6 ms·

The radar and FLIR aren't as easy to 'trick' though.

by count 5y ago

NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
The analysis in this article is just plain bad; it came up in another UFO discussion about nine months ago. e.g. see here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27355333 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27355333 The article is published in a journal the subject matter of which has nothing to do with UFOs, or flight dynamics or anything similar. It does so happen that the principal author of the paper is the editor-in-chief of that journal however; and the publisher of the journal has been on-again-off-again the lists of predatory publishers for some years.
- pmarreck 5y ago
  > It does so happen that the principal author of the paper is the editor-in-chief of that journal however So you mean to tell me that a person who does not need to fear harm to their reputation used their own science-focused business to take on the analysis of a phenomenon that is wrought with fallacious appeals to shame? > and the publisher of the journal has been on-again-off-again the lists of predatory publishers for some years. MDPI? I don't have time to research this thoroughly but aren't they just a multidisciplinary republisher from other journals who are ostensibly the responsible parties for ensuring proper peer review? > MDPI was included on Jeffrey Beall's list of predatory open access publishing companies in 2014[13][15] but was removed in 2015 following a successful appeal[14] while applying pressure on Beall's employer.[16] Some journals published by MDPI have also been noted by the Chinese Academy of Sciences and Norwegian Scientific Publication Register, two major scientific bodies, for lack of rigour and possible predatory practice.[ Jeffrey Beall has an obvious anti-open-access bias, and I believe that's why the "pressure on his employer" was successful. As an open-source developer, this makes it difficult for me to judge his claims fairly; the "ivory tower of accredited scientists working in secret and retaining sole access to prestigious journals while divvying out Truth From On High" is a model that I think needs to be put to bed (even if there are some drawbacks to that). What I can say is that capitalism does not seem to mesh well with basic science research and it can result in problems such as poor peer review.
runjake 5y ago
They could be, with RF and laser equipment running reasonably-advanced software to spoof such sensors. There are a lot of gotchas to work out here, but it's my best guess, aside from "craft that defy physics." Source: worked on such military equipment, back in the early 90s.
- marcusverus 5y ago
  > They could be, with RF and laser equipment running reasonably-advanced software to spoof such sensors. How would such RF and laser equipment spoof sensors that are thousands of feet in the air and moving at hundreds of miles per hour and moving in unpredictable ways? Radar is off the table--that would presumably have been detected, right? How would our spoofer spoof multiple sensors, separated by significant distance? Remember that some of these events involved multiple aircraft and ships, all of which saw the same data on their sensors. How could the spoofer engage all of these targets without its physical presence being detected by the various players, with all their various systems constantly searching? Spoofing seems possible, but it seems like some kind of pre-planned hack would be the least offensive flavor of that particular theory. But even then, some of the pilots swear they saw these things with their own eyes (sometimes multiple people in a single aircraft, sometimes multiple people in different aircraft), which casts doubt on the whole 'spoofing' idea. Of course, the most likely answer is that these reports are some simply untrue. If someone has an impossible story that you can't independently verify, there's no good reason to believe them.
  - nobody9999 5y ago
    >Of course, the most likely answer is that these reports are some simply untrue. If someone has an impossible story that you can't independently verify, there's no good reason to believe them. As Carl Sagan (among others) pointed out, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Or, more recently, what Matt O'Dowd calls the "Space Time[0] Mantra": "It's never aliens. Until it is." I'm going to wait for that "Klaatu barada nikto[1]" moment before I buy into any claims of intelligent aliens visiting our little world. [0] https://www.pbs.org/show/pbs-space-time/ https://www.pbs.org/show/pbs-space-time/ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaatu_barada_nikto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaatu_barada_nikto

The radar and FLIR aren't as easy to 'trick' though.

by count 5y ago

The radar and FLIR aren't as easy to 'trick' though.

The analysis in this article is just plain bad; it came up in another UFO discussion about nine months ago. e.g. see here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27355333 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27355333 The article is published in a journal the subject matter of which has nothing to do with UFOs, or flight dynamics or anything similar. It does so happen that the principal author of the paper is the editor-in-chief of that journal however; and the publisher of the journal has been on-again-off-again the lists of predatory publishers for some years.

pmarreck 5y ago
> It does so happen that the principal author of the paper is the editor-in-chief of that journal however So you mean to tell me that a person who does not need to fear harm to their reputation used their own science-focused business to take on the analysis of a phenomenon that is wrought with fallacious appeals to shame? > and the publisher of the journal has been on-again-off-again the lists of predatory publishers for some years. MDPI? I don't have time to research this thoroughly but aren't they just a multidisciplinary republisher from other journals who are ostensibly the responsible parties for ensuring proper peer review? > MDPI was included on Jeffrey Beall's list of predatory open access publishing companies in 2014[13][15] but was removed in 2015 following a successful appeal[14] while applying pressure on Beall's employer.[16] Some journals published by MDPI have also been noted by the Chinese Academy of Sciences and Norwegian Scientific Publication Register, two major scientific bodies, for lack of rigour and possible predatory practice.[ Jeffrey Beall has an obvious anti-open-access bias, and I believe that's why the "pressure on his employer" was successful. As an open-source developer, this makes it difficult for me to judge his claims fairly; the "ivory tower of accredited scientists working in secret and retaining sole access to prestigious journals while divvying out Truth From On High" is a model that I think needs to be put to bed (even if there are some drawbacks to that). What I can say is that capitalism does not seem to mesh well with basic science research and it can result in problems such as poor peer review.

runjake 5y ago

They could be, with RF and laser equipment running reasonably-advanced software to spoof such sensors. There are a lot of gotchas to work out here, but it's my best guess, aside from "craft that defy physics." Source: worked on such military equipment, back in the early 90s.

marcusverus 5y ago
> They could be, with RF and laser equipment running reasonably-advanced software to spoof such sensors. How would such RF and laser equipment spoof sensors that are thousands of feet in the air and moving at hundreds of miles per hour and moving in unpredictable ways? Radar is off the table--that would presumably have been detected, right? How would our spoofer spoof multiple sensors, separated by significant distance? Remember that some of these events involved multiple aircraft and ships, all of which saw the same data on their sensors. How could the spoofer engage all of these targets without its physical presence being detected by the various players, with all their various systems constantly searching? Spoofing seems possible, but it seems like some kind of pre-planned hack would be the least offensive flavor of that particular theory. But even then, some of the pilots swear they saw these things with their own eyes (sometimes multiple people in a single aircraft, sometimes multiple people in different aircraft), which casts doubt on the whole 'spoofing' idea. Of course, the most likely answer is that these reports are some simply untrue. If someone has an impossible story that you can't independently verify, there's no good reason to believe them.
- nobody9999 5y ago
  >Of course, the most likely answer is that these reports are some simply untrue. If someone has an impossible story that you can't independently verify, there's no good reason to believe them. As Carl Sagan (among others) pointed out, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Or, more recently, what Matt O'Dowd calls the "Space Time[0] Mantra": "It's never aliens. Until it is." I'm going to wait for that "Klaatu barada nikto[1]" moment before I buy into any claims of intelligent aliens visiting our little world. [0] https://www.pbs.org/show/pbs-space-time/ https://www.pbs.org/show/pbs-space-time/ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaatu_barada_nikto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaatu_barada_nikto