5 ms·

UFOs: 'These objects show physics we don't understand'

47 points by aliasEli 5y ago

aliasEli 5y ago
It is disappointing to see the coverage of this subject by the BBC.
- systematical 5y ago
  Why?
  - gruez 5y ago
    From the headline alone: the "physics we don't understand" part only really makes sense if you assume the things you see on camera correspond to physical objects moving in space, and not some optical effect. If you thought a lens flare was a physical object you'd think it was "physics we don't understand", but the effect itself is perfectly explainable using physics we understand.
    - ALittleLight 5y ago
      The DNI's UFO report clarifies that these objects were observed with multiple sensors and spotted by eyewitness. If you see something with radar, on the camera, you pick it up with the electro-optical system, and you and a few other folks see it with your eyes, then it is probably not a lens-flare. The DNI concluded that the UFO's are likely physical things. https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Prelimary-Assessment-UAP-20210625.pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Prelima...
      - sandworm101 5y ago
        I don't see it saying that. Some objects were seen on camera. Others were on radar. I see no report of an object being on both radar and visual (or other spectra) simultaneously. And they certainly have not released any actual raw data in that regard. Not any raw data full stop (ie no camera original images). A multi-sensor confirmation would show identical simultaneous movements across different sensors and platforms. Everything short of that is probably explainable due to the specific limitations of individual sensors.
        ALittleLight 5y ago
        The second bullet point of the executive summary on page 3 of the PDF. "Most of the UAP reported probably do represent physical objects given that a majority of UAP were registered across multiple sensors, to include radar, infrared, electro-optical, weapon seekers, and visual observation" Page 4 of the PDF, first bullet point: "144 reports originated from USG sources. Of these, 80 reports involved observation with multiple sensors."
        sandworm101 5y ago
        Ya. Not simultaneously detected. These are days where one sensor sees something, then another sensor sees another thing, then a pilot goes up looking and sees something else. That is not confirmation. Multiple sensors seeing things in sequence, not all seeing the same thing at the same time. Once the word gets out, everyone starts finding things on their screens to report.
        ALittleLight 5y ago
        Appendix A defines a "UAP event" as "A holistic description of an occurrence during which a pilot or aircrew witnessed (or detected) a UAP." And "UAP Report" is the documentation for a UAP event. The DNI document says that 80 UAP reports have confirmation from multiple sensors. The UAP event spans the time where a pilot or aircrew witnessed the UAP. During this time the UAP was confirmed by multiple sensors. There is no language in the report to make it seem like the "confirmation" happened at different times or on different days. If that is what is meant, then the report is very misleading, but I don't think that is what is meant. What language from the report leads you to this interpretation?
        sandworm101 5y ago
        Then where is that data? All I have ever seen of "confirmed" sightings is stories and descriptions. Let's see the radar tracks. Let's see the exact camera locations and specifications along with raw images. Let's see the overhead satellite images. Let's see the ship camera footage. Funny how we never get more than an occasional tidbit of the actual data.
      - willis936 5y ago
        A group looking to keep their paychecks throws out a flimsy, unsubstantiated one-liner. When it comes to light that the statement was made by misrepresenting the data (which is still secret), what then? Nothing. They got their paychecks and made an honest mistake. Everyone moves on. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So far the only thing that about this report has been how much hot air they can blow out of a human ass.
    - rustymonday 5y ago
      The Pentagon released a preliminary report [1] two weeks ago stating that UAPs (their term for UFOs) are physical objects and demonstrate advanced capabilities that the US Navy cannot explain. [1] https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/reports-publications/reports-publications-2021/item/2223-preliminary-assessment-unidentified-aerial-phenomena https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/reports-publications/...
      - DudeInBasement 5y ago
        Cannot explain, means even if you know how, you cannot explain it.
    - oblib 5y ago
      The headline is a quote from the "former fighter pilot Alex Dietrich". The BBC wrapped it quotation marks.
  - aliasEli 5y ago
    Because it is extremely uncritical of the subject. Any reputable scientist would simply tell that there is simply not enough reliable data to draw conclusions about these phenomena.
- 1over137 5y ago
  The BBC is not what it once was. :(
clouddrover 5y ago
Laser induced plasma effects sound like the most plausible explanation: https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambling/2020/05/11/us-navy-laser-creates-plasma-ufos/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambling/2020/05/11/us-nav... https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2019/07/19/pentagon-scientists-are-making-talking-plasma-laser-balls-for-use-as-non-lethal-weapons/ https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2019/07/19/...
- oblib 5y ago
  Well that's sure interesting! I'd not heard of these before but that sure does sound like it could be what those military videos are showing and I have to agree that it's likely "the most plausible explanation" I've heard yet.
- weare138 5y ago
  That would not explain the accounts from the Navy pilots that made visual contact with some of these objects such as USS Nimitz and the 'Tic Tac' UAP. Also from the Forbes article you posted: >It is unlikely the Pentagon would release videos of their own secret weapon in a bizarre double bluff. But other nations may have their own version. In the early 1990s the Russians claimed that they could produce glowing ‘plasmoids’ at high altitude using high-power microwave or laser beams; these were intended to disrupt the flight of ballistic missiles, an answer to the planned American ‘Star Wars’. Nothing came of the project, but the technology may have been refined for other applications in the subsequent decades. And I would agree that the Navy wouldn't risk causing an indecent by surreptitiously testing secret technology on it's own ships, especially near areas with civilian air traffic. Could it be a foreign nation deploying a similar technology? Also highly doubtful. This would require a foreign military to either regularly sail ships or fly into US waters or very close to it, emit these plasma lasers for extended periods of time and sail/fly out undetected. The laser induced plasma effects theory would have to account for this somehow to be viable.
  - clouddrover 5y ago
    > That would not explain the accounts from the Navy pilots that made visual contact Why? Laser induced plasma can create three dimensional images which also appear on infrared camera, can create sound waves, and can reflect radar: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QXw3ylCYT0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QXw3ylCYT0
k33n 5y ago
The authorities would never lie to us about UFOs
belter 5y ago
Posted this before here and still think its the most reasonable analysis: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27723938 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27723938 "The Truth Behind the Super Hornet UFO Encounters" https://youtu.be/6z1lQ9Gp8Vk https://youtu.be/6z1lQ9Gp8Vk
- akmarinov 5y ago
  I mean we just recently had Trump tweet out a satellite photo that amazed civilian experts that such fidelity is even possible, let alone already deployed so I think you’re spot on.
  - s5300 5y ago
    While irrelevant to the topic at hand - with the recent info of Trump's daughter literally sitting in the Kremlin's chair, Trump tweeting that picture was likely his hilarious way of getting one of the US's best spies murdered... Also, keyhole fidelity has been known of for a very long time now. Any civilian expert amazed by that picture not only isn't an expert, but also has you hilariously duped.
  - hindsightbias 5y ago
    They aren’t very good experts if they dont’t read Janes https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:KH-11-best-SHIPYARD.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:KH-11-best-SHIPYARD.... I saw that published 35 years ago.
- afro88 5y ago
  mimixco's comment in your post is spot on too: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27724776 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27724776
  - rustymonday 5y ago
    I really do not understand the stigma behind UFOs. There is evidence of sightings for millennia all over the world, even before the invention of aircraft. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_reported_UFO_sightings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_reported_UFO_sightings [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1561_celestial_phenomenon_over_Nuremberg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1561_celestial_phenomenon_over...
theknocker 5y ago
"Nuh huh." -- a bunch of fucking idiots, i.e. ~65% of the public
paxys 5y ago
Are they even confirmed to be "objects"?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- NullPrefix 5y ago
  If not, can we call them "subjects"?
  - dvfjsdhgfv 5y ago
    I think it's a semantic misunderstanding. In the original question "object" was meant as a "physical object", as opposed to a kind of phenomenon like reflection and so on. You have used a more philosophical definition of subject-object dichotomy. On an unrelated note, I've seen a couple of books whose authors claim UFOs are actually subject-related phenomena.
- aliasEli 5y ago
  This is probably the reason why the official term now is "phenomenon", which is way better than object.
samstave 5y ago
I'm convinced it is Black-Budget/OPs + Breakaway Civilization. Thats my favorite theory on these...
- wayoutthere 5y ago
  The mission of SpaceX is basically to create a breakaway civilization. Since there’s not enough reaction mass on earth to bring even a fraction of the human population into orbit, it was never about democratizing space. It’s about giving billionaires a safe place to ride out the fall of civilization far from the hands of any potential adversary.
  - SECProto 5y ago
    > Since there’s not enough reaction mass on earth to bring even a fraction of the human population into orbit Napkin math to disprove this claim: 7,000,000,000 people * 100kg = 700,000,000 tonnes = 7 million launches of starship * 5000t propellant per launch = 35 billion tonnes of propellant (approx 1/4 natural gas, 3/4 oxygen) Annual natural gas consumption in the US is 34 trillion cubic feet, which is about 800,000,000t. So about ten years would be 8 billion tonnes of natural gas (32 billion tonnes of propellant once you add oxygen) So excluding things like keeping your payload alive and breathing, the US generates enough natural gas to launch one tenth of the world population into orbit every year.
    - samstave 5y ago
      This is retarded. You are comparing a Breakaway Civ to launching the CURRENT equivalant of humans into space?? WTF. So - please rebuild your maths: global population from1930... - then adjust for Germany from ~1930 until ~1950. normalize by USA 1950 pop... then calc missing persons reports since... The INPUTs are MANY and your model is flawed. Youre misinformed...
- BuyMyBitcoins 5y ago
  The Cylons are back to check up on us.
delsarto 5y ago
I've been rewatching the X-Files with my kid on Disney+ and, wow, the restoration is amazing. It looks wonderful in 4K. It has brought new life for me as I originally watched it on an analogue broadcast or VHS recording of! Weirdly there's some stock footage scenes that aren't HD. This led me to finding https://www.reddit.com/r/XFiles/comments/3w3lxl/the_blurays_use_of_stock_footage/ https://www.reddit.com/r/XFiles/comments/3w3lxl/the_blurays_... which is a great thread with lots of info on how the restoration was done. I seem to remember the later parts of the series going a little off the rails. But so far it's great family watching for the right age. I think you'll find better UFOs and conspiracy theories rewatching this than grainy fighter jet videos.
- millisecond 5y ago
  How old is your kid? Feeling like it’s early for my 8 yo, but curious when it might work.
  - delsarto 5y ago
    8 I would say is a bit early, there is some pretty gory scenes, and adult themes like "working girls" you might not want to be explaining in detail. I would say 10-12, mine is in the middle. Although I had to laugh at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firewalker_(The_X-Files) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firewalker_(The_X-Files) which is about a contagious alien(?) virus which I remember being super scary. The whole idea of viruses, pandemics and quarantine didn't really phase the kids at all. How times have changed.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- markus_zhang 5y ago
  Wow, I was crazily into X-Files back in early 2000s (was in another country so didn't hear about it until then) and watched pretty much every episode many times. I think Episode 4~6 are the pinnacle of the series, but the rest are not bad. How old is your kid?
narrator 5y ago
Imagine some gorillas deep somewhere in the jungle pointing at the Jeep the naturalists have driven up in. ape #1: You see that thing, holy crap what is it? ape #2: Oh yeah, that's just a bunch of rocks. ape #1: But, it moved!!! ape #2: Must be some animal from another part of the forest. ape #1: I've seen it move faster than any other animal in the forest! ape #2: You've been eating rotten bananas!! ape #1: But the big chief apes said they saw them too! ape #2: <This thread, but with gorillas> Anyway, that's my pet theory. We are way out in the middle of nowhere Milky Way Galaxy and the ETs have sent a few guys out to check on us, learn about us, etc. They don't get out of the Jeep because they know they'll get their arms ripped off if they startle any of us, the gorillas, so they just watch us from a distance and speed off if there's any danger. So even if these are E.Ts. They don't want to talk with us, or invite us to join the federation. They don't even want to destroy us. They might as well be on the other side of the Galaxy, except we occasionally get to see them zip around.
- titzer 5y ago
  If aliens are smart enough to conquer interstellar travel, why do they put lights on their otherwise-invisible spaceships?
  - hindsightbias 5y ago
    Just because they’re aliens doesn’t mean they haven’t read FAA regs.
  - narrator 5y ago
    Same reason we do stuff to prevent bird strikes of airplanes. It's just practical, and considerate of nature. They aren't vulnerable to our weapons, the same way gorillas throwing rocks can't hurt the jeep. All sci-fi, except for maybe Lovecraft's Cthulu mythos, assumes that we have something that makes us important enough for the Universe to care about Humans as anything more than a biological curiosity. I think the "we're just wildlife to them" idea would be a very tough metaphysical pill for most people to swallow.
    - 5y ago
armatav 5y ago
Sounds like Star Wars to me.
davidhyde 5y ago
When I see these videos I think of a cat chasing a laser beam dot on a carpet. The dot looks like a real object, it shows up on video and probably even has a heat signature. It also moves erratically and disappears whenever. Is it so inconceivable to us that humans can create a localised atmospheric effect in three dimensional space with some form of phased array that reflects radar and emits heat and light so as to be visible? Just like a laser pointer can disappear behind a couch or be stitched off, so can this thing.
- jxf 5y ago
  Such an object would not have meaningful mass and would not leave vortices or a wake, which some of the UFOs do.
  - clouddrover 5y ago
    Laser induced plasma can produce sound waves: https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2019/07/19/pentagon-scientists-are-making-talking-plasma-laser-balls-for-use-as-non-lethal-weapons/ https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2019/07/19/...
    - kcplate 5y ago
      And visible light, infrared light, and sensor artifacts apparently too. Occam’s razor… https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambling/2020/05/11/us-navy-laser-creates-plasma-ufos/?sh=44e6c36b1074 https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambling/2020/05/11/us-nav...
  - aliasEli 5y ago
    It looks that you are assuming that all these reports have a common cause. It is the same kind of fallacy that causes people to believe that because something was observed somewhere and something similar was observed very soon after that but 60 miles away, that it must have been an object that moved at a very high speed.
- aliasEli 5y ago
danbmil99 5y ago
Has anyone seen data as to the projected size of these objects? If we know their distance and they have a shape other than a point, we should at least be able to get a ballpark figure
- sandworm101 5y ago
  That's the core problem. Cameras don't do distance well. Radar doesn't do size/shape well. And human eyeballs are generally bad at both. Only when multiple different sensors all see the same thing at the same time/space can we start extrapolating size and shape.
  - danbmil99 5y ago
    Yes but they call it a Tic Tac which implies an oblong shape. So it's picking up more than a pixel on some sensor, shouldn't that be enough to give us a ballpark? I'm wondering if they're the size of a rowboat or a 747
    - aliasEli 5y ago
      In the video it says that they could not get a range estimate for the object. That implies that it was impossible to estimate its size.
oceanghost 5y ago
I've said it once, I'll say it again-- these videos are all explained and all have been debunked. This is most likely a advertisement for the US Military's ability to track very small things such as drones. If there are videos of things that might be alien-- these are not them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfhAC2YiYHs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfhAC2YiYHs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3viYcYPRdu4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3viYcYPRdu4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWWGmiZs4JA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWWGmiZs4JA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCH7BWGpl5s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCH7BWGpl5s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Th4VlqQyVr4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Th4VlqQyVr4 Bob Lazar debunk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghkFTRY4ZB0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghkFTRY4ZB0
theteapot 5y ago
I'm so sick of seeing these same three stupid videos from the charlatan Lui Elizondo crop up over and over - flir, gimbal, go fast. Hasn't this cow been milked already? Seems to just keep on giving. They've all been shown to be very consistent with mundane known phenomena (See Mick West's channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCF3UCTZiVg9wrIEzO7Om6jw https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCF3UCTZiVg9wrIEzO7Om6jw). When that's pointed out the go to answer for the believer is "well there is things you are not privy to ...". Imagine if Einstein using that as his defense to relativity. Or any scientist ever. That's not how science works. You don't get to say "yeah well, there is things you don't know" when your thesis falls apart based on the evidence you provide to support it!
- CodeGlitch 5y ago
  I think the BBC article mentioned they are picked up on radar as well as cameras. All I've seen are the camera feeds, as either they won't show the radar (you have to be trained to even understand what you are seeing on radar) or all we have are the images. If it's just the cameras these were detected on then I'm with you
99_00 5y ago
Despite tens of billions of cameras on Earth we still don't have a clear picture of an extraterrestrial craft.
jonnycomputer 5y ago
I don't want to neg, but if you want a clickable UFO story, then you just interview engineers until you come to the one that will say, "These objects show physics we don't understand", right? A data-driven journalism would survey engineers and other experts.
frazbin 5y ago
"These objects show physics we don't understand" said the cat to the laser pointer. Seriously though I think we'll find that the super acrobatic lights (the only exciting part of this) are being produced by powerful transmitters owned by the military, and they're showing up during training because that's exactly when the transmitters are pointed near our planes, because the transmitters are built to detect planes and that's how you test them. Most likely the military is aware of this, but the real good plane detection stuff is super secret, and it's a lot easier to keep a new sensor/transmitter secret than a new plane. Sucks they're not allowed to tell their pilots but it makes sense. I dunno what do you think? Seems like the most parsimonious explanation to me.
- fsn4dN69ey 5y ago
  How would they leave behind a wake, reflect radar, or be confirmed as visual objects by multiple trained individuals, at the same instance, multiple times, with all of those individuals containing otherwise "spotless" (no history of mass UFO boy cried wolf scenarios) records of military service?
booleandilemma 5y ago
I don’t think the people who talk about aliens visiting us realize how vast the universe is and how isolated we are from everything. And if it is next-gen human tech, you don’t reveal it by harassing random aircraft carriers. You use it at the start of the next large-scale war and take your enemies by surprise.
- xtracto 5y ago
  And not only vast in space, but also in time. The probability of us "interacting" with an alien civilisation that is say 10,000 more advanced than us is minuscule. More likely if we get contact with aliens they will be "angels" or other supernatural entities for us... or protozoa equivalent to life on earth 50,000 years ago or more.
sys_64738 5y ago
Weather balloons? Sun glare? Occam's Razor.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
emerged 5y ago
If there’s one thing we’ve learned over the years — it’s always aliens.

47 points by aliasEli 5y ago

aliasEli 5y ago

It is disappointing to see the coverage of this subject by the BBC.

systematical 5y ago
Why?
- gruez 5y ago
  From the headline alone: the "physics we don't understand" part only really makes sense if you assume the things you see on camera correspond to physical objects moving in space, and not some optical effect. If you thought a lens flare was a physical object you'd think it was "physics we don't understand", but the effect itself is perfectly explainable using physics we understand.
  - ALittleLight 5y ago
    The DNI's UFO report clarifies that these objects were observed with multiple sensors and spotted by eyewitness. If you see something with radar, on the camera, you pick it up with the electro-optical system, and you and a few other folks see it with your eyes, then it is probably not a lens-flare. The DNI concluded that the UFO's are likely physical things. https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Prelimary-Assessment-UAP-20210625.pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Prelima...
    - sandworm101 5y ago
      I don't see it saying that. Some objects were seen on camera. Others were on radar. I see no report of an object being on both radar and visual (or other spectra) simultaneously. And they certainly have not released any actual raw data in that regard. Not any raw data full stop (ie no camera original images). A multi-sensor confirmation would show identical simultaneous movements across different sensors and platforms. Everything short of that is probably explainable due to the specific limitations of individual sensors.
      - ALittleLight 5y ago
        The second bullet point of the executive summary on page 3 of the PDF. "Most of the UAP reported probably do represent physical objects given that a majority of UAP were registered across multiple sensors, to include radar, infrared, electro-optical, weapon seekers, and visual observation" Page 4 of the PDF, first bullet point: "144 reports originated from USG sources. Of these, 80 reports involved observation with multiple sensors."
        sandworm101 5y ago
        Ya. Not simultaneously detected. These are days where one sensor sees something, then another sensor sees another thing, then a pilot goes up looking and sees something else. That is not confirmation. Multiple sensors seeing things in sequence, not all seeing the same thing at the same time. Once the word gets out, everyone starts finding things on their screens to report.
        ALittleLight 5y ago
        Appendix A defines a "UAP event" as "A holistic description of an occurrence during which a pilot or aircrew witnessed (or detected) a UAP." And "UAP Report" is the documentation for a UAP event. The DNI document says that 80 UAP reports have confirmation from multiple sensors. The UAP event spans the time where a pilot or aircrew witnessed the UAP. During this time the UAP was confirmed by multiple sensors. There is no language in the report to make it seem like the "confirmation" happened at different times or on different days. If that is what is meant, then the report is very misleading, but I don't think that is what is meant. What language from the report leads you to this interpretation?
        sandworm101 5y ago
        Then where is that data? All I have ever seen of "confirmed" sightings is stories and descriptions. Let's see the radar tracks. Let's see the exact camera locations and specifications along with raw images. Let's see the overhead satellite images. Let's see the ship camera footage. Funny how we never get more than an occasional tidbit of the actual data.
    - willis936 5y ago
      A group looking to keep their paychecks throws out a flimsy, unsubstantiated one-liner. When it comes to light that the statement was made by misrepresenting the data (which is still secret), what then? Nothing. They got their paychecks and made an honest mistake. Everyone moves on. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So far the only thing that about this report has been how much hot air they can blow out of a human ass.
  - rustymonday 5y ago
    The Pentagon released a preliminary report [1] two weeks ago stating that UAPs (their term for UFOs) are physical objects and demonstrate advanced capabilities that the US Navy cannot explain. [1] https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/reports-publications/reports-publications-2021/item/2223-preliminary-assessment-unidentified-aerial-phenomena https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/reports-publications/...
    - DudeInBasement 5y ago
      Cannot explain, means even if you know how, you cannot explain it.
  - oblib 5y ago
    The headline is a quote from the "former fighter pilot Alex Dietrich". The BBC wrapped it quotation marks.
- aliasEli 5y ago
  Because it is extremely uncritical of the subject. Any reputable scientist would simply tell that there is simply not enough reliable data to draw conclusions about these phenomena.
1over137 5y ago
The BBC is not what it once was. :(

clouddrover 5y ago

Laser induced plasma effects sound like the most plausible explanation: https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambling/2020/05/11/us-navy-laser-creates-plasma-ufos/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambling/2020/05/11/us-nav... https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2019/07/19/pentagon-scientists-are-making-talking-plasma-laser-balls-for-use-as-non-lethal-weapons/ https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2019/07/19/...

oblib 5y ago
Well that's sure interesting! I'd not heard of these before but that sure does sound like it could be what those military videos are showing and I have to agree that it's likely "the most plausible explanation" I've heard yet.
weare138 5y ago
That would not explain the accounts from the Navy pilots that made visual contact with some of these objects such as USS Nimitz and the 'Tic Tac' UAP. Also from the Forbes article you posted: >It is unlikely the Pentagon would release videos of their own secret weapon in a bizarre double bluff. But other nations may have their own version. In the early 1990s the Russians claimed that they could produce glowing ‘plasmoids’ at high altitude using high-power microwave or laser beams; these were intended to disrupt the flight of ballistic missiles, an answer to the planned American ‘Star Wars’. Nothing came of the project, but the technology may have been refined for other applications in the subsequent decades. And I would agree that the Navy wouldn't risk causing an indecent by surreptitiously testing secret technology on it's own ships, especially near areas with civilian air traffic. Could it be a foreign nation deploying a similar technology? Also highly doubtful. This would require a foreign military to either regularly sail ships or fly into US waters or very close to it, emit these plasma lasers for extended periods of time and sail/fly out undetected. The laser induced plasma effects theory would have to account for this somehow to be viable.
- clouddrover 5y ago
  > That would not explain the accounts from the Navy pilots that made visual contact Why? Laser induced plasma can create three dimensional images which also appear on infrared camera, can create sound waves, and can reflect radar: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QXw3ylCYT0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QXw3ylCYT0

k33n 5y ago

The authorities would never lie to us about UFOs

belter 5y ago

Posted this before here and still think its the most reasonable analysis: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27723938 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27723938 "The Truth Behind the Super Hornet UFO Encounters" https://youtu.be/6z1lQ9Gp8Vk https://youtu.be/6z1lQ9Gp8Vk

akmarinov 5y ago
I mean we just recently had Trump tweet out a satellite photo that amazed civilian experts that such fidelity is even possible, let alone already deployed so I think you’re spot on.
- s5300 5y ago
  While irrelevant to the topic at hand - with the recent info of Trump's daughter literally sitting in the Kremlin's chair, Trump tweeting that picture was likely his hilarious way of getting one of the US's best spies murdered... Also, keyhole fidelity has been known of for a very long time now. Any civilian expert amazed by that picture not only isn't an expert, but also has you hilariously duped.
- hindsightbias 5y ago
  They aren’t very good experts if they dont’t read Janes https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:KH-11-best-SHIPYARD.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:KH-11-best-SHIPYARD.... I saw that published 35 years ago.
afro88 5y ago
mimixco's comment in your post is spot on too: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27724776 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27724776
- rustymonday 5y ago
  I really do not understand the stigma behind UFOs. There is evidence of sightings for millennia all over the world, even before the invention of aircraft. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_reported_UFO_sightings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_reported_UFO_sightings [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1561_celestial_phenomenon_over_Nuremberg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1561_celestial_phenomenon_over...

theknocker 5y ago

"Nuh huh." -- a bunch of fucking idiots, i.e. ~65% of the public

paxys 5y ago

Are they even confirmed to be "objects"?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
NullPrefix 5y ago
If not, can we call them "subjects"?
- dvfjsdhgfv 5y ago
  I think it's a semantic misunderstanding. In the original question "object" was meant as a "physical object", as opposed to a kind of phenomenon like reflection and so on. You have used a more philosophical definition of subject-object dichotomy. On an unrelated note, I've seen a couple of books whose authors claim UFOs are actually subject-related phenomena.
aliasEli 5y ago
This is probably the reason why the official term now is "phenomenon", which is way better than object.

samstave 5y ago

I'm convinced it is Black-Budget/OPs + Breakaway Civilization. Thats my favorite theory on these...

wayoutthere 5y ago
The mission of SpaceX is basically to create a breakaway civilization. Since there’s not enough reaction mass on earth to bring even a fraction of the human population into orbit, it was never about democratizing space. It’s about giving billionaires a safe place to ride out the fall of civilization far from the hands of any potential adversary.
- SECProto 5y ago
  > Since there’s not enough reaction mass on earth to bring even a fraction of the human population into orbit Napkin math to disprove this claim: 7,000,000,000 people * 100kg = 700,000,000 tonnes = 7 million launches of starship * 5000t propellant per launch = 35 billion tonnes of propellant (approx 1/4 natural gas, 3/4 oxygen) Annual natural gas consumption in the US is 34 trillion cubic feet, which is about 800,000,000t. So about ten years would be 8 billion tonnes of natural gas (32 billion tonnes of propellant once you add oxygen) So excluding things like keeping your payload alive and breathing, the US generates enough natural gas to launch one tenth of the world population into orbit every year.
  - samstave 5y ago
    This is retarded. You are comparing a Breakaway Civ to launching the CURRENT equivalant of humans into space?? WTF. So - please rebuild your maths: global population from1930... - then adjust for Germany from ~1930 until ~1950. normalize by USA 1950 pop... then calc missing persons reports since... The INPUTs are MANY and your model is flawed. Youre misinformed...
BuyMyBitcoins 5y ago
The Cylons are back to check up on us.

delsarto 5y ago

I've been rewatching the X-Files with my kid on Disney+ and, wow, the restoration is amazing. It looks wonderful in 4K. It has brought new life for me as I originally watched it on an analogue broadcast or VHS recording of! Weirdly there's some stock footage scenes that aren't HD. This led me to finding https://www.reddit.com/r/XFiles/comments/3w3lxl/the_blurays_use_of_stock_footage/ https://www.reddit.com/r/XFiles/comments/3w3lxl/the_blurays_... which is a great thread with lots of info on how the restoration was done. I seem to remember the later parts of the series going a little off the rails. But so far it's great family watching for the right age. I think you'll find better UFOs and conspiracy theories rewatching this than grainy fighter jet videos.

millisecond 5y ago
How old is your kid? Feeling like it’s early for my 8 yo, but curious when it might work.
- delsarto 5y ago
  8 I would say is a bit early, there is some pretty gory scenes, and adult themes like "working girls" you might not want to be explaining in detail. I would say 10-12, mine is in the middle. Although I had to laugh at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firewalker_(The_X-Files) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firewalker_(The_X-Files) which is about a contagious alien(?) virus which I remember being super scary. The whole idea of viruses, pandemics and quarantine didn't really phase the kids at all. How times have changed.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
markus_zhang 5y ago
Wow, I was crazily into X-Files back in early 2000s (was in another country so didn't hear about it until then) and watched pretty much every episode many times. I think Episode 4~6 are the pinnacle of the series, but the rest are not bad. How old is your kid?

narrator 5y ago

Imagine some gorillas deep somewhere in the jungle pointing at the Jeep the naturalists have driven up in. ape #1: You see that thing, holy crap what is it? ape #2: Oh yeah, that's just a bunch of rocks. ape #1: But, it moved!!! ape #2: Must be some animal from another part of the forest. ape #1: I've seen it move faster than any other animal in the forest! ape #2: You've been eating rotten bananas!! ape #1: But the big chief apes said they saw them too! ape #2: <This thread, but with gorillas> Anyway, that's my pet theory. We are way out in the middle of nowhere Milky Way Galaxy and the ETs have sent a few guys out to check on us, learn about us, etc. They don't get out of the Jeep because they know they'll get their arms ripped off if they startle any of us, the gorillas, so they just watch us from a distance and speed off if there's any danger. So even if these are E.Ts. They don't want to talk with us, or invite us to join the federation. They don't even want to destroy us. They might as well be on the other side of the Galaxy, except we occasionally get to see them zip around.

titzer 5y ago
If aliens are smart enough to conquer interstellar travel, why do they put lights on their otherwise-invisible spaceships?
- hindsightbias 5y ago
  Just because they’re aliens doesn’t mean they haven’t read FAA regs.
- narrator 5y ago
  Same reason we do stuff to prevent bird strikes of airplanes. It's just practical, and considerate of nature. They aren't vulnerable to our weapons, the same way gorillas throwing rocks can't hurt the jeep. All sci-fi, except for maybe Lovecraft's Cthulu mythos, assumes that we have something that makes us important enough for the Universe to care about Humans as anything more than a biological curiosity. I think the "we're just wildlife to them" idea would be a very tough metaphysical pill for most people to swallow.
  - 5y ago

armatav 5y ago

Sounds like Star Wars to me.

davidhyde 5y ago

When I see these videos I think of a cat chasing a laser beam dot on a carpet. The dot looks like a real object, it shows up on video and probably even has a heat signature. It also moves erratically and disappears whenever. Is it so inconceivable to us that humans can create a localised atmospheric effect in three dimensional space with some form of phased array that reflects radar and emits heat and light so as to be visible? Just like a laser pointer can disappear behind a couch or be stitched off, so can this thing.

jxf 5y ago
Such an object would not have meaningful mass and would not leave vortices or a wake, which some of the UFOs do.
- clouddrover 5y ago
  Laser induced plasma can produce sound waves: https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2019/07/19/pentagon-scientists-are-making-talking-plasma-laser-balls-for-use-as-non-lethal-weapons/ https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2019/07/19/...
  - kcplate 5y ago
    And visible light, infrared light, and sensor artifacts apparently too. Occam’s razor… https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambling/2020/05/11/us-navy-laser-creates-plasma-ufos/?sh=44e6c36b1074 https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambling/2020/05/11/us-nav...
- aliasEli 5y ago
  It looks that you are assuming that all these reports have a common cause. It is the same kind of fallacy that causes people to believe that because something was observed somewhere and something similar was observed very soon after that but 60 miles away, that it must have been an object that moved at a very high speed.
aliasEli 5y ago

danbmil99 5y ago

Has anyone seen data as to the projected size of these objects? If we know their distance and they have a shape other than a point, we should at least be able to get a ballpark figure

sandworm101 5y ago
That's the core problem. Cameras don't do distance well. Radar doesn't do size/shape well. And human eyeballs are generally bad at both. Only when multiple different sensors all see the same thing at the same time/space can we start extrapolating size and shape.
- danbmil99 5y ago
  Yes but they call it a Tic Tac which implies an oblong shape. So it's picking up more than a pixel on some sensor, shouldn't that be enough to give us a ballpark? I'm wondering if they're the size of a rowboat or a 747
  - aliasEli 5y ago
    In the video it says that they could not get a range estimate for the object. That implies that it was impossible to estimate its size.

oceanghost 5y ago

I've said it once, I'll say it again-- these videos are all explained and all have been debunked. This is most likely a advertisement for the US Military's ability to track very small things such as drones. If there are videos of things that might be alien-- these are not them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfhAC2YiYHs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfhAC2YiYHs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3viYcYPRdu4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3viYcYPRdu4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWWGmiZs4JA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWWGmiZs4JA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCH7BWGpl5s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCH7BWGpl5s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Th4VlqQyVr4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Th4VlqQyVr4 Bob Lazar debunk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghkFTRY4ZB0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghkFTRY4ZB0

theteapot 5y ago

I'm so sick of seeing these same three stupid videos from the charlatan Lui Elizondo crop up over and over - flir, gimbal, go fast. Hasn't this cow been milked already? Seems to just keep on giving. They've all been shown to be very consistent with mundane known phenomena (See Mick West's channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCF3UCTZiVg9wrIEzO7Om6jw https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCF3UCTZiVg9wrIEzO7Om6jw). When that's pointed out the go to answer for the believer is "well there is things you are not privy to ...". Imagine if Einstein using that as his defense to relativity. Or any scientist ever. That's not how science works. You don't get to say "yeah well, there is things you don't know" when your thesis falls apart based on the evidence you provide to support it!

CodeGlitch 5y ago
I think the BBC article mentioned they are picked up on radar as well as cameras. All I've seen are the camera feeds, as either they won't show the radar (you have to be trained to even understand what you are seeing on radar) or all we have are the images. If it's just the cameras these were detected on then I'm with you

99_00 5y ago

Despite tens of billions of cameras on Earth we still don't have a clear picture of an extraterrestrial craft.

jonnycomputer 5y ago

I don't want to neg, but if you want a clickable UFO story, then you just interview engineers until you come to the one that will say, "These objects show physics we don't understand", right? A data-driven journalism would survey engineers and other experts.

frazbin 5y ago

"These objects show physics we don't understand" said the cat to the laser pointer. Seriously though I think we'll find that the super acrobatic lights (the only exciting part of this) are being produced by powerful transmitters owned by the military, and they're showing up during training because that's exactly when the transmitters are pointed near our planes, because the transmitters are built to detect planes and that's how you test them. Most likely the military is aware of this, but the real good plane detection stuff is super secret, and it's a lot easier to keep a new sensor/transmitter secret than a new plane. Sucks they're not allowed to tell their pilots but it makes sense. I dunno what do you think? Seems like the most parsimonious explanation to me.

fsn4dN69ey 5y ago
How would they leave behind a wake, reflect radar, or be confirmed as visual objects by multiple trained individuals, at the same instance, multiple times, with all of those individuals containing otherwise "spotless" (no history of mass UFO boy cried wolf scenarios) records of military service?

booleandilemma 5y ago

I don’t think the people who talk about aliens visiting us realize how vast the universe is and how isolated we are from everything. And if it is next-gen human tech, you don’t reveal it by harassing random aircraft carriers. You use it at the start of the next large-scale war and take your enemies by surprise.

xtracto 5y ago
And not only vast in space, but also in time. The probability of us "interacting" with an alien civilisation that is say 10,000 more advanced than us is minuscule. More likely if we get contact with aliens they will be "angels" or other supernatural entities for us... or protozoa equivalent to life on earth 50,000 years ago or more.

sys_64738 5y ago

Weather balloons? Sun glare? Occam's Razor.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

emerged 5y ago

If there’s one thing we’ve learned over the years — it’s always aliens.