9 ms·

Mick West's explanation of "Go Fast" seems highly plausible (the video could be reproduced by a weather balloon, with parallax producing the difficulty of getti

Mick West's explanation of "Go Fast" seems highly plausible (the video could be reproduced by a weather balloon, with parallax producing the difficulty of getting a radar lock and the appearance of fast movement). But for the other two, even ignoring witness testimony, it seems like grasping at straws to fit a narrative to a predetermined conclusion.

ak217 6y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20019375 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20019375
- lend000 6y ago
  I have a thread, too. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22353309 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22353309 Frankly, I don't think these videos alone are the highest quality evidence of this kind of thing, but they are interesting because it is difficult to dispute the credibility of the witnesses and the timeline of events described by them. Usually you get some tangible evidence (video) or solid witness testimony, not both at the same time. I've never clearly seen anything with my own two eyes that I couldn't explain in prosaic terms. However, I know groups of people saner than I who have, and science suggests its highly improbable we are the only planet with life [0], let alone the first one to evolve a sophisticated civilization. People come up with Great Filter hypotheses and what not to compensate, but considering we may be less than a century from self sustaining space stations, that hypothesis is running out of air for its only known test trial. It kind of sucks to think we don't really have manifest destiny with the universe, but the burden of proof is on the skeptics to prove there are some really damning parameters for the Drake Equation before saying it is so unlikely that there are aliens in our neighborhood. [0] https://exoplanets.nasa.gov/news/1350/are-we-alone-in-the-universe-revisiting-the-drake-equation/ https://exoplanets.nasa.gov/news/1350/are-we-alone-in-the-un...
  - hindsightbias 6y ago
    “When we update this prior in light of the Fermi observation, we find a substantial probability that we are alone in our galaxy, and perhaps even in our observable universe (53%–99.6% and 39%–85% respectively). ’Where are they?’ — probably extremely far away, and quite possibly beyond the cosmological horizon and forever unreachable.” https://arxiv.org/pdf/1806.02404.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1806.02404.pdf Done and done.
    - lend000 6y ago
      Did you even try to understand the paper? They rightfully point out the uncertainty in estimating even the order of magnitude in the Drake equation, then build a model on uncertain, if not completely speculative facts including the Kardashev civilization model, and the validity of the "Fermi observation," which is in fact being debated in this very thread.
  - crashity2 6y ago
    Great Filter... you mean like a pandemic brought about by a population density and economic footprint that exceeds the carrying capacity of the planet? Handled ineffectively by a retarded former reality TV host? With a population desperate to "get back to business" at the peak of the disease because they want someone to do their nails? No way a technological society could destroy itself through collective stupidity... just not possible.
    - gremlinsinc 6y ago
      Checks notes..yeah this works.. also checks notes.. nope this isn't reddit. (seems more like a reddit comment, an observation not a critique). I think honestly humanity is being squandered by income inequality. Imagine if money wasn't an issue for anyone. Imagine that we had a HUGE appreciation of science so much so that 90% of kids grow up to be scientists and explorers. Surely that would get us to have higher and better technologies and also get us further in space flight. But instead elites would rather the potential scientists of the future 'know their place' and remain there in poverty never getting a degree/etc...
  - rtsil 6y ago
    > considering we may be less than a century from self sustaining space stations The jump between space stations and interstellar travel is huge. I agree that it's improbable that we're the only planet with life, but being visited by aliens is as, if not more, improbable. Consider the age of the universe, our (humanity, with the ability to apprehend the existence of alien life) existence in it is but a blip. What are the odds that one or several forms of life capable of interstellar travel exist during that same time period, not before or after. That alone, among myriad other reasons, makes me pessimistic.
    - postalrat 6y ago
      If they are sending out probes how long do those probes remain active? Can they repair themselves or build more on their own? I assume that is what we would be seeing.
      - incompatible 6y ago
        Wouldn't they have been easily observed by now, perhaps even making contact? Unless they are deliberately trying to remain unobserved, in which case being caught on video from an aircraft seems careless.
      - gremlinsinc 6y ago
        We should create message bots and probes who basically explore far reaches of space and categorize data, send it back to all other nodes and essentially make as detailed a 'map' of life/discoveries/etc so that not only we could use it benignly but so could other species who come after us. Assuming they could figure out and translate/understand how we categorize it.
- javert 6y ago
  > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20019375 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20019375 This is an amazing explanation. If this is the explanation, why didn't the Pentagon just say so?
  - booleandilemma 6y ago
    We’re in the middle of a national crisis 20x worse than 9/11, and they need something to distract the populace with?
    - javert 6y ago
      But they don't need to distract the population from the coronavirus crisis.
agumonkey 6y ago
I liked the optical distortion idea. It's not super fitting to me, but it was a nice thought.
catalogia 6y ago
If he's right about the Go Fast video, doesn't that call into question the others as well? They all come from the same organization; figuring out that one of the videos is obvious horseshit should have us extra suspicious of the others, no?
- lend000 6y ago
  We don't know that he's right, and the Navy has officially verified the videos belong to them just last week -- these aren't a product of the organization that released them. However, the Go Fast video was not the interesting one from a witness testimony standpoint. See the Nimitz incident [0], in which the object was observed by dozens of witnesses from several vantage points, including three fighters (at two different times), the passive radar on the Nimitz (intermittently for over a week), and an AWACS. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Nimitz_UFO_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Nimitz_UFO_incident
  - catalogia 6y ago
    Whether we know anything at all is a matter I'll leave to philosophers. I'm sufficiently confident that he's right about the Go Fast video that I'd bet my left nut on it. The Go Fast video being wrapped up in this matter leads me to conclude that the Navy didn't try very hard to figure out that video, which leaves me with no reason to believe they tried harder with the others.
    - Smoosh 6y ago
      Or that the Navy is happy with these pedestrian explanations, but realize that the public will claim "weather balloons again, another government cover-up" if they provide such an explanation. So they release them as "unexplained" without further comment.
beaner 6y ago
The parallax explanation for the gofast video seems less believable when you view the video and consider the beginning of the footage, when the camera seems near-fixed and the object is flying quickly by it, and the operator has to actively track and lock-on to the moving object.
- lytigas 6y ago
  The field of view of the camera is only 1.5x1.5 degrees[1], roughly 3x the size of the moon viewed from the ground. [1] "NAR" in the upper left, and https://forums.vrsimulations.com/support/index.php/A/A_Forward_Looking_Infrared_(FLIR) https://forums.vrsimulations.com/support/index.php/A/A_Forwa...
- autokad 6y ago
  i dont understand how the background behind the 'balloon' could be moving so fast. I dont think it was a ufo, but I definitely do not think it was a balloon.
  - Johnjonjoan 6y ago
    Imagine the balloon is 2km up and the plane is 8km up. The balloon is stationary and the plane moving fast. The plane centres a camera on the balloon and maintains the centre. As the plane flies over the balloon it is going to need to move the camera to keep it centred. When it does this the balloon remains centered (stationary) whilst the ground appears to move under it. However its just that the angle the camera is at had to change to keep the balloon centered giving the allusion that the ground is moving relative to the balloon.
    - beaner 6y ago
      But in the moments when the camera is at rest while the operator is trying to focus, the ocean is moving slowly in the opposite direction as the object, meaning that the jet is flying in the same direction as the object. If the object were static, then upon lock-on, the ocean in the background would slow down or reverse direction. What we see instead is that the ocean background speeds up, meaning the object is traveling faster than the jet in the direction the jet is going.
hindsightbias 6y ago
The go fast parallax explanation exposes just how impressive the Navy tech is, whereas we’re asked to believe Mark 1 eyeballs with very fuzzy videos or radar claims. Same group claims USAF officers showed up demanding the E-2 Hawkeye tapes before they could even be secured. Did they use teleports or HALO to board a carrier that quick? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and these aren’t it. Tell me where the AF or VQ (Navy) ELINT aircraft were or what direction the antennas on St. Nicholas island were pointed.
afpx 6y ago
So... we should be able to reproduce the phenomenon?

ak217 6y ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20019375 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20019375

lend000 6y ago
I have a thread, too. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22353309 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22353309 Frankly, I don't think these videos alone are the highest quality evidence of this kind of thing, but they are interesting because it is difficult to dispute the credibility of the witnesses and the timeline of events described by them. Usually you get some tangible evidence (video) or solid witness testimony, not both at the same time. I've never clearly seen anything with my own two eyes that I couldn't explain in prosaic terms. However, I know groups of people saner than I who have, and science suggests its highly improbable we are the only planet with life [0], let alone the first one to evolve a sophisticated civilization. People come up with Great Filter hypotheses and what not to compensate, but considering we may be less than a century from self sustaining space stations, that hypothesis is running out of air for its only known test trial. It kind of sucks to think we don't really have manifest destiny with the universe, but the burden of proof is on the skeptics to prove there are some really damning parameters for the Drake Equation before saying it is so unlikely that there are aliens in our neighborhood. [0] https://exoplanets.nasa.gov/news/1350/are-we-alone-in-the-universe-revisiting-the-drake-equation/ https://exoplanets.nasa.gov/news/1350/are-we-alone-in-the-un...
- hindsightbias 6y ago
  “When we update this prior in light of the Fermi observation, we find a substantial probability that we are alone in our galaxy, and perhaps even in our observable universe (53%–99.6% and 39%–85% respectively). ’Where are they?’ — probably extremely far away, and quite possibly beyond the cosmological horizon and forever unreachable.” https://arxiv.org/pdf/1806.02404.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1806.02404.pdf Done and done.
  - lend000 6y ago
    Did you even try to understand the paper? They rightfully point out the uncertainty in estimating even the order of magnitude in the Drake equation, then build a model on uncertain, if not completely speculative facts including the Kardashev civilization model, and the validity of the "Fermi observation," which is in fact being debated in this very thread.
- crashity2 6y ago
  Great Filter... you mean like a pandemic brought about by a population density and economic footprint that exceeds the carrying capacity of the planet? Handled ineffectively by a retarded former reality TV host? With a population desperate to "get back to business" at the peak of the disease because they want someone to do their nails? No way a technological society could destroy itself through collective stupidity... just not possible.
  - gremlinsinc 6y ago
    Checks notes..yeah this works.. also checks notes.. nope this isn't reddit. (seems more like a reddit comment, an observation not a critique). I think honestly humanity is being squandered by income inequality. Imagine if money wasn't an issue for anyone. Imagine that we had a HUGE appreciation of science so much so that 90% of kids grow up to be scientists and explorers. Surely that would get us to have higher and better technologies and also get us further in space flight. But instead elites would rather the potential scientists of the future 'know their place' and remain there in poverty never getting a degree/etc...
- rtsil 6y ago
  > considering we may be less than a century from self sustaining space stations The jump between space stations and interstellar travel is huge. I agree that it's improbable that we're the only planet with life, but being visited by aliens is as, if not more, improbable. Consider the age of the universe, our (humanity, with the ability to apprehend the existence of alien life) existence in it is but a blip. What are the odds that one or several forms of life capable of interstellar travel exist during that same time period, not before or after. That alone, among myriad other reasons, makes me pessimistic.
  - postalrat 6y ago
    If they are sending out probes how long do those probes remain active? Can they repair themselves or build more on their own? I assume that is what we would be seeing.
    - incompatible 6y ago
      Wouldn't they have been easily observed by now, perhaps even making contact? Unless they are deliberately trying to remain unobserved, in which case being caught on video from an aircraft seems careless.
    - gremlinsinc 6y ago
      We should create message bots and probes who basically explore far reaches of space and categorize data, send it back to all other nodes and essentially make as detailed a 'map' of life/discoveries/etc so that not only we could use it benignly but so could other species who come after us. Assuming they could figure out and translate/understand how we categorize it.
javert 6y ago
> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20019375 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20019375 This is an amazing explanation. If this is the explanation, why didn't the Pentagon just say so?
- booleandilemma 6y ago
  We’re in the middle of a national crisis 20x worse than 9/11, and they need something to distract the populace with?
  - javert 6y ago
    But they don't need to distract the population from the coronavirus crisis.

agumonkey 6y ago

I liked the optical distortion idea. It's not super fitting to me, but it was a nice thought.

catalogia 6y ago

If he's right about the Go Fast video, doesn't that call into question the others as well? They all come from the same organization; figuring out that one of the videos is obvious horseshit should have us extra suspicious of the others, no?

lend000 6y ago
We don't know that he's right, and the Navy has officially verified the videos belong to them just last week -- these aren't a product of the organization that released them. However, the Go Fast video was not the interesting one from a witness testimony standpoint. See the Nimitz incident [0], in which the object was observed by dozens of witnesses from several vantage points, including three fighters (at two different times), the passive radar on the Nimitz (intermittently for over a week), and an AWACS. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Nimitz_UFO_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Nimitz_UFO_incident
- catalogia 6y ago
  Whether we know anything at all is a matter I'll leave to philosophers. I'm sufficiently confident that he's right about the Go Fast video that I'd bet my left nut on it. The Go Fast video being wrapped up in this matter leads me to conclude that the Navy didn't try very hard to figure out that video, which leaves me with no reason to believe they tried harder with the others.
  - Smoosh 6y ago
    Or that the Navy is happy with these pedestrian explanations, but realize that the public will claim "weather balloons again, another government cover-up" if they provide such an explanation. So they release them as "unexplained" without further comment.

beaner 6y ago

The parallax explanation for the gofast video seems less believable when you view the video and consider the beginning of the footage, when the camera seems near-fixed and the object is flying quickly by it, and the operator has to actively track and lock-on to the moving object.

lytigas 6y ago
The field of view of the camera is only 1.5x1.5 degrees[1], roughly 3x the size of the moon viewed from the ground. [1] "NAR" in the upper left, and https://forums.vrsimulations.com/support/index.php/A/A_Forward_Looking_Infrared_(FLIR) https://forums.vrsimulations.com/support/index.php/A/A_Forwa...
autokad 6y ago
i dont understand how the background behind the 'balloon' could be moving so fast. I dont think it was a ufo, but I definitely do not think it was a balloon.
- Johnjonjoan 6y ago
  Imagine the balloon is 2km up and the plane is 8km up. The balloon is stationary and the plane moving fast. The plane centres a camera on the balloon and maintains the centre. As the plane flies over the balloon it is going to need to move the camera to keep it centred. When it does this the balloon remains centered (stationary) whilst the ground appears to move under it. However its just that the angle the camera is at had to change to keep the balloon centered giving the allusion that the ground is moving relative to the balloon.
  - beaner 6y ago
    But in the moments when the camera is at rest while the operator is trying to focus, the ocean is moving slowly in the opposite direction as the object, meaning that the jet is flying in the same direction as the object. If the object were static, then upon lock-on, the ocean in the background would slow down or reverse direction. What we see instead is that the ocean background speeds up, meaning the object is traveling faster than the jet in the direction the jet is going.

hindsightbias 6y ago

The go fast parallax explanation exposes just how impressive the Navy tech is, whereas we’re asked to believe Mark 1 eyeballs with very fuzzy videos or radar claims. Same group claims USAF officers showed up demanding the E-2 Hawkeye tapes before they could even be secured. Did they use teleports or HALO to board a carrier that quick? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and these aren’t it. Tell me where the AF or VQ (Navy) ELINT aircraft were or what direction the antennas on St. Nicholas island were pointed.

afpx 6y ago

So... we should be able to reproduce the phenomenon?