5 ms·

The only thing they left out was swamp gas as a possible explanation (RIP Hynek). Seems like another whitewash, "it can't possibly be happening" report. If yo

The only thing they left out was swamp gas as a possible explanation (RIP Hynek). Seems like another whitewash, "it can't possibly be happening" report. If you spend some serious effort on this and stay away from the crazies you'll come to the opposite conclusion of this report. A good starting point is Vallee's books.

colechristensen 5y ago
I don't know about Vallee, but after being briefly in the defense industry, reading much, and having some experience with aerospace everything seems to fit very well into one of three categories 1) known US aircraft activity either simply misinterpreted or kept secret from the public or even most of the military apparatus, sometimes strongly denied either as a way to disseminate vague information to adversaries or misinformation 2) foreign or personal aircraft either known or unknown to the US. 3) rare weather phenomena, hallucinations, optical phenomena, or other miscellaneous things which might be rare but with mundane explanations The thing to notice is cameras have become much more prevalent and much higher resolution, but "UFOs" in pictures haven't. The only things that aren't obviously something understandable are still fuzzy dots on screens despite screens and cameras getting enormously better. Just look at this https://media.gvwire.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/28154540/F117-Nighthawk-750x400.jpg https://media.gvwire.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/28154540... and tell me that if you saw that you wouldn't think it was a spaceship. It was kept super secret for a quite a long time and surely was the source of plenty of UFO reports. I'm not convinced or even particularly suspicious that anything that "isn't what it seems" is anything more than mundane.
- 238475235243 5y ago
  Where to begin? 1) This isn't a recent phenomena. People have been seeing discs in the sky for literally thousands of years. 2) Aircraft can't make 90 degree turns or descend from 80,000 feet to the deck approximately instantly. 3) Groups of extremely highly trained military pilots have seen them, and the video and IR data has been released from these encounters. You can't make 4 people in 2 aircraft hallucinate at the same time, and fool all the instrumentation on them (radar, IR...) and also fool the battlespace radars on the cruisers directing them. And if you could, that too would be kind of interesting to look at whatever that is. You're repeating old points you don't understand because as you acknowledge, you don't know the subject. Please start with Vallee.
  - krferriter 5y ago
    > 1) This isn't a recent phenomena. People have been seeing discs in the sky for literally thousands of years. People have reported talking to ghosts and angels for thousands of years too. People's senses and memory is fallible and can lead to misinterpretations and misunderstanding. > 2) Aircraft can't make 90 degree turns or descend from 80,000 feet to the deck approximately instantly. You are assuming that their reports that the objects actually made these movements are indeed correct perceptions of the movements seen. > 3) Groups of extremely highly trained military pilots have seen them, and the video and IR data has been released from these encounters. You can't make 4 people in 2 aircraft hallucinate at the same time, and fool all the instrumentation on them (radar, IR...) and also fool the battlespace radars on the cruisers directing them. And if you could, that too would be kind of interesting to look at whatever that is. A lot of conflation going on here. The Nimitz incident did involve 4(?) people, but not at the same time. The radar technician (radar data has not been released) did report seeing multiple objects on the radar, but not much else about them such as the rapid, physics-defying movements reported by the Fravor the pilot who reportedly saw an object with his own eyes. The IR video captured by another pilot also does have reasonable explanations (even including the on-screen display sensor readings) that counteract the claims that the object was moving as fast as they thought it was at the time, or as the video might make it seem.
    - 238475235243 5y ago
      > but not at the same time. The initial two F-18's had two people each.
      - krferriter 5y ago
        And they all saw the same object from the same perspective which could have resulted in similar visual effects leading them to misjudge how far away the object was. They reported that it was very far away but the sensor readings in the thermal video and other alternate theories about what the object was suggest that it wasn't as far away as they thought. Which if true would explain why they thought it was moving faster than they thought. I was referring to the disjoin between the radar technician, the fighter team with Fravor, and the later fighter plane that actually captured the infrared video.
- no-dr-onboard 5y ago
  For those that can't be bothered, the photo linked above is a Lockheed Martin F-117, an early-era stealth fighter jet.
- marc_io 5y ago
  “The thing to notice is cameras have become much more prevalent and much higher resolution, but "UFOs" in pictures haven't.” Just two examples of high resolution UAP videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBQ1Ftj4hPE&ab_channel=OrdoNews https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBQ1Ftj4hPE&ab_channel=OrdoN... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVmGhxYrkug&t=0s&ab_channel=brianhanley https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVmGhxYrkug&t=0s&ab_channel=... The problem is not resolution per se, but the fact that is quite easy nowadays to manipulate images and videos (I'm not saying these videos are fake, BTW).
  - user-the-name 5y ago
    They're not fake, they're just two videos of an insect flying past a drone.
    - skinkestek 5y ago
      The second, not unlikely at all. The first doesn't look like an insect to me even after being primed by your comment prior to watching it.
      - marc_io 5y ago
        There's a pretty meticulous review of the second video out there — the raw vídeo was available online for some time — that proves it's neither bug nor CGI. I haven't found any analysis of the first one though, it could be CGI but it doesn't seem to be an actual bug.
        user-the-name 5y ago
        It's a bug, dude, come on. It's pretty obvious.
        marc_io 5y ago
        It could be CGI, but an actual bug? Not at all if you analyse the vídeo closely. The “bug” appears several miles away, following the mountains, and crosses the camera in just a second. That's not a real real bug. But lets try again: watch all of the following: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL4tDSbqa8tyOLSOhF82YkiP7u0n_tL99w https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL4tDSbqa8tyOLSOhF82YkiP7u...
- King-Aaron 5y ago
  > The thing to notice is cameras have become much more prevalent and much higher resolution, but "UFOs" in pictures haven't. Get out your phone, and take a picture of your hand. Its very close, and you'll get a great photo. Now, go outside at night, look at the beacon on top of a crane in the distance, or a plane landing a few kilometres away. Try to take a photo of it with your phone camera. We have great cameras, sure, but not everyone is carrying a 300mm lens in their pocket
jimhefferon 5y ago
Not a person who has looked much into this stuff, but the videos you see online lately sure seemed impressive. FWIW, I felt educated by videos by Mick West, who is a debunker. Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwa-yYCEGEc&t=1316s is one that a technical person such as an HN reader might like.
- King-Aaron 5y ago
  I find it hard to listen to Mick West, because he's built a brand around debunking things - I like to remain sceptical around most things however when you have a vested interest in being 'anti' towards a topic it's as biased as being a 'believer' in something.

colechristensen 5y ago

I don't know about Vallee, but after being briefly in the defense industry, reading much, and having some experience with aerospace everything seems to fit very well into one of three categories 1) known US aircraft activity either simply misinterpreted or kept secret from the public or even most of the military apparatus, sometimes strongly denied either as a way to disseminate vague information to adversaries or misinformation 2) foreign or personal aircraft either known or unknown to the US. 3) rare weather phenomena, hallucinations, optical phenomena, or other miscellaneous things which might be rare but with mundane explanations The thing to notice is cameras have become much more prevalent and much higher resolution, but "UFOs" in pictures haven't. The only things that aren't obviously something understandable are still fuzzy dots on screens despite screens and cameras getting enormously better. Just look at this https://media.gvwire.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/28154540/F117-Nighthawk-750x400.jpg https://media.gvwire.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/28154540... and tell me that if you saw that you wouldn't think it was a spaceship. It was kept super secret for a quite a long time and surely was the source of plenty of UFO reports. I'm not convinced or even particularly suspicious that anything that "isn't what it seems" is anything more than mundane.

238475235243 5y ago
Where to begin? 1) This isn't a recent phenomena. People have been seeing discs in the sky for literally thousands of years. 2) Aircraft can't make 90 degree turns or descend from 80,000 feet to the deck approximately instantly. 3) Groups of extremely highly trained military pilots have seen them, and the video and IR data has been released from these encounters. You can't make 4 people in 2 aircraft hallucinate at the same time, and fool all the instrumentation on them (radar, IR...) and also fool the battlespace radars on the cruisers directing them. And if you could, that too would be kind of interesting to look at whatever that is. You're repeating old points you don't understand because as you acknowledge, you don't know the subject. Please start with Vallee.
- krferriter 5y ago
  > 1) This isn't a recent phenomena. People have been seeing discs in the sky for literally thousands of years. People have reported talking to ghosts and angels for thousands of years too. People's senses and memory is fallible and can lead to misinterpretations and misunderstanding. > 2) Aircraft can't make 90 degree turns or descend from 80,000 feet to the deck approximately instantly. You are assuming that their reports that the objects actually made these movements are indeed correct perceptions of the movements seen. > 3) Groups of extremely highly trained military pilots have seen them, and the video and IR data has been released from these encounters. You can't make 4 people in 2 aircraft hallucinate at the same time, and fool all the instrumentation on them (radar, IR...) and also fool the battlespace radars on the cruisers directing them. And if you could, that too would be kind of interesting to look at whatever that is. A lot of conflation going on here. The Nimitz incident did involve 4(?) people, but not at the same time. The radar technician (radar data has not been released) did report seeing multiple objects on the radar, but not much else about them such as the rapid, physics-defying movements reported by the Fravor the pilot who reportedly saw an object with his own eyes. The IR video captured by another pilot also does have reasonable explanations (even including the on-screen display sensor readings) that counteract the claims that the object was moving as fast as they thought it was at the time, or as the video might make it seem.
  - 238475235243 5y ago
    > but not at the same time. The initial two F-18's had two people each.
    - krferriter 5y ago
      And they all saw the same object from the same perspective which could have resulted in similar visual effects leading them to misjudge how far away the object was. They reported that it was very far away but the sensor readings in the thermal video and other alternate theories about what the object was suggest that it wasn't as far away as they thought. Which if true would explain why they thought it was moving faster than they thought. I was referring to the disjoin between the radar technician, the fighter team with Fravor, and the later fighter plane that actually captured the infrared video.
no-dr-onboard 5y ago
For those that can't be bothered, the photo linked above is a Lockheed Martin F-117, an early-era stealth fighter jet.
marc_io 5y ago
“The thing to notice is cameras have become much more prevalent and much higher resolution, but "UFOs" in pictures haven't.” Just two examples of high resolution UAP videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBQ1Ftj4hPE&ab_channel=OrdoNews https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBQ1Ftj4hPE&ab_channel=OrdoN... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVmGhxYrkug&t=0s&ab_channel=brianhanley https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVmGhxYrkug&t=0s&ab_channel=... The problem is not resolution per se, but the fact that is quite easy nowadays to manipulate images and videos (I'm not saying these videos are fake, BTW).
- user-the-name 5y ago
  They're not fake, they're just two videos of an insect flying past a drone.
  - skinkestek 5y ago
    The second, not unlikely at all. The first doesn't look like an insect to me even after being primed by your comment prior to watching it.
    - marc_io 5y ago
      There's a pretty meticulous review of the second video out there — the raw vídeo was available online for some time — that proves it's neither bug nor CGI. I haven't found any analysis of the first one though, it could be CGI but it doesn't seem to be an actual bug.
      - user-the-name 5y ago
        It's a bug, dude, come on. It's pretty obvious.
        marc_io 5y ago
        It could be CGI, but an actual bug? Not at all if you analyse the vídeo closely. The “bug” appears several miles away, following the mountains, and crosses the camera in just a second. That's not a real real bug. But lets try again: watch all of the following: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL4tDSbqa8tyOLSOhF82YkiP7u0n_tL99w https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL4tDSbqa8tyOLSOhF82YkiP7u...
King-Aaron 5y ago
> The thing to notice is cameras have become much more prevalent and much higher resolution, but "UFOs" in pictures haven't. Get out your phone, and take a picture of your hand. Its very close, and you'll get a great photo. Now, go outside at night, look at the beacon on top of a crane in the distance, or a plane landing a few kilometres away. Try to take a photo of it with your phone camera. We have great cameras, sure, but not everyone is carrying a 300mm lens in their pocket

jimhefferon 5y ago

Not a person who has looked much into this stuff, but the videos you see online lately sure seemed impressive. FWIW, I felt educated by videos by Mick West, who is a debunker. Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwa-yYCEGEc&t=1316s is one that a technical person such as an HN reader might like.

King-Aaron 5y ago
I find it hard to listen to Mick West, because he's built a brand around debunking things - I like to remain sceptical around most things however when you have a vested interest in being 'anti' towards a topic it's as biased as being a 'believer' in something.