10 ms·

> UAP are real I highly recommend Mick West's work on reconstructing the situations in each of the released videos so far: https://www.youtube.com/@MickWest ht

> UAP are real I highly recommend Mick West's work on reconstructing the situations in each of the released videos so far: https://www.youtube.com/@MickWest https://www.youtube.com/@MickWest His reconstructions make it clear that these phenomena result from properties of the optical system used in the sensors as well as diffusion of infrared light through miles of atmosphere.

superfist 2y ago
Every single data point in isolation can be ridiculated and twisted in many ways and this is what Mick West is doing. it is another story when you have series of multiple data points through long timeline with recurring patterns and have to make sense of them. UAPs are raported since at least WWII (foo figters), some accounts are traced even to ancient times.
- bloopernova 2y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autokinetic_effect?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autokinetic_effect?wprov=sfla1 That may explain some of the sightings. That article specifically mentions foo fighters in the context of night flying. Were foo fighters seen during the day too? (I haven't researched them at all) EDIT: Actually the foo fighters wiki article is pretty even handed I think: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foo_fighter?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foo_fighter?wprov=sfla1
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
v3ss0n 2y ago
Do you mean tictac and go fast videos ? Many military personnel, ex f35 pilots and other researchers had validated Ryan Graves and David Fravor claims and the footage - they aren't part of US technology. They had debunked Mick west skewed analysis and they are more credible than him . He never had flied a fighter jet he is a game programmer totally different areas of expertise
- dmix 2y ago
  Being a retired pilot doesn't make you an expert on quirks in very high tech camera systems either or provide some natural credibility that blurry phenomenon in the sky are credible evidence of anything.
  - revscat 2y ago
    It wasn’t only video. The reason the planes were scrambled in the first place was because of hits from the ship’s radar. The planes also saw them on radar. The pilots also made visual contact, and testified under oath before Congress as to what they saw. I’m sorry, but West is not convincing. He has a predetermined outcome in mind, namely, that there is nothing but man-made vehicles in the sky, and that there is zero chance for it to be anything else. Ever. This conclusion does not match the evidence, and symbolizes a tragic incuriosity about the possibilities the universe holds.
    - timschmidt 2y ago
      > It wasn’t only video. The reason the planes were scrambled in the first place was because of hits from the ship’s radar. The planes also saw them on radar. The pilots also made visual contact, and testified under oath before Congress as to what they saw. Unfortunately eyewitness testimony (even from trained pilots) is notoriously unreliable, and none of the other supposed evidence seems to be available for analysis. Mick doesn't seem to shy away from looking at any available evidence. It's not his fault that nothing incontrovertible has shown up yet.
      - PaulRobinson 2y ago
        You're right that eyewitness testimony can be unreliable, and that the supporting evidence - multiple independent radar traces from multiple different radar systems (ship and aircraft systems are built by different manufacturers, have different sensitivies, etc.), plus the video, plus the eyewitness testimony, plus the fact that while the raw data is not available to you to analyse the people who have analysed have sworn under oath that it all corroborates each other - may not be enough to meet your arbitrary bar, but I'm prepared to accept witness testimony which says "we don't know what that was, and perhaps we should figure that out some more", rather than your claim that because you can't independently verify it, we shouldn't figure out what it was because a guy on youtube can explain one single aspect of that evidence in a way that doesn't actually align with the entire scenario.
majorchord 2y ago
I feel like people will take the "UAP are real" comment completely out of context. They're only saying that "things exist that we can't (yet) explain", which we already knew to be the case. And if there were in fact footage from a short enough distance to see things clearly, then we'd already know what it is. In other words, nobody (credible) is claiming that aliens or anything of the sort exist.
- the_af 2y ago
  Unfortunately some people in this comments section are implying precisely that. And unfortunately, yet more people seem to not understand -- surprisingly, in a forum such as HN -- that "things exist that we cannot yet understand" is completely normal for science and it has been since humans engaged in science as a way of understanding more about the universe. "We don't understand this sensor data yet" is completely normal for science, it's not some shameful failure that must be covered up, the sure evidence that our models about everything are crumbling and secret 3 letter agencies must become involved to make sure Western civilization doesn't collapse. Geez.
  - revscat 2y ago
    > Unfortunately some people in this comments section are implying precisely that. I do not see anyone, let alone multiple people, making that claim. Can you link to one?
    - the_af 2y ago
      Easy peasy! Here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42160277 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42160277 And you here, though disguised so you have the easy way out of claiming you were just hypthesizing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42160930 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42160930 Plus, if you are going to claim the two aren't conflated in general, i.e. that most conversations about UFOs are also about ETs, then I'll peg you for a dishonest person and will have nothing further to discuss with you.
      - 2y ago
revscat 2y ago
West believes strongly that all reported phenomena will eventually be determined to have a prosaic cause. Further, ridicule and a discouragement of curiosity on the subject are of tantamount importance. Neil deGrasse Tyson is similar. They both approach the subject with a very unscientific, bad faith attitude. I disagree with them both. I have experienced something that I do not believe has a prosaic explanation. Further, I do not believe that relativity is the end of physics as Tyson or west so strongly imply. Curiosity in this subject should be encouraged, not ridiculed.
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  > I have experienced something that I do not believe has a prosaic explanation. Many people have. I have a friend who credits God for helping her find the perfect pair of shoes for her wedding. The range of what can be explained by a prosaic explanation is wider than most people like to admit.
  - binary132 2y ago
    how do you know He didn’t?
    - the_af 2y ago
      "God helped me find the perfect pair of shoes" is an untestable, unscientific claim. Whether you believe or not in god (and that he will busy himself with finding shoes for you), everyone will agree this is firmly outside the realm of science. So if we're writing this kind of assertions in a conversation about UAPs/ETs, what does this say about the latter? I don't think proponents of UAPs (especially UAPs-as-ETs) want them to be put side by side with "Jesus speaks to me".
      - revscat 2y ago
        Jesus doesn’t show up on radar.
        2y ago
schiffern 2y ago
>His reconstructions make it clear that these phenomena result from properties of the optical system used in the sensors as well as diffusion of infrared light through miles of atmosphere. West's analysis is a shallow one masquerading as a deep one. From his analysis on the (suggestively named) GIMBAL video, it's clear that the only thing his reconstruction proves is that the rotation ("It's rotating!") and outline is a result of the optics platform. I take no issue with that. The DoD's claims about extraordinary flight characteristics are not, however, based on the silhouette or the rotation. They have all the flight data from multiple aircraft and ground systems. Their conclusion is based on, at least, additional information from the Situational Awareness display ("There's a whole fleet of them, look on the SA"), the longevity of their flight time (reportedly 12+ hours per Lt. Ryan Graves), and hypersonic flight maneuvers (simultaneously observed both visually and on radar, per Cmdr. David Fravor and SCPO Kevin Day). Low-information UFO enthusiasts are the ones who got excited about the shape and rotation (which West focuses on), but the DoD never cared about that. Even the name GIMBAL suggests that they were already aware of those confounding effects prior to public release. Everyone interested in the topic should watch the Mick West videos, but be careful not to make more of his videos than what's actually there (ie the subset of claims he can support with reconstruction data).
- StanislavPetrov 2y ago
  I've still yet to hear anyone who insists that "these phenomena result from properties of the optical system" explain artifacts created by an optical system could also be observed visually by multiple trained pilots. When looking at all of the data, there are only two plausible conclusions one can reach. Either Cmdr. Fravor and all of the other Air Force officers are lying and in cahoots with the Navy to manufacture these events, or there is something tangible going on here that we don't understand.
- timschmidt 2y ago
  > it's clear that the only thing his reconstruction proves is that the rotation ("It's rotating!") and outline is a result of the optics platform. In addition, I've found his demonstrations of airplane bodies appearing as wingless tic-tacs in atmosphere due to light scattering, a very similar effect in which jet exhausts infrared blows out the contrast making it difficult to see any detail at distance, demonstrations of bokeh lens flare in several videos, and his speed reconstructions in simulation to be really useful. Particularly several which seemed after analysis to be mylar balloons. The process he demonstrates for looking up aircraft flight paths, loading them into Google Earth and interpolating through them is also really useful. I really appreciate the data-driven occams razor approach he takes to analyzing all the available evidence.
southernplaces7 2y ago
I'm absolutely sick of seeing Mick West's analyses get trotted out every time some of these more concrete pieces of evidence get presented. For one thing, he makes arguments in bad faith and with poor use of honest analysis. Consequently, many people have done a pretty thorough job of debunking his own debunking efforts (you can easily find some of these through both a YouTube or a Google search). West takes a very classic debunker approach (not that I don't say skeptic, but debunker specifically) of prima facie deciding that the inexplicable can't possibly be the case and thus guiding all of his arguments, rather dogmatically, to showing how it isn't the case, regardless of the quality or plausibility of what he argues. It's a dishonest and tedious way to view the world, but couched in enough rational sounding discourse to seem solid. Many people give such arguments more weight than they deserve because, well, nearly any aspect of examining the UFO phenomenon is at least associated (often very unfairly) with the most extreme of quacks and cranks and thus bias tends towards giving more weight to a seemingly skeptical interpretation, regardless of its specific qualities. I've communicated with West on this subject even and noticed quickly that when questioned on the weaknesses of specific arguments, he simply doubles down on his base statements, but without addressing the precise counter-skepticism being thrown at him. This does not make for honest reasoning and good faith..

superfist 2y ago

Every single data point in isolation can be ridiculated and twisted in many ways and this is what Mick West is doing. it is another story when you have series of multiple data points through long timeline with recurring patterns and have to make sense of them. UAPs are raported since at least WWII (foo figters), some accounts are traced even to ancient times.

bloopernova 2y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autokinetic_effect?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autokinetic_effect?wprov=sfla1 That may explain some of the sightings. That article specifically mentions foo fighters in the context of night flying. Were foo fighters seen during the day too? (I haven't researched them at all) EDIT: Actually the foo fighters wiki article is pretty even handed I think: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foo_fighter?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foo_fighter?wprov=sfla1

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

v3ss0n 2y ago

Do you mean tictac and go fast videos ? Many military personnel, ex f35 pilots and other researchers had validated Ryan Graves and David Fravor claims and the footage - they aren't part of US technology. They had debunked Mick west skewed analysis and they are more credible than him . He never had flied a fighter jet he is a game programmer totally different areas of expertise

dmix 2y ago
Being a retired pilot doesn't make you an expert on quirks in very high tech camera systems either or provide some natural credibility that blurry phenomenon in the sky are credible evidence of anything.
- revscat 2y ago
  It wasn’t only video. The reason the planes were scrambled in the first place was because of hits from the ship’s radar. The planes also saw them on radar. The pilots also made visual contact, and testified under oath before Congress as to what they saw. I’m sorry, but West is not convincing. He has a predetermined outcome in mind, namely, that there is nothing but man-made vehicles in the sky, and that there is zero chance for it to be anything else. Ever. This conclusion does not match the evidence, and symbolizes a tragic incuriosity about the possibilities the universe holds.
  - timschmidt 2y ago
    > It wasn’t only video. The reason the planes were scrambled in the first place was because of hits from the ship’s radar. The planes also saw them on radar. The pilots also made visual contact, and testified under oath before Congress as to what they saw. Unfortunately eyewitness testimony (even from trained pilots) is notoriously unreliable, and none of the other supposed evidence seems to be available for analysis. Mick doesn't seem to shy away from looking at any available evidence. It's not his fault that nothing incontrovertible has shown up yet.
    - PaulRobinson 2y ago
      You're right that eyewitness testimony can be unreliable, and that the supporting evidence - multiple independent radar traces from multiple different radar systems (ship and aircraft systems are built by different manufacturers, have different sensitivies, etc.), plus the video, plus the eyewitness testimony, plus the fact that while the raw data is not available to you to analyse the people who have analysed have sworn under oath that it all corroborates each other - may not be enough to meet your arbitrary bar, but I'm prepared to accept witness testimony which says "we don't know what that was, and perhaps we should figure that out some more", rather than your claim that because you can't independently verify it, we shouldn't figure out what it was because a guy on youtube can explain one single aspect of that evidence in a way that doesn't actually align with the entire scenario.

majorchord 2y ago

I feel like people will take the "UAP are real" comment completely out of context. They're only saying that "things exist that we can't (yet) explain", which we already knew to be the case. And if there were in fact footage from a short enough distance to see things clearly, then we'd already know what it is. In other words, nobody (credible) is claiming that aliens or anything of the sort exist.

the_af 2y ago
Unfortunately some people in this comments section are implying precisely that. And unfortunately, yet more people seem to not understand -- surprisingly, in a forum such as HN -- that "things exist that we cannot yet understand" is completely normal for science and it has been since humans engaged in science as a way of understanding more about the universe. "We don't understand this sensor data yet" is completely normal for science, it's not some shameful failure that must be covered up, the sure evidence that our models about everything are crumbling and secret 3 letter agencies must become involved to make sure Western civilization doesn't collapse. Geez.
- revscat 2y ago
  > Unfortunately some people in this comments section are implying precisely that. I do not see anyone, let alone multiple people, making that claim. Can you link to one?
  - the_af 2y ago
    Easy peasy! Here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42160277 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42160277 And you here, though disguised so you have the easy way out of claiming you were just hypthesizing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42160930 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42160930 Plus, if you are going to claim the two aren't conflated in general, i.e. that most conversations about UFOs are also about ETs, then I'll peg you for a dishonest person and will have nothing further to discuss with you.
    - 2y ago

revscat 2y ago

West believes strongly that all reported phenomena will eventually be determined to have a prosaic cause. Further, ridicule and a discouragement of curiosity on the subject are of tantamount importance. Neil deGrasse Tyson is similar. They both approach the subject with a very unscientific, bad faith attitude. I disagree with them both. I have experienced something that I do not believe has a prosaic explanation. Further, I do not believe that relativity is the end of physics as Tyson or west so strongly imply. Curiosity in this subject should be encouraged, not ridiculed.

ceejayoz 2y ago
> I have experienced something that I do not believe has a prosaic explanation. Many people have. I have a friend who credits God for helping her find the perfect pair of shoes for her wedding. The range of what can be explained by a prosaic explanation is wider than most people like to admit.
- binary132 2y ago
  how do you know He didn’t?
  - the_af 2y ago
    "God helped me find the perfect pair of shoes" is an untestable, unscientific claim. Whether you believe or not in god (and that he will busy himself with finding shoes for you), everyone will agree this is firmly outside the realm of science. So if we're writing this kind of assertions in a conversation about UAPs/ETs, what does this say about the latter? I don't think proponents of UAPs (especially UAPs-as-ETs) want them to be put side by side with "Jesus speaks to me".
    - revscat 2y ago
      Jesus doesn’t show up on radar.
      - 2y ago

schiffern 2y ago

>His reconstructions make it clear that these phenomena result from properties of the optical system used in the sensors as well as diffusion of infrared light through miles of atmosphere. West's analysis is a shallow one masquerading as a deep one. From his analysis on the (suggestively named) GIMBAL video, it's clear that the only thing his reconstruction proves is that the rotation ("It's rotating!") and outline is a result of the optics platform. I take no issue with that. The DoD's claims about extraordinary flight characteristics are not, however, based on the silhouette or the rotation. They have all the flight data from multiple aircraft and ground systems. Their conclusion is based on, at least, additional information from the Situational Awareness display ("There's a whole fleet of them, look on the SA"), the longevity of their flight time (reportedly 12+ hours per Lt. Ryan Graves), and hypersonic flight maneuvers (simultaneously observed both visually and on radar, per Cmdr. David Fravor and SCPO Kevin Day). Low-information UFO enthusiasts are the ones who got excited about the shape and rotation (which West focuses on), but the DoD never cared about that. Even the name GIMBAL suggests that they were already aware of those confounding effects prior to public release. Everyone interested in the topic should watch the Mick West videos, but be careful not to make more of his videos than what's actually there (ie the subset of claims he can support with reconstruction data).

StanislavPetrov 2y ago
I've still yet to hear anyone who insists that "these phenomena result from properties of the optical system" explain artifacts created by an optical system could also be observed visually by multiple trained pilots. When looking at all of the data, there are only two plausible conclusions one can reach. Either Cmdr. Fravor and all of the other Air Force officers are lying and in cahoots with the Navy to manufacture these events, or there is something tangible going on here that we don't understand.
timschmidt 2y ago
> it's clear that the only thing his reconstruction proves is that the rotation ("It's rotating!") and outline is a result of the optics platform. In addition, I've found his demonstrations of airplane bodies appearing as wingless tic-tacs in atmosphere due to light scattering, a very similar effect in which jet exhausts infrared blows out the contrast making it difficult to see any detail at distance, demonstrations of bokeh lens flare in several videos, and his speed reconstructions in simulation to be really useful. Particularly several which seemed after analysis to be mylar balloons. The process he demonstrates for looking up aircraft flight paths, loading them into Google Earth and interpolating through them is also really useful. I really appreciate the data-driven occams razor approach he takes to analyzing all the available evidence.

southernplaces7 2y ago

I'm absolutely sick of seeing Mick West's analyses get trotted out every time some of these more concrete pieces of evidence get presented. For one thing, he makes arguments in bad faith and with poor use of honest analysis. Consequently, many people have done a pretty thorough job of debunking his own debunking efforts (you can easily find some of these through both a YouTube or a Google search). West takes a very classic debunker approach (not that I don't say skeptic, but debunker specifically) of prima facie deciding that the inexplicable can't possibly be the case and thus guiding all of his arguments, rather dogmatically, to showing how it isn't the case, regardless of the quality or plausibility of what he argues. It's a dishonest and tedious way to view the world, but couched in enough rational sounding discourse to seem solid. Many people give such arguments more weight than they deserve because, well, nearly any aspect of examining the UFO phenomenon is at least associated (often very unfairly) with the most extreme of quacks and cranks and thus bias tends towards giving more weight to a seemingly skeptical interpretation, regardless of its specific qualities. I've communicated with West on this subject even and noticed quickly that when questioned on the weaknesses of specific arguments, he simply doubles down on his base statements, but without addressing the precise counter-skepticism being thrown at him. This does not make for honest reasoning and good faith..