the crime, that's not worth issuing a formal finding about, because you still haven't identified a suspect to pursue. You have some details, but not enough to "go on." (Also, many things that aren't jets try to pretend to be jets in various ways, many jets try to pretend to not be jets in various ways, and many jets try to pretend to be other jets in various ways. If you just see "a jet", you can't be sure which of these cases is in play. Identification involves finding a non-repudiable signature—a tell that indicates a particular make of device, that cannot be faked by any other currently-known device. Sort of like a (well-made) virus signature.)
  - hellofunk 7y ago
    > For a military, "identifying" a craft is less about saying what something is, and more about saying who something is. Except that the article says: > And while officials said they don't know what the objects are