16 ms·

So the anomaly that the carrier group tracked, then scrambled fighter jets for. The object that four different pilots saw visually, and was confirmed on multip

So the anomaly that the carrier group tracked, then scrambled fighter jets for. The object that four different pilots saw visually, and was confirmed on multiple different sensors. That was camera glare? The video is only one piece of the evidence. The pilots are trained, and other sensor systems confirmed what the camera was showing. This analysis is pretty flimsy.

mountainriver 5y ago
Camera glare my friend, case closed
- csa 5y ago
  > Camera glare my friend, case closed I came here to say this. There will be no further discussion.
  - csa 5y ago
    I guess HN missed the attempt at a joke here. This just seems to be a way that the government can point to an “expert” and say it was nothing, thereby alleviating the need for the government to comment on the “nothing”. I’m guessing the classified file on this is very interesting.
zmgsabst 5y ago
This analysis even admits that there’s an object required for the “glare” to exist. This analysis doesn’t reject an actual object being tracked: it confirms it and describes it as one that causes IR glare!
- NyxWulf 5y ago
  So the claim is...these highly trained pilots and the other sensor systems didn't realize that objects cause IR glare, but this guy did. Case closed.
  - stouset 5y ago
    I'm quite confident that most people here are going to find a calm, measured, and thorough explanation of the observed phenomenon more credible than a snarky and instinctive dismissal that doesn't even bother to address a single one of the clearly demonstrated points in the analysis.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > So the claim is...these highly trained pilots and the other sensor systems didn't realize that objects cause IR glare, but this guy did. Case closed. And frankly the "this guy" appears to be someone with no expertise and who is strongly biased towards particular investigatory outcomes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mick_West https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mick_West: > Mick West is a British science writer, skeptical investigator, and retired video game programmer. He is the creator of the websites Contrail Science and Metabunk, and he investigates and debunks pseudoscientific claims and conspiracy theories such as chemtrails and UFOs. Not to say he isn't right in this case, but I'm equality unenthusiastic about "skeptics" like that as I am about conspiracy theorists. Edit: on second thought, I'm somewhat more unenthusiastic "skeptics" like that. Conspiracy theorists can at least be entertaining sometimes, while "skeptics" tend to just bore you with self-assured arrogance while they take pot shots at low-hanging fruit.
    - msla 5y ago
      > Conspiracy theorists can at least be entertaining sometimes Right up until they're sure that there's a child molestation ring in the basement of a pizza parlor that doesn't have a basement, and someone goes and shoots up the place because the conspiracy theory was so damn entertaining.
      - tablespoon 5y ago
        That's exactly why I said "sometimes." It might have been more precise to mean occasionally, but the clear intended meaning was that it was a minority of the time.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- RobertMiller 5y ago
- stouset 5y ago
  Exactly. Zero of the GPs objections are inconsistent with this explanation. The carrier group tracked an unknown object and scrambled fighters to investigate. The pilots may have visually observed the object, but it would have been too far away to really ascertain any visual detail. Instead they relied on infrared sensors which… suffered from glare, and so rendered incorrect visuals for the object. Its strange shape and rotational behavior are now explained. What remains is still an unidentified flying object, but one whose behavior is reasonably mundane and doesn't require advanced technology to explain.
  - shadowgovt 5y ago
    And in the realm of mundane objects that may create very strange radar and visual patterns, we have our choice. Space Data Corporation was operating as early as 1997. Their product is radio communications provided by balloon. IIUC, normally those balloons are tethered, but if a tether snapped and one got away and was caught in a high-altitude crosswind, you'd have a mostly-metal object catching sunlight and throwing it in weird ways as it tumbled.
  - adriand 5y ago
    We also need to be really honest about what we want this to be, and how that desire influences what we believe about it. I personally want this to be an alien spacecraft, because that's super interesting and exciting. I think the same is true of lots of other people. Unfortunately, there are much more mundane explanations which fit the evidence much better.
    - birdyrooster 5y ago
      Why do you want it to be alien spacecraft? Are you some sort of glutton for punishment?
      - sterlind 5y ago
        if the aliens don't annihilate us, maybe they'd be willing to teach us some physics?
      - 5y ago
- bostonsre 5y ago
  This analysis is saying it's likely 10 miles away, that doesn't track with the other evidence, does it?
  - stouset 5y ago
    What other evidence is this inconsistent with?
    - colordrops 5y ago
      RADAR and visual confirmation.
      - thereddaikon 5y ago
        I didn't think the radar track was at the same time was it? I thought the Tico's tracked it with the SPY-1 and they sent F-18s to investigate who then tracked it with the FLIR and visually. Without a reference point you are unlikely to be able to guess the distance of an aircraft, especially an unknown one.
      - stouset 5y ago
        I’d be floored if the radar data didn’t back this up. A carrier group would have scrambled fighters well before anything unidentified got within a hundred miles, much less ten. Visual confirmation I don’t find remotely compelling. Besides the notorious general unreliability of human observers, humans simply cannot distinguish between small, nearby objects traveling slowly and large, far objects traveling quickly without additional contextual clues (e.g., a tiny plane-shaped object in the sky is probably the latter). Factor in that they were validating their observations against a sensor displaying a misleading image—in other words, providing incorrect contextual clues—and I think it’s not hard to call into question the accuracy of any visual claims.
        bostonsre 5y ago
        It was picked up on radar over several different days and a training mission was scrubbed so that they could go investigate what they saw on radar. You don't think humans could get better at judging distance of objects with practice? It seems like if any humans on earth could reliably do it, it would be seasoned fighter pilots that have thousands of hours of experience doing that exact thing.
- rasz 5y ago
  The object might of existed for a millisecond. Test of a new stealth tech - quick directional laser burst to temporarily damage/blind IR camera. After that Jet was flying in circles trying to track its own camera glitch.
  - dcow 5y ago
    That’s not how glare works.
tshaddox 5y ago
> the gimbal UFO video almost certainly shows a glare that hides the actual object This is in the first 15 seconds of the YouTube video.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
cma 5y ago
> The pilots are trained Fraver (not sure he was one of the ones in this incident) has a history of UFO pranks, shutting down engines and gliding over campfires then lighting up after burners when right over them, explicitly to give a UFO experience, and someone found a contemporaneous report of him doing it, so it wasn't just a story.
- Teever 5y ago
  Source?
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    He told the story to Joe Rogan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRM8AMrqqsc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRM8AMrqqsc (at 3:57)
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - tunap 5y ago
    Jets do this regularly over the Colorado River and various, otherwise desolate gathering places around AZ. I've witnessed such shenanigans a dozen or so times over the last 3 decades. One jet distracts onlookers while another sneaks up to buzz low over the deck(or, perhaps it's just incidental to their training Ops, IDK). These maneuvers are tests of skill, technology & amusement.
  - cma 5y ago
    What ceejayoz linked below
- bostonsre 5y ago
  So your are saying the one with evidence was a prank because he screwed around on a training mission?
  - stouset 5y ago
a9h74j 5y ago
> the carrier group tracked Naive question: If a carrier group cannot, in essentially real-time, document three dimensional trajectories at this point (four if you include speed), what possible defense can they claim to have against evasive incoming missiles, etc.
- chrisco255 5y ago
  Carriers are most likely partly obsoleted by hypersonic missiles that travel and maneuver at mach 20 (which Russia and China have), in addition to 100 megaton nuclear torpedoes that travel at 120mph (which Russia has). https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/03/russias-new-poseidon-super-weapon-what-you-need-to-know/ https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/03/russias-new-pos... https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2019/10/14/will-ground-based-hypersonic-missiles-replace-aircraft-carriers-in-the-defense-budget/ https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2019/10/14/will-ground-bas...
  - smachiz 5y ago
    I mean... assuming the Russians have anything that works is probably not a great assumption based on their performance in Ukraine. But I think they provide overlapping, but different, roles. But missiles and torpedoes is why aircraft carriers travel in carrier groups that have defensive capabilities against torpedoes and missiles.
    - mcast 5y ago
      It wouldn’t make much sense for Russia to show their cards and use modern war tech on Ukraine, a country with a (relatively) primitive military. They’re barely even using fighter jets.
      - water8 5y ago
        Except for the fact that they are https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2022/03/14/us/russia-ukraine-weapons-decoy.amp.html https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2022/03/14/us/r...
Miner49er 5y ago
Do you have links to reading more about this? The video saying it was glare made it seem like the object was very far from the jet, much farther then the naked eye could see. Was it closer at some point?
nabla9 5y ago
That "four different pilots" stuff has not been confirmed as far as I know. All people involved in these stories are hustlers, including that one ex-pilot who peddles the story. You must look at every statement they make separately. They give one fact that can be verified and then they tie lies or unverified stuff on that. btw. Luis Elizondo is has not been charge of any UFO stuff. https://theintercept.com/2019/06/01/ufo-unidentified-history-channel-luis-elizondo-pentagon/ https://theintercept.com/2019/06/01/ufo-unidentified-history...
- bostonsre 5y ago
  Have any of them made any money from this? What is the hustle?
  - nabla9 5y ago
    Oh yes. To the Stars Academy of Arts & Sciences (media & entertainment company) makes this stuff up and sells it. https://tothestars.media/ https://tothestars.media/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_the_Stars_(company) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_the_Stars_(company)
    - bostonsre 5y ago
      The navy pilots are members of that organization?
    - astrange 5y ago
      > According to SEC filings, as of October 2018 only $1 million of those shares had been sold and the company had a $37.4 million deficit, largely from a stock incentive plan for its employees, prompting Ars Technica and Vice to question its financial sustainability.[4][5] I happened to read the SEC filings when they were doing this and am certain it's fine and Vice reporters just don't know how startup finances work. What I did notice is that the perfectly normal looking and very detailed Form C didn't say the company owned any IP from alien spaceships or was going to acquire it. Their website definitely suggested it though, so if you're lying you could sue for securities fraud.
gfodor 5y ago
The gimbal video is not a video of the object from the Nimitz incident. There is a video of that but it’s less compelling in terms of evidence, but also afaik not cleanly debunked. (I think it’s called FLIR?)
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- native_samples 5y ago
  Yes, Flir1: https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/military/story/2021-05-29/navy-ufo-videos-skeptics https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/military/story/202... They're all ATFLIR videos. It's basically the same thing - a far away hot object, likely another aircraft, turns into an IR cylinder-shaped blog on screen which is then incorrectly interpreted as being an actual cylinder. The apparent movement at the end is just the ATFLIR losing lock as the guy constantly zooms in and out.
colordrops 5y ago
It was also tracked on radar.
- beebeepka 5y ago
  Weather balloon launched by swamp gas burp
  - bonestamp2 5y ago
    Maybe. That would be 14 weather balloons in this case: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKyP79v9e84 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKyP79v9e84
willidiots 5y ago
The "saucer" shape and its rotation were IR glare, that's the point of the video. He's very clear that he's NOT debunking the existence of an object. The exhaust of a jet engine, or another high-heat signature, could cause such glare. AFAICT no pilots saw this shape with their naked eye. They were miles away from the target and relying on what they saw via their sensors.
- subsubzero 5y ago
  So actually Commander Fravor saw the object with his own eyes, he is one of the pilots who was sent in to engage the craft after it appeared on radar from the carrier group, here is a detailed video of him talking about the incident with Lex Fridman(AI reasearcher - MIT) on his podcast - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aB8zcAttP1E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aB8zcAttP1E
  - tptacek 5y ago
    I'm literally learning about this "gimball video" from this video, so I don't have all the background, but the video we're looking at wasn't taken by David Fravor; it was taken by Chad Underwood? In the video we're looking at, we don't so much have to guess how far away the object was; the camera video itself indicates it. It's too far away to discern shape and rotation accurately with a naked eye. The video goes into detail about this, and the details aren't complicated.
    - recuter 5y ago
      Spoken like a true none believer. I shun thee. Even the pentagon said they can't explain the UFOs, clearly they are preparing society for a big reveal. ;) Edit: I'm betting half the downvotes are from people not picking up on my sarcasm, and the other half is from people picking up on my sarcasm.
      - wglb 5y ago
        From the Guidelines https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html: > Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.
StanislavPetrov 5y ago
>This analysis is pretty flimsy. Flimsy is an extremely generous and flattering word if you know anything about the details of this case or the testimony of the Navy's top pilots who witnessed and tracked this object from different vantage points both visually and with instruments.
user-the-name 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
tptacek 5y ago
I don't know much about this whole story (I'm not a UFO person) and am learning most of what I know about it from this video and this thread, but: the people saying that this video depicts an actual object rotating in the sky appear to be making the extraordinary claim here: the connection between the rotation and the camera system seems compelling. The horizon is moving as the camera/plane moves; the object is not moving. You can't refute that with "these are highly trained fighter pilots": the horizon is moving with the camera, the object isn't. Training's got nothing to do with it. The shape we're looking at is, in part, an artifact of the camera, unless the aliens are somehow reprogramming the camera to fuck with us.
- bonestamp2 5y ago
  > The shape we're looking at is, in part, an artifact of the camera, unless the aliens are somehow reprogramming the camera to fuck with us. It's possible the IR glare is an intentional countermeasure produced by the craft. It might sound far-fetched, but the military can already jam some cameras already, and they apparently license this technology too: https://techlinkcenter.org/technologies/selective-camera-jamming-system-for-increased-security-and-privacy/72671316-58d3-402a-83b8-6956cec5877c https://techlinkcenter.org/technologies/selective-camera-jam... The US Navy has (admittedly controversial) patents for technologies that could produce a craft with these flight characteristics: https://patents.google.com/?inventor=Salvatore+Cezar+Pais https://patents.google.com/?inventor=Salvatore+Cezar+Pais The first time these craft were spotted on radar was during a Navy exercise where they were testing new radar equipment, and the craft were coming from the direction of San Clemente island (an island that is a Navy base). Here's a short video that talks about the radar sighting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKyP79v9e84 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKyP79v9e84 In the Nimitz case, the "UFO" disappeared, and then met the pilots at their rendezvous point. How did it know where the rendezvous point was? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBpcfeHI0Kk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBpcfeHI0Kk Sightings of these UFOs have only ever been mentioned by US forces. Who knows what is going on, but if I had to make a guess and I considered all of this information, it seems likely that the "UFOs" are experimental US aircraft.
  - tptacek 5y ago
likeabbas 5y ago
^This is the key point. These objects have been tracked on radar, FLIR, and multiple pilot witness testimony off both coasts for decades now. Attempting to debunk a single one of these three leaked videos is pointless because they do not show the entire context of the events happening. I implore everyone to watch these two interviews with Christopher Melon, the former Deputy Secretary of Defense for Intelligence. And to read the DNI report on UAPs It will change your entire perception of these incidents and show you to view them as true national security issues. 1. https://open.spotify.com/episode/2V0uWX1C4m8xEL0HHYqbnE?si=ef7d577c64cb4183 https://open.spotify.com/episode/2V0uWX1C4m8xEL0HHYqbnE?si=e... 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdxcgS4spRM&t=1393s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdxcgS4spRM&t=1393s 3. https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Prelimary-Assessment-UAP-20210625.pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Prelima... There are unknown objects flying with impunity in our restricted military airspace, some that exhibit characteristics that nothing of human origin can accomplish. This should terrify you. Edit: Why the downvotes? Please explain to me your logic. I'm just listing things that people with credibility in our government said, including the Department of National Intelligence.
- argvargc 5y ago
  Why should a peaceful demonstration of technical superiority terrify anyone? It's clear whomever, or whatever, possesses this superior technology could fly circles around and/or obliterate us on a whim, but has expressly decided not to, and instead simply announced: "Hey, I have this." If they/it perceived us as a threat, we'd surely be gone already. That leaves only our hopefully sane response, to influence what happens next. Being terrified would be exactly wrong.
  - likeabbas 5y ago
    If you look into Lue Elizondo's, former head of AATIP, comments on this, you will come to find that he believes these things are testing are doing reconnaissance to test our military capabilities - which is scary to me. The technology they are displaying is awesome, but it is something we should be very wary of.
pengaru 5y ago
> So the anomaly that the carrier group tracked, then scrambled fighter jets for. The object that four different pilots saw visually, and was confirmed on multiple different sensors. That was camera glare? I don't think we can trust the accounts of anyone in the employ of the government, past or present, when it comes to this kind of thing. For all we know to misinform is the mission, propaganda if you will. Consider how much of what you said above is practically verbatim regurgitation of their vernacular. Jargon is often abused to sound qualified, smart, and authoritative. AKA B.S. alert.
Reubachi 5y ago
I'm quite surprised to see this community be so on board with the "Oh really, the obvious saucer was lens glare and not aliens?" train. USAF and reitred officals have gone on record to say that they actively release doctored footage and/or false narratives, sometimes via pop culture figures, to muddy waters on current technology or to sow discourse among enemies. This reeks of n example of that, and not aliens. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirage_Men https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirage_Men

mountainriver 5y ago

Camera glare my friend, case closed

csa 5y ago
> Camera glare my friend, case closed I came here to say this. There will be no further discussion.
- csa 5y ago
  I guess HN missed the attempt at a joke here. This just seems to be a way that the government can point to an “expert” and say it was nothing, thereby alleviating the need for the government to comment on the “nothing”. I’m guessing the classified file on this is very interesting.

zmgsabst 5y ago

This analysis even admits that there’s an object required for the “glare” to exist. This analysis doesn’t reject an actual object being tracked: it confirms it and describes it as one that causes IR glare!

NyxWulf 5y ago
So the claim is...these highly trained pilots and the other sensor systems didn't realize that objects cause IR glare, but this guy did. Case closed.
- stouset 5y ago
  I'm quite confident that most people here are going to find a calm, measured, and thorough explanation of the observed phenomenon more credible than a snarky and instinctive dismissal that doesn't even bother to address a single one of the clearly demonstrated points in the analysis.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > So the claim is...these highly trained pilots and the other sensor systems didn't realize that objects cause IR glare, but this guy did. Case closed. And frankly the "this guy" appears to be someone with no expertise and who is strongly biased towards particular investigatory outcomes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mick_West https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mick_West: > Mick West is a British science writer, skeptical investigator, and retired video game programmer. He is the creator of the websites Contrail Science and Metabunk, and he investigates and debunks pseudoscientific claims and conspiracy theories such as chemtrails and UFOs. Not to say he isn't right in this case, but I'm equality unenthusiastic about "skeptics" like that as I am about conspiracy theorists. Edit: on second thought, I'm somewhat more unenthusiastic "skeptics" like that. Conspiracy theorists can at least be entertaining sometimes, while "skeptics" tend to just bore you with self-assured arrogance while they take pot shots at low-hanging fruit.
  - msla 5y ago
    > Conspiracy theorists can at least be entertaining sometimes Right up until they're sure that there's a child molestation ring in the basement of a pizza parlor that doesn't have a basement, and someone goes and shoots up the place because the conspiracy theory was so damn entertaining.
    - tablespoon 5y ago
      That's exactly why I said "sometimes." It might have been more precise to mean occasionally, but the clear intended meaning was that it was a minority of the time.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
RobertMiller 5y ago
stouset 5y ago
Exactly. Zero of the GPs objections are inconsistent with this explanation. The carrier group tracked an unknown object and scrambled fighters to investigate. The pilots may have visually observed the object, but it would have been too far away to really ascertain any visual detail. Instead they relied on infrared sensors which… suffered from glare, and so rendered incorrect visuals for the object. Its strange shape and rotational behavior are now explained. What remains is still an unidentified flying object, but one whose behavior is reasonably mundane and doesn't require advanced technology to explain.
- shadowgovt 5y ago
  And in the realm of mundane objects that may create very strange radar and visual patterns, we have our choice. Space Data Corporation was operating as early as 1997. Their product is radio communications provided by balloon. IIUC, normally those balloons are tethered, but if a tether snapped and one got away and was caught in a high-altitude crosswind, you'd have a mostly-metal object catching sunlight and throwing it in weird ways as it tumbled.
- adriand 5y ago
  We also need to be really honest about what we want this to be, and how that desire influences what we believe about it. I personally want this to be an alien spacecraft, because that's super interesting and exciting. I think the same is true of lots of other people. Unfortunately, there are much more mundane explanations which fit the evidence much better.
  - birdyrooster 5y ago
    Why do you want it to be alien spacecraft? Are you some sort of glutton for punishment?
    - sterlind 5y ago
      if the aliens don't annihilate us, maybe they'd be willing to teach us some physics?
    - 5y ago
bostonsre 5y ago
This analysis is saying it's likely 10 miles away, that doesn't track with the other evidence, does it?
- stouset 5y ago
  What other evidence is this inconsistent with?
  - colordrops 5y ago
    RADAR and visual confirmation.
    - thereddaikon 5y ago
      I didn't think the radar track was at the same time was it? I thought the Tico's tracked it with the SPY-1 and they sent F-18s to investigate who then tracked it with the FLIR and visually. Without a reference point you are unlikely to be able to guess the distance of an aircraft, especially an unknown one.
    - stouset 5y ago
      I’d be floored if the radar data didn’t back this up. A carrier group would have scrambled fighters well before anything unidentified got within a hundred miles, much less ten. Visual confirmation I don’t find remotely compelling. Besides the notorious general unreliability of human observers, humans simply cannot distinguish between small, nearby objects traveling slowly and large, far objects traveling quickly without additional contextual clues (e.g., a tiny plane-shaped object in the sky is probably the latter). Factor in that they were validating their observations against a sensor displaying a misleading image—in other words, providing incorrect contextual clues—and I think it’s not hard to call into question the accuracy of any visual claims.
      - bostonsre 5y ago
        It was picked up on radar over several different days and a training mission was scrubbed so that they could go investigate what they saw on radar. You don't think humans could get better at judging distance of objects with practice? It seems like if any humans on earth could reliably do it, it would be seasoned fighter pilots that have thousands of hours of experience doing that exact thing.
rasz 5y ago
The object might of existed for a millisecond. Test of a new stealth tech - quick directional laser burst to temporarily damage/blind IR camera. After that Jet was flying in circles trying to track its own camera glitch.
- dcow 5y ago
  That’s not how glare works.

tshaddox 5y ago

> the gimbal UFO video almost certainly shows a glare that hides the actual object This is in the first 15 seconds of the YouTube video.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

cma 5y ago

> The pilots are trained Fraver (not sure he was one of the ones in this incident) has a history of UFO pranks, shutting down engines and gliding over campfires then lighting up after burners when right over them, explicitly to give a UFO experience, and someone found a contemporaneous report of him doing it, so it wasn't just a story.

Teever 5y ago
Source?
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  He told the story to Joe Rogan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRM8AMrqqsc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRM8AMrqqsc (at 3:57)
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- tunap 5y ago
  Jets do this regularly over the Colorado River and various, otherwise desolate gathering places around AZ. I've witnessed such shenanigans a dozen or so times over the last 3 decades. One jet distracts onlookers while another sneaks up to buzz low over the deck(or, perhaps it's just incidental to their training Ops, IDK). These maneuvers are tests of skill, technology & amusement.
- cma 5y ago
  What ceejayoz linked below
bostonsre 5y ago
So your are saying the one with evidence was a prank because he screwed around on a training mission?
- stouset 5y ago

a9h74j 5y ago

> the carrier group tracked Naive question: If a carrier group cannot, in essentially real-time, document three dimensional trajectories at this point (four if you include speed), what possible defense can they claim to have against evasive incoming missiles, etc.

chrisco255 5y ago
Carriers are most likely partly obsoleted by hypersonic missiles that travel and maneuver at mach 20 (which Russia and China have), in addition to 100 megaton nuclear torpedoes that travel at 120mph (which Russia has). https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/03/russias-new-poseidon-super-weapon-what-you-need-to-know/ https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/03/russias-new-pos... https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2019/10/14/will-ground-based-hypersonic-missiles-replace-aircraft-carriers-in-the-defense-budget/ https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2019/10/14/will-ground-bas...
- smachiz 5y ago
  I mean... assuming the Russians have anything that works is probably not a great assumption based on their performance in Ukraine. But I think they provide overlapping, but different, roles. But missiles and torpedoes is why aircraft carriers travel in carrier groups that have defensive capabilities against torpedoes and missiles.
  - mcast 5y ago
    It wouldn’t make much sense for Russia to show their cards and use modern war tech on Ukraine, a country with a (relatively) primitive military. They’re barely even using fighter jets.
    - water8 5y ago
      Except for the fact that they are https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2022/03/14/us/russia-ukraine-weapons-decoy.amp.html https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2022/03/14/us/r...

Miner49er 5y ago

Do you have links to reading more about this? The video saying it was glare made it seem like the object was very far from the jet, much farther then the naked eye could see. Was it closer at some point?

nabla9 5y ago

That "four different pilots" stuff has not been confirmed as far as I know. All people involved in these stories are hustlers, including that one ex-pilot who peddles the story. You must look at every statement they make separately. They give one fact that can be verified and then they tie lies or unverified stuff on that. btw. Luis Elizondo is has not been charge of any UFO stuff. https://theintercept.com/2019/06/01/ufo-unidentified-history-channel-luis-elizondo-pentagon/ https://theintercept.com/2019/06/01/ufo-unidentified-history...

bostonsre 5y ago
Have any of them made any money from this? What is the hustle?
- nabla9 5y ago
  Oh yes. To the Stars Academy of Arts & Sciences (media & entertainment company) makes this stuff up and sells it. https://tothestars.media/ https://tothestars.media/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_the_Stars_(company) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_the_Stars_(company)
  - bostonsre 5y ago
    The navy pilots are members of that organization?
  - astrange 5y ago
    > According to SEC filings, as of October 2018 only $1 million of those shares had been sold and the company had a $37.4 million deficit, largely from a stock incentive plan for its employees, prompting Ars Technica and Vice to question its financial sustainability.[4][5] I happened to read the SEC filings when they were doing this and am certain it's fine and Vice reporters just don't know how startup finances work. What I did notice is that the perfectly normal looking and very detailed Form C didn't say the company owned any IP from alien spaceships or was going to acquire it. Their website definitely suggested it though, so if you're lying you could sue for securities fraud.

gfodor 5y ago

The gimbal video is not a video of the object from the Nimitz incident. There is a video of that but it’s less compelling in terms of evidence, but also afaik not cleanly debunked. (I think it’s called FLIR?)

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
native_samples 5y ago
Yes, Flir1: https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/military/story/2021-05-29/navy-ufo-videos-skeptics https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/military/story/202... They're all ATFLIR videos. It's basically the same thing - a far away hot object, likely another aircraft, turns into an IR cylinder-shaped blog on screen which is then incorrectly interpreted as being an actual cylinder. The apparent movement at the end is just the ATFLIR losing lock as the guy constantly zooms in and out.

colordrops 5y ago

It was also tracked on radar.

beebeepka 5y ago
Weather balloon launched by swamp gas burp
- bonestamp2 5y ago
  Maybe. That would be 14 weather balloons in this case: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKyP79v9e84 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKyP79v9e84

willidiots 5y ago

The "saucer" shape and its rotation were IR glare, that's the point of the video. He's very clear that he's NOT debunking the existence of an object. The exhaust of a jet engine, or another high-heat signature, could cause such glare. AFAICT no pilots saw this shape with their naked eye. They were miles away from the target and relying on what they saw via their sensors.

subsubzero 5y ago
So actually Commander Fravor saw the object with his own eyes, he is one of the pilots who was sent in to engage the craft after it appeared on radar from the carrier group, here is a detailed video of him talking about the incident with Lex Fridman(AI reasearcher - MIT) on his podcast - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aB8zcAttP1E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aB8zcAttP1E
- tptacek 5y ago
  I'm literally learning about this "gimball video" from this video, so I don't have all the background, but the video we're looking at wasn't taken by David Fravor; it was taken by Chad Underwood? In the video we're looking at, we don't so much have to guess how far away the object was; the camera video itself indicates it. It's too far away to discern shape and rotation accurately with a naked eye. The video goes into detail about this, and the details aren't complicated.
  - recuter 5y ago
    Spoken like a true none believer. I shun thee. Even the pentagon said they can't explain the UFOs, clearly they are preparing society for a big reveal. ;) Edit: I'm betting half the downvotes are from people not picking up on my sarcasm, and the other half is from people picking up on my sarcasm.
    - wglb 5y ago
      From the Guidelines https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html: > Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.

StanislavPetrov 5y ago

>This analysis is pretty flimsy. Flimsy is an extremely generous and flattering word if you know anything about the details of this case or the testimony of the Navy's top pilots who witnessed and tracked this object from different vantage points both visually and with instruments.

user-the-name 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

tptacek 5y ago

I don't know much about this whole story (I'm not a UFO person) and am learning most of what I know about it from this video and this thread, but: the people saying that this video depicts an actual object rotating in the sky appear to be making the extraordinary claim here: the connection between the rotation and the camera system seems compelling. The horizon is moving as the camera/plane moves; the object is not moving. You can't refute that with "these are highly trained fighter pilots": the horizon is moving with the camera, the object isn't. Training's got nothing to do with it. The shape we're looking at is, in part, an artifact of the camera, unless the aliens are somehow reprogramming the camera to fuck with us.

bonestamp2 5y ago
> The shape we're looking at is, in part, an artifact of the camera, unless the aliens are somehow reprogramming the camera to fuck with us. It's possible the IR glare is an intentional countermeasure produced by the craft. It might sound far-fetched, but the military can already jam some cameras already, and they apparently license this technology too: https://techlinkcenter.org/technologies/selective-camera-jamming-system-for-increased-security-and-privacy/72671316-58d3-402a-83b8-6956cec5877c https://techlinkcenter.org/technologies/selective-camera-jam... The US Navy has (admittedly controversial) patents for technologies that could produce a craft with these flight characteristics: https://patents.google.com/?inventor=Salvatore+Cezar+Pais https://patents.google.com/?inventor=Salvatore+Cezar+Pais The first time these craft were spotted on radar was during a Navy exercise where they were testing new radar equipment, and the craft were coming from the direction of San Clemente island (an island that is a Navy base). Here's a short video that talks about the radar sighting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKyP79v9e84 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKyP79v9e84 In the Nimitz case, the "UFO" disappeared, and then met the pilots at their rendezvous point. How did it know where the rendezvous point was? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBpcfeHI0Kk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBpcfeHI0Kk Sightings of these UFOs have only ever been mentioned by US forces. Who knows what is going on, but if I had to make a guess and I considered all of this information, it seems likely that the "UFOs" are experimental US aircraft.
- tptacek 5y ago

likeabbas 5y ago

^This is the key point. These objects have been tracked on radar, FLIR, and multiple pilot witness testimony off both coasts for decades now. Attempting to debunk a single one of these three leaked videos is pointless because they do not show the entire context of the events happening. I implore everyone to watch these two interviews with Christopher Melon, the former Deputy Secretary of Defense for Intelligence. And to read the DNI report on UAPs It will change your entire perception of these incidents and show you to view them as true national security issues. 1. https://open.spotify.com/episode/2V0uWX1C4m8xEL0HHYqbnE?si=ef7d577c64cb4183 https://open.spotify.com/episode/2V0uWX1C4m8xEL0HHYqbnE?si=e... 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdxcgS4spRM&t=1393s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdxcgS4spRM&t=1393s 3. https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Prelimary-Assessment-UAP-20210625.pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Prelima... There are unknown objects flying with impunity in our restricted military airspace, some that exhibit characteristics that nothing of human origin can accomplish. This should terrify you. Edit: Why the downvotes? Please explain to me your logic. I'm just listing things that people with credibility in our government said, including the Department of National Intelligence.

argvargc 5y ago
Why should a peaceful demonstration of technical superiority terrify anyone? It's clear whomever, or whatever, possesses this superior technology could fly circles around and/or obliterate us on a whim, but has expressly decided not to, and instead simply announced: "Hey, I have this." If they/it perceived us as a threat, we'd surely be gone already. That leaves only our hopefully sane response, to influence what happens next. Being terrified would be exactly wrong.
- likeabbas 5y ago
  If you look into Lue Elizondo's, former head of AATIP, comments on this, you will come to find that he believes these things are testing are doing reconnaissance to test our military capabilities - which is scary to me. The technology they are displaying is awesome, but it is something we should be very wary of.

pengaru 5y ago

> So the anomaly that the carrier group tracked, then scrambled fighter jets for. The object that four different pilots saw visually, and was confirmed on multiple different sensors. That was camera glare? I don't think we can trust the accounts of anyone in the employ of the government, past or present, when it comes to this kind of thing. For all we know to misinform is the mission, propaganda if you will. Consider how much of what you said above is practically verbatim regurgitation of their vernacular. Jargon is often abused to sound qualified, smart, and authoritative. AKA B.S. alert.

Reubachi 5y ago

I'm quite surprised to see this community be so on board with the "Oh really, the obvious saucer was lens glare and not aliens?" train. USAF and reitred officals have gone on record to say that they actively release doctored footage and/or false narratives, sometimes via pop culture figures, to muddy waters on current technology or to sow discourse among enemies. This reeks of n example of that, and not aliens. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirage_Men https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirage_Men