6 ms·

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
  The Russian sub fleet is in dismal shape currently. And launching something like this would probably result in detection and tracking of the sub. Most of these videos were off the West Coast near San Diego, in a weapons training area, so that would be like poking the wasp nest with a stick.
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

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
The Russian sub fleet is in dismal shape currently. And launching something like this would probably result in detection and tracking of the sub. Most of these videos were off the West Coast near San Diego, in a weapons training area, so that would be like poking the wasp nest with a stick.

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