9 ms·

The media appears to miss that fact that something that happens in physical reality can become corrupted by the time it gets rendered to a computer screen. The

The media appears to miss that fact that something that happens in physical reality can become corrupted by the time it gets rendered to a computer screen. The complicated military systems are hallucinating now. Or am I missing something? Did multiple pilots see this thing with their own eyes from different angles without any technology in between?

godtoldmetodoit 5y ago
In the tic-tac incident, yes. In the 60 minutes interview two pilots in separate planes reported seeing something causing a disturbance in the ocean, and a "tic-tac" like object about the size of their jets that seemed to notice them and matched one of the planes in a turn.
- vorpalhex 5y ago
  Matching the plane makes it seem more like an optical effect than less of one.
  - ssully 5y ago
    I would agree with optical effect if we were only talking about the matching aspect, but doing so ignore the rest of the incident.
tra3 5y ago
Were the objects not visible with the naked eye?
- typeformer 5y ago
  Sometimes they were visible, sometimes not, since distance was at play. The ATFLIR camera pods can see a lot farther than the human eye but these were also witnessed with human eyes by multiple Navy pilots from different angles.
typeformer 5y ago
Yes
bostonsre 5y ago
There were naked eye visuals from multiple pilots, targeting pod identifications, and radar from ships were also picking up whatever it was. It is surprisingly convincing evidence of a peer state adversary with a huge tech advantage or... something else. I was moved from "no f'ing way do ufos exist", to "wtf.. it actually seems plausible" when reading up on it.
- soco 5y ago
  It would be a truly novel approach for any state to develop such a huge tech advantage and neither leaking it during development nor using it to gain something in some of the many existing conflicts (cold or hot).
  - bostonsre 5y ago
    Yea, I would think if it was a peer state, they wouldn't risk compromising their technology just to get a closer look at a fleet of US ships that have lesser tech. The only thing I can think of for another state risking compromise is to prep the battlefield. Not really sure how deep the water is in these locations, but some nukes hiding underwater where US fleets navigate consistently could be useful if a conflict erupts. But even in that case, I can't think of a reason why they would do it during the day and not night and risk visual identification from pilots.
kubeflowbro 5y ago
Both pilots called in the tic tac, their IR sensors picked it up, they were able to get a lock on with their onboard radar, and the ship picked it up on the their radar. They definitely ran into something
- egfx 5y ago
  Yeah any time someone brings up the FLir argument I have to remind myself that even something that can exhibit IR can also be something that is not really there as a physical mass. What interested me is that David Fravor was specifically asked by Lex Fridman in his podcast if he thought these “objects” were projections and his answer was that he wasn’t a physicist and didn’t really know for sure but didn’t think so. As such the idea of a projection cannot yet be ruled out. I actually can’t believe that projections aren’t more closely scrutinized to explain this whole “phenomenon”. [1]https://youtu.be/sZoH5jr4P9I https://youtu.be/sZoH5jr4P9I [2]https://sites.fas.harvard.edu/~scidemos/LightOptics/InfraRedProjector/InfraRedProjector.html_bak https://sites.fas.harvard.edu/~scidemos/LightOptics/InfraRed...
  - kubeflowbro 5y ago
    That wouldn't explain why they could track it on radar
    - egfx 5y ago
      They could track most anything on radar including projections. [1]https://www.google.com/books/edition/Advances_in_Radar_Techniques/vS0fAQAAIAAJ?hl=en https://www.google.com/books/edition/Advances_in_Radar_Techn...
avl999 5y ago
The tic-tac ufo and the USS Nimitz incidents are eye witness accounts of pilots observing these crafts while them also being registered on the radar. It would be one hell of a coincidence for machinery and multiple humans to malfunction in the same way at the same time. Most of these navy reports involve eye witness accounts of trained and credible pilots.
grimgrin 5y ago
Here's a _long_ conversation with one of the pilots with eye visibility that day, David Fravor, though I'm linking you to the start of that specific topic: https://youtu.be/aB8zcAttP1E?t=4265 https://youtu.be/aB8zcAttP1E?t=4265
- mindcrime 5y ago
  I'm more or less a skeptic when it comes to most of what gets said / reported about UFO's / UAP's, but I will say this: David Fravor comes across as intelligent, sane, reasonable, and credible, and makes a moderately compelling argument that something exceptional happened out there. Now even he stops short, as I recall, of saying "it was little green men", but his testimony at least supports the idea that there's something there that's worthy of further analysis. IOW, he isn't one of stereotypical, "frothing at the mouth", "true believer", "THEY ARE HERE" ufo cult types that might be fairly easy to dismiss for simple lack of credibility. He could still have been mistaken, or misjudged something, but he at least establishes a certain minimum level of credibility, to my way of thinking.

godtoldmetodoit 5y ago

In the tic-tac incident, yes. In the 60 minutes interview two pilots in separate planes reported seeing something causing a disturbance in the ocean, and a "tic-tac" like object about the size of their jets that seemed to notice them and matched one of the planes in a turn.

vorpalhex 5y ago
Matching the plane makes it seem more like an optical effect than less of one.
- ssully 5y ago
  I would agree with optical effect if we were only talking about the matching aspect, but doing so ignore the rest of the incident.

tra3 5y ago

Were the objects not visible with the naked eye?

typeformer 5y ago
Sometimes they were visible, sometimes not, since distance was at play. The ATFLIR camera pods can see a lot farther than the human eye but these were also witnessed with human eyes by multiple Navy pilots from different angles.

typeformer 5y ago

Yes

bostonsre 5y ago

There were naked eye visuals from multiple pilots, targeting pod identifications, and radar from ships were also picking up whatever it was. It is surprisingly convincing evidence of a peer state adversary with a huge tech advantage or... something else. I was moved from "no f'ing way do ufos exist", to "wtf.. it actually seems plausible" when reading up on it.

soco 5y ago
It would be a truly novel approach for any state to develop such a huge tech advantage and neither leaking it during development nor using it to gain something in some of the many existing conflicts (cold or hot).
- bostonsre 5y ago
  Yea, I would think if it was a peer state, they wouldn't risk compromising their technology just to get a closer look at a fleet of US ships that have lesser tech. The only thing I can think of for another state risking compromise is to prep the battlefield. Not really sure how deep the water is in these locations, but some nukes hiding underwater where US fleets navigate consistently could be useful if a conflict erupts. But even in that case, I can't think of a reason why they would do it during the day and not night and risk visual identification from pilots.

kubeflowbro 5y ago

Both pilots called in the tic tac, their IR sensors picked it up, they were able to get a lock on with their onboard radar, and the ship picked it up on the their radar. They definitely ran into something

egfx 5y ago
Yeah any time someone brings up the FLir argument I have to remind myself that even something that can exhibit IR can also be something that is not really there as a physical mass. What interested me is that David Fravor was specifically asked by Lex Fridman in his podcast if he thought these “objects” were projections and his answer was that he wasn’t a physicist and didn’t really know for sure but didn’t think so. As such the idea of a projection cannot yet be ruled out. I actually can’t believe that projections aren’t more closely scrutinized to explain this whole “phenomenon”. [1]https://youtu.be/sZoH5jr4P9I https://youtu.be/sZoH5jr4P9I [2]https://sites.fas.harvard.edu/~scidemos/LightOptics/InfraRedProjector/InfraRedProjector.html_bak https://sites.fas.harvard.edu/~scidemos/LightOptics/InfraRed...
- kubeflowbro 5y ago
  That wouldn't explain why they could track it on radar
  - egfx 5y ago
    They could track most anything on radar including projections. [1]https://www.google.com/books/edition/Advances_in_Radar_Techniques/vS0fAQAAIAAJ?hl=en https://www.google.com/books/edition/Advances_in_Radar_Techn...

avl999 5y ago

The tic-tac ufo and the USS Nimitz incidents are eye witness accounts of pilots observing these crafts while them also being registered on the radar. It would be one hell of a coincidence for machinery and multiple humans to malfunction in the same way at the same time. Most of these navy reports involve eye witness accounts of trained and credible pilots.

grimgrin 5y ago

Here's a _long_ conversation with one of the pilots with eye visibility that day, David Fravor, though I'm linking you to the start of that specific topic: https://youtu.be/aB8zcAttP1E?t=4265 https://youtu.be/aB8zcAttP1E?t=4265

mindcrime 5y ago
I'm more or less a skeptic when it comes to most of what gets said / reported about UFO's / UAP's, but I will say this: David Fravor comes across as intelligent, sane, reasonable, and credible, and makes a moderately compelling argument that something exceptional happened out there. Now even he stops short, as I recall, of saying "it was little green men", but his testimony at least supports the idea that there's something there that's worthy of further analysis. IOW, he isn't one of stereotypical, "frothing at the mouth", "true believer", "THEY ARE HERE" ufo cult types that might be fairly easy to dismiss for simple lack of credibility. He could still have been mistaken, or misjudged something, but he at least establishes a certain minimum level of credibility, to my way of thinking.