4 ms·

What is the point of this story? Someone lacking context could watch this and arrive at the conclusion that "the Navy video of a UFO has a simple conventional e

by ynniv 5y ago

What is the point of this story? Someone lacking context could watch this and arrive at the conclusion that "the Navy video of a UFO has a simple conventional explanation", which is how the presenter delivers his arguments. He meticulously demonstrates that the shape of the object which is the subject of the video is an artifact of camera glare from overexposure. In case you are not convinced, he breaks it down into four reasons, supporting each of them with data based on a detailed understanding of the system. If you are still not convinced that this shake is camera glare by the end of the video, I would be surprised. And yet, whether the shape of the subject is representative of the object or an artifact of the camera is almost irrelevant to whether or not this is a video that should be investigated. The source of the glare is clearly not part of the camera or the aircraft. We should not treat the silhouette of the object as valuable data, but it says nothing of the actual object that is being tracked. The presenter does not suggest this, and the post spins the whole event as being "debunked". I don't know why "debunking" things seems to have become a cottage industry, but there was considerable effort put into analyzing and visually modeling this thoroughly condescending presentation.

xmaayy 5y ago
He literally says something to the effect of "I'm only saying that the glare is obscuring the true shape of the object" in the first minutes of the video.
- tejohnso 5y ago
  Yet the title of the article says the video was camera glare. Which doesn't even make sense. But what it suggests is that the entire contents can be explained away as camera glare. So blame the media in this case perhaps?
  - tptacek 5y ago
    There is no way to watch this video and come away with the understanding that there was no object at all. It spends a tedious several minutes demonstrating the connection between glare and objects emitting light, and multiple long, tedious disclaimers that it is not arguing that there is no object at all in the video. You have to want it to be saying something else to take away a different message.
    - ynniv 5y ago
      Of course you can, the submitted article does exactly that. His emotions convey that he knows exactly what's going on, and he states, repeatedly, that it is lens flare. Rationally we can see that this is missing the forest for the trees, but anyone who doesn't think as critically will deduce that this is only a camera artifact. He operates this way on purpose, so that people who want to believe him have the proof they are looking for, and everyone else will quibble about meaningless details. From the submission: A new detailed analysis of the modern poster child for UFO footage makes the case that the object in the video is not anything other than glare on the Navy jet’s gimbal camera system. Done. Pilots are idiots, and so are your open minded friends. Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk.
      - tptacek 5y ago
        He says literally the opposite thing, and at great, tedious length.
        ynniv 5y ago
        He says that it is glare, at tedious length. As of last year he thought it was the exhaust of another aircraft[1], plus he has stated his goal is to debunk UFO videos. He could have spent some of his tedious length and extensive reconstruction demonstrating the apparent position and velocity of that other plane, but he chose to spend it going on about what he should think is an inconsequential detail. [ 1 https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jun/11/i-study-ufos-and-i-dont-believe-the-alien-hype-heres-why https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jun/11/i-stud... ]
        sho_hn 5y ago
        He says it is glare, yes, but he also references other IR camera footage to provide other examples of glare. And in each of the examples there is an object that is the source of the heat glare (e.g. a burning car). I had also never heard of this incident before. My takeaway from the video: There's a camera glare artifact around an object; the motion of the object has to be understood while taking the camera gimbal system's actions into account. The next step would be to model the object's motion while doing so and checking if it's doing anything interesting. I agree the video would be better if it made any effort to get into that. It's like Part I to a two-part story!
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
teawrecks 5y ago
The intention of the video is to show that there is no advanced technology or unexplainable phenomena captured in the video. If this is already evident to you, then the video isn't for you. But there are a lot of people who watch this video and think the object itself is rotating or deforming strangely, when in reality, all evidence suggests it's just some kind of terrestrial aircraft. Whether they know who/what is driving the aircraft is up to the Navy.

by ynniv 5y ago

xmaayy 5y ago

He literally says something to the effect of "I'm only saying that the glare is obscuring the true shape of the object" in the first minutes of the video.

tejohnso 5y ago
Yet the title of the article says the video was camera glare. Which doesn't even make sense. But what it suggests is that the entire contents can be explained away as camera glare. So blame the media in this case perhaps?
- tptacek 5y ago
  There is no way to watch this video and come away with the understanding that there was no object at all. It spends a tedious several minutes demonstrating the connection between glare and objects emitting light, and multiple long, tedious disclaimers that it is not arguing that there is no object at all in the video. You have to want it to be saying something else to take away a different message.
  - ynniv 5y ago
    Of course you can, the submitted article does exactly that. His emotions convey that he knows exactly what's going on, and he states, repeatedly, that it is lens flare. Rationally we can see that this is missing the forest for the trees, but anyone who doesn't think as critically will deduce that this is only a camera artifact. He operates this way on purpose, so that people who want to believe him have the proof they are looking for, and everyone else will quibble about meaningless details. From the submission: A new detailed analysis of the modern poster child for UFO footage makes the case that the object in the video is not anything other than glare on the Navy jet’s gimbal camera system. Done. Pilots are idiots, and so are your open minded friends. Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk.
    - tptacek 5y ago
      He says literally the opposite thing, and at great, tedious length.
      - ynniv 5y ago
        He says that it is glare, at tedious length. As of last year he thought it was the exhaust of another aircraft[1], plus he has stated his goal is to debunk UFO videos. He could have spent some of his tedious length and extensive reconstruction demonstrating the apparent position and velocity of that other plane, but he chose to spend it going on about what he should think is an inconsequential detail. [ 1 https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jun/11/i-study-ufos-and-i-dont-believe-the-alien-hype-heres-why https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jun/11/i-stud... ]
        sho_hn 5y ago
        He says it is glare, yes, but he also references other IR camera footage to provide other examples of glare. And in each of the examples there is an object that is the source of the heat glare (e.g. a burning car). I had also never heard of this incident before. My takeaway from the video: There's a camera glare artifact around an object; the motion of the object has to be understood while taking the camera gimbal system's actions into account. The next step would be to model the object's motion while doing so and checking if it's doing anything interesting. I agree the video would be better if it made any effort to get into that. It's like Part I to a two-part story!
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

teawrecks 5y ago

The intention of the video is to show that there is no advanced technology or unexplainable phenomena captured in the video. If this is already evident to you, then the video isn't for you. But there are a lot of people who watch this video and think the object itself is rotating or deforming strangely, when in reality, all evidence suggests it's just some kind of terrestrial aircraft. Whether they know who/what is driving the aircraft is up to the Navy.