5 ms·

This is the footage from the 2004 Nimitz Incident that is one case study in the paper: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rWOtrke0HY https://www.youtube.com/watc

This is the footage from the 2004 Nimitz Incident that is one case study in the paper: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rWOtrke0HY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rWOtrke0HY This is another more compelling video, but was not covered in this paper (was from 2015): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxVRg7LLaQA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxVRg7LLaQA The US Navy has certified that these videos are authentic, and were not for public release. [1] 1 - https://time.com/5680192/navy-confirms-ufo-videos-real/ https://time.com/5680192/navy-confirms-ufo-videos-real/

arthurcolle 7y ago
I hope they release an HD version of the normal video feed at some point. There might be a mountain of potentially usable data that isn't being released at present. Apparently during the Nimitz incident there was a brief period where there were hundreds of these UFOs that descended from the sky (upper bound that the radar picks up is 80,000 feet, and these were at picked up at that altitude) and were basically tracking the Nimitz Strike Group. Such a wild story.
- openasocket 7y ago
  I hope they release the raw footage with telemetry data. I'm not sure about ATFLIR specifically, but I know that these sorts of systems usually embed actual telemetry data in the feed (in a similar way to close captioning data) which is then rendered onto the video by the media player. All these copies of the footage are of the video after being rendered, with the data stripped out.
  - dfsegoat 7y ago
    According to the Sr. Radar/EW officer on the USS Princeton which had all the radar tracks (Kevin Day I believe) - all of the data were wiped. "Despite this, Day intended to write an after-action message about the encounter. When Day went to review the records from the previous day, all the data was gone. He never wrote the after-action message." [1] [1] - http://entertainermag.com/blog/2019/08/30/exploring-the-unbelievable-navy-veteran-kevin-day-to-speak-at-ufo-congress/ http://entertainermag.com/blog/2019/08/30/exploring-the-unbe...
SiempreViernes 7y ago
The 2004 video looks a times like it's something like dust in the detector: implausibly steady small scale features seemingly unconcerned with atmospheric noise. I find it strange that the twisting motion at 2:04, is attributed to object acceleration instead of the telescope turning to avoid the pole of an alt-az mount.
- typeformer 7y ago
  The object turns on its end and the pilot saw it do this with his own eyes, it's an is aerodynamically unstable position. If you want more info regarding the AtFlir system see the link in this post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21013316 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21013316
Iv 7y ago
Having spent a few years in skeptic groups helping debunk aliens and yeti footage, I must say that these are refreshing documents: authenticated videos, sensors are specified, we even have original audio of one! I would like to just ask something I may have missed: how did they shield themselves from the (very) classic error of mistaking something small and close, like a bird or a bug, for something big and distant? There is an abundance of footage of blurry insects close to a camera being mistaken for very fast alien ships. I mean, this is supposedly locked by radars, why is the distance measured by those not given? And I must say, reading the analysis of the Nimitz incident by this paper, it is a glorious case of over-analysis. They base themselves on an oral recollection of approximate values, add to it wild assumption ("Since we want a minimal power estimate, we took the acceleration as 5370 g and assumed that the UAV had a mass of 1000 kg.") and to unnecessarily complicated calculations to guess random things about this supposed vessel. Also worthy of note is that this is part of a program [1] paid by a senator in the direction of a close friend, who is a UFO enthusiast, and had to justify spending 22 million USD with some things. In such a case, I don't think they have an excuse for not having actual radar data as well. I suspect such data would dismiss cases as something easily identifiable like a meteorite. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Aerospace_Threat_Identification_Program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Aerospace_Threat_Iden...
- typeformer 7y ago
  We know for sure that at least the radar from E-2C Hawkeye plane in the area that had returned was confiscated by plainclothes officials who landed on the Nimitz via helicopter.
  - lolc 7y ago
    How do "we" know this?
    - typeformer 7y ago
      Because the guy on the plane responsible for the data testified on camera that he was instructed to grab the the "bricks" (specialized hard drives) immediately upon landing and they were then confiscated and quickly flown off of the carrier rather than being stored in the safe as per usual. Watch Histoy's Unidentified series.
Enginerrrd 7y ago
I can't help but notice that in the first video, the sensor switches from aimed to the right, to being aimed to the left as it tracks the object. Then, at the peak of left facing azimuth, the object coincidentally zooms off to the left in the direction of what I assume is airflow around the sensor. That sure sounds consistent with a piece of debris stuck to the lens cover, but I'm lacking a lot of critical information.
- typeformer 7y ago
  There were multiple jets scrambled, they all tracked the objects, with radar, infrared video, high-def video, and laser range finding. Why are people so stubborn about this?
  - humble_engineer 7y ago
    There is this phenomena with UFO's, I don't remember the name of it, but it goes like this, even if they landed at the White House and CNN covered it, there would still be people who were doubtful, just because it would be the most significant event in human history, so given that these are not that case, but just strong evidence, there will be a lot of people who are essentially morons.
  - rasz 7y ago
    Just like in that 2018 Gatwick Drone situation!

arthurcolle 7y ago

I hope they release an HD version of the normal video feed at some point. There might be a mountain of potentially usable data that isn't being released at present. Apparently during the Nimitz incident there was a brief period where there were hundreds of these UFOs that descended from the sky (upper bound that the radar picks up is 80,000 feet, and these were at picked up at that altitude) and were basically tracking the Nimitz Strike Group. Such a wild story.

openasocket 7y ago
I hope they release the raw footage with telemetry data. I'm not sure about ATFLIR specifically, but I know that these sorts of systems usually embed actual telemetry data in the feed (in a similar way to close captioning data) which is then rendered onto the video by the media player. All these copies of the footage are of the video after being rendered, with the data stripped out.
- dfsegoat 7y ago
  According to the Sr. Radar/EW officer on the USS Princeton which had all the radar tracks (Kevin Day I believe) - all of the data were wiped. "Despite this, Day intended to write an after-action message about the encounter. When Day went to review the records from the previous day, all the data was gone. He never wrote the after-action message." [1] [1] - http://entertainermag.com/blog/2019/08/30/exploring-the-unbelievable-navy-veteran-kevin-day-to-speak-at-ufo-congress/ http://entertainermag.com/blog/2019/08/30/exploring-the-unbe...

SiempreViernes 7y ago

The 2004 video looks a times like it's something like dust in the detector: implausibly steady small scale features seemingly unconcerned with atmospheric noise. I find it strange that the twisting motion at 2:04, is attributed to object acceleration instead of the telescope turning to avoid the pole of an alt-az mount.

typeformer 7y ago
The object turns on its end and the pilot saw it do this with his own eyes, it's an is aerodynamically unstable position. If you want more info regarding the AtFlir system see the link in this post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21013316 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21013316

Iv 7y ago

Having spent a few years in skeptic groups helping debunk aliens and yeti footage, I must say that these are refreshing documents: authenticated videos, sensors are specified, we even have original audio of one! I would like to just ask something I may have missed: how did they shield themselves from the (very) classic error of mistaking something small and close, like a bird or a bug, for something big and distant? There is an abundance of footage of blurry insects close to a camera being mistaken for very fast alien ships. I mean, this is supposedly locked by radars, why is the distance measured by those not given? And I must say, reading the analysis of the Nimitz incident by this paper, it is a glorious case of over-analysis. They base themselves on an oral recollection of approximate values, add to it wild assumption ("Since we want a minimal power estimate, we took the acceleration as 5370 g and assumed that the UAV had a mass of 1000 kg.") and to unnecessarily complicated calculations to guess random things about this supposed vessel. Also worthy of note is that this is part of a program [1] paid by a senator in the direction of a close friend, who is a UFO enthusiast, and had to justify spending 22 million USD with some things. In such a case, I don't think they have an excuse for not having actual radar data as well. I suspect such data would dismiss cases as something easily identifiable like a meteorite. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Aerospace_Threat_Identification_Program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Aerospace_Threat_Iden...

typeformer 7y ago
We know for sure that at least the radar from E-2C Hawkeye plane in the area that had returned was confiscated by plainclothes officials who landed on the Nimitz via helicopter.
- lolc 7y ago
  How do "we" know this?
  - typeformer 7y ago
    Because the guy on the plane responsible for the data testified on camera that he was instructed to grab the the "bricks" (specialized hard drives) immediately upon landing and they were then confiscated and quickly flown off of the carrier rather than being stored in the safe as per usual. Watch Histoy's Unidentified series.

Enginerrrd 7y ago

I can't help but notice that in the first video, the sensor switches from aimed to the right, to being aimed to the left as it tracks the object. Then, at the peak of left facing azimuth, the object coincidentally zooms off to the left in the direction of what I assume is airflow around the sensor. That sure sounds consistent with a piece of debris stuck to the lens cover, but I'm lacking a lot of critical information.

typeformer 7y ago
There were multiple jets scrambled, they all tracked the objects, with radar, infrared video, high-def video, and laser range finding. Why are people so stubborn about this?
- humble_engineer 7y ago
  There is this phenomena with UFO's, I don't remember the name of it, but it goes like this, even if they landed at the White House and CNN covered it, there would still be people who were doubtful, just because it would be the most significant event in human history, so given that these are not that case, but just strong evidence, there will be a lot of people who are essentially morons.
- rasz 7y ago
  Just like in that 2018 Gatwick Drone situation!