5 ms·

I really hope there's more than what we've seen so far. The videos I've seen have basically been debunked as visual artifacts, namely parallax which exaggerates

by notJim 5y ago

I really hope there's more than what we've seen so far. The videos I've seen have basically been debunked as visual artifacts, namely parallax which exaggerates the apparent speed, and artifacts from triangular apertures commonly used in night vision. You can look on YouTube for videos demonstrating these effects.

throwaway316943 5y ago
Well that’s two. Some people think the rotation in the gimbal video might be caused by image stabilization but that doesn’t explain the object itself or the commentary about there being a fleet of them. The cockpit photos are also unexplained. The video of the object that was supposedly one of dozens swarming a navy group is unexplained. The events surrounding the tic tac are also unexplained. Not saying it’s aliens but there’s a lot of weird shit happening around military assets that needs serious explaining.
- scottshamus 5y ago
  I think we’re going to discover that the people operating these sophisticated instruments aren’t properly trained on how to handle anomalies in their data. One of them was simply an out of focus nightvision system with a triangle focal ring. The tic tac video is most likely a large sea bird and the fighter pilots didn’t properly understand how parallax at high zooms looked. This YouTube video is pretty snarky but it’s a decent overview of it. https://youtu.be/VCH7BWGpl5s https://youtu.be/VCH7BWGpl5s
  - throwaway316943 5y ago
    I think you’re talking about the gofast video which is not the tictac or “flir” video from 2004. Gofast and gimbal were from 2014 and 2015.
- slipframe 5y ago
  Since all of this material was published together and is coming from the same sources, I think even just a few of the videos being debunked damns the rest of it. A chain is only as strong as the weakest link. I am confident they are lying about those two videos, and that gives me good reason to doubt everything else they've published even if I can't find the tell-tale flaws in the other material. The way I see it, the pilots are lying, probably as part of a special 'retirement plan' of getting book deals pandering to kooks. The US Navy on the other hand is being cagey, making statements that might technically be true but deeply misleading[0], and aren't directly contradicting the pilots. My guess is the USN decided these pilots' lies serve the Navy's interests as well. [0] Navy claims the GoFast video is: "Subject Area: UAV, Balloons and other UAS" ... well it's a balloon, so they're 'not lying'...
deadmutex 5y ago
Link for convenience: https://youtu.be/Le7Fqbsrrm8 https://youtu.be/Le7Fqbsrrm8 I believe the Channel owner is an accomplished physicist
- aliasEli 5y ago
  Phil Mason is actually a chemist.
  - deadmutex 5y ago
    I was referring to David Kipping: http://user.astro.columbia.edu/~dkipping/index.html http://user.astro.columbia.edu/~dkipping/index.html :)
gfodor 5y ago
The videos are only debunked if you assume the debunk is conclusive, and that any other corroborating evidence counter to benign explanations doesn't exist. This doesn't mean the videos are showing (still) UAPs, but that's not the same as saying they are debunked.
bostonsre 5y ago
Has it really been proven though that it was just a visual phenomenon or is he just asserting a plausible hypothesis?
King-Aaron 5y ago
I'm sure if these theories were actually the case, the government/military/weapons manufacturers would have come to the conclusion and not youtubers that make a small profit from intentionally debunking things.

by notJim 5y ago

throwaway316943 5y ago

Well that’s two. Some people think the rotation in the gimbal video might be caused by image stabilization but that doesn’t explain the object itself or the commentary about there being a fleet of them. The cockpit photos are also unexplained. The video of the object that was supposedly one of dozens swarming a navy group is unexplained. The events surrounding the tic tac are also unexplained. Not saying it’s aliens but there’s a lot of weird shit happening around military assets that needs serious explaining.

scottshamus 5y ago
I think we’re going to discover that the people operating these sophisticated instruments aren’t properly trained on how to handle anomalies in their data. One of them was simply an out of focus nightvision system with a triangle focal ring. The tic tac video is most likely a large sea bird and the fighter pilots didn’t properly understand how parallax at high zooms looked. This YouTube video is pretty snarky but it’s a decent overview of it. https://youtu.be/VCH7BWGpl5s https://youtu.be/VCH7BWGpl5s
- throwaway316943 5y ago
  I think you’re talking about the gofast video which is not the tictac or “flir” video from 2004. Gofast and gimbal were from 2014 and 2015.
slipframe 5y ago
Since all of this material was published together and is coming from the same sources, I think even just a few of the videos being debunked damns the rest of it. A chain is only as strong as the weakest link. I am confident they are lying about those two videos, and that gives me good reason to doubt everything else they've published even if I can't find the tell-tale flaws in the other material. The way I see it, the pilots are lying, probably as part of a special 'retirement plan' of getting book deals pandering to kooks. The US Navy on the other hand is being cagey, making statements that might technically be true but deeply misleading[0], and aren't directly contradicting the pilots. My guess is the USN decided these pilots' lies serve the Navy's interests as well. [0] Navy claims the GoFast video is: "Subject Area: UAV, Balloons and other UAS" ... well it's a balloon, so they're 'not lying'...

deadmutex 5y ago

Link for convenience: https://youtu.be/Le7Fqbsrrm8 https://youtu.be/Le7Fqbsrrm8 I believe the Channel owner is an accomplished physicist

aliasEli 5y ago
Phil Mason is actually a chemist.
- deadmutex 5y ago
  I was referring to David Kipping: http://user.astro.columbia.edu/~dkipping/index.html http://user.astro.columbia.edu/~dkipping/index.html :)

gfodor 5y ago

The videos are only debunked if you assume the debunk is conclusive, and that any other corroborating evidence counter to benign explanations doesn't exist. This doesn't mean the videos are showing (still) UAPs, but that's not the same as saying they are debunked.

bostonsre 5y ago

Has it really been proven though that it was just a visual phenomenon or is he just asserting a plausible hypothesis?

King-Aaron 5y ago

I'm sure if these theories were actually the case, the government/military/weapons manufacturers would have come to the conclusion and not youtubers that make a small profit from intentionally debunking things.