HN Theater @HNTheaterMonth

The best talks and videos of Hacker News.

Hacker News Comments on
Joe Rogan Experience #1361 - Cmdr. David Fravor & Jeremy Corbell

PowerfulJRE · Youtube · 28 HN points · 19 HN comments
HN Theater has aggregated all Hacker News stories and comments that mention PowerfulJRE's video "Joe Rogan Experience #1361 - Cmdr. David Fravor & Jeremy Corbell".
Youtube Summary
Commander David Fravor is a retired US Navy pilot, who has a close encounter in 2004 with the so-called Tic Tac UFO, and Jeremy Corbell is a contemporary artist and documentary filmmaker.
HN Theater Rankings

Hacker News Stories and Comments

All the comments and stories posted to Hacker News that reference this video.

  For one thing, first-person accounts, which are notoriously inaccurate to begin with, don’t provide enough information for an empirical investigation. Scientists can’t accurately gauge distances or velocity from a pilot’s testimony: “It looked close” or “It was moving really fast” is too vague. What a scientist needs are precise measurements from multiple viewpoints provided by devices that register various wavelengths (visual, infrared, radar). That kind of data might tell us if an object’s motion required engines or materials that we Earthlings don’t possess.
It's true that first-person accounts are sometimes inaccurate, but in the Nimitz case, we have, I believe, eight pilots in total who actually saw the object. The first incursion by David Fravor and his co-pilot Alex Dietrich and a second plane; and the second incursion - by other pilots which I don't know the names of - on which there's brief footage of the object[0]. Not only there's first-person accounts there's also devices which registered these objects. Nimitz caught these objects, in fact, they not only caught several of them, the incursions were made in order to check out what was going on.

I wish these "devices can be faulty," (knowing that people actually looked at the object in loco) "people can be bad first-person accounts" memes actually died once and for all in this particular case. It feels like people don't actually go out and do their due diligence. I feel people either aren't listening or paying attention. I'm okay with being skeptical - and I am one! - but lets be reasonable here. Lets listen to what people said, what the devices actually read, what the footage actually shows and what the story actually tells. Lets not just dismiss for the sake of it. Sometimes saying "hey I don't know what that is" is probably the most reasonable conclusion.

And no I'm not saying it's aliens, I'm just saying we don't know what those are. However, I do, like most people, know what those aren't.

I recommend watching:

  The Nimitz Encounters (2019)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e9NoKp8EnE

  Joe Rogan Experience #1361 - Cmdr. David Fravor & Jeremy Corbell (2019)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eco2s3-0zsQ

  David Fravor: UFOs, Aliens, Fighter Jets, and Aerospace Engineering (2020)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aB8zcAttP1E

  Navy pilots recall “unsettling” 2004 UAP sighting (two weeks ago)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygB4EZ7ggig

There's certainly more out there, this isn't an exhaustive list.

[0] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWLZgnmRDs4

alexfromapex
I believe the radar detected the objects reached speeds around 46000 miles per hour and based on rough estimation would need more power than ten times all of the United States nuclear power to achieve those speeds at an estimated weight of 1000kg. Page 3 bottom paragraph, source: https://res.mdpi.com/d_attachment/proceedings/proceedings-33...

Considering the fastest known human aircraft currently holds speeds ~7000 mph this is either insanely advanced technology, equipment malfunction, or aliens.

egfx
Where did you hear 46,000mph? I believe 14,000mph was mentioned in the 60 minutes episode. It’s amazing to think that even at 46,000 mph that it is still ~3x slower then a meteor entering the earth’s atmosphere.
helloworld11
Also, the PDF he links to does indeed mention 46,000 mph
helloworld11
Comet. Meteors normally fly at speeds of about 40,000 to 80,000 mph. Comets tend to be the much faster moving celestial objects. Though comets can also travel faster or slower, and tend to move more slowly while in deep space, speeding up as they approach the sun.
Check out these patents currently assigned to US Secretary of Navy and invented by "Salvatore Cezar Pais"

https://patents.google.com/?inventor=Salvatore+Cezar+Pais

Then think about the tic tac ufo UFO reports from US Navy fighter pilots [1]

What's going on here? Disinformation campaign from US Navy? Actual patents? Maybe the downloadbal PDFs are malware vectors for espionage?

Seems highly unlikely that this tech actually exists AND is publicly available information, right?

[1] https://youtu.be/Eco2s3-0zsQ

raiflip
Regardless of whether or not gravitons actually exist, it is feasible that the US government will want to signal to adversaries that they do have this technology. After all, a deterrent is useless if your adversary doesn't know it exists. You can't be deterred by something you don't know about.
jml7c5
It's crackpots the whole way down. The whole Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (which is responsible for the release of the Navy UFO videos) was spearheaded by Robert Bigelow, who bought "Skinwalker Ranch" because he believed there were inter-dimensional portals and aliens were mutilating cows.

It turns out crackpots can get government funding, too.

jb775
I don't see any reason for a public patent besides disinformation. I don't think any foreign gov would fall for this, so my guess is a disinformation campaign against average people...to make them think this is the current state of flight technology. (I think it's significantly greater. The underlying mechanisms here have been known for a very long time. Just look into the details and date ranges of: the piesel electric effect, work of Harold Aspden, Planck's equation, Maxwell's equation, Robert Adam's motor, Dewey Larson physics)
radicaldreamer
Can you elaborate on what you think the current state is?
hindsightbias
With such a wide diversity in radical patents, Occam’s Razor should be applied. He is either a magnitude more brilliant than Einstein or he’s a crackpot.

“There is no relationship whatsoever between my assigned duties and the invention. The invention was made independently of any job performance or assigned tasks by the Branch or Section.”

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/37134/emails-show-navy...

gbh444g
Or maybe he's another Edison. I mean, he's likely the nominal inventor: other people do the research, but only his name appears on papers.
hindsightbias
Any of 5 or so of those patents would win a Nobel Prize if real. And any PhD working with/for him would have strangled him already if he left contributors off.
frongpik
Nobel prize is a measly sum of money split among all contributors, plus some fame.
ubertoop
That's fair, but then how do you explain the Tic Tac UFO reports from US Navy pilots? [1]

[1] https://youtu.be/PkPn-YMp9vI

nobodywasishere
All three of these videos have perfectly reasonable explanations. See [1] [2] [3]

[1] https://youtube.com/watch?v=mfhAC2YiYHs

[2] https://youtube.com/watch?v=3viYcYPRdu4

[3] https://youtube.com/watch?v=jWWGmiZs4JA

hindsightbias
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagan_standard

Worlds most advanced Navy systems and crews and all I get are fuzzy pics and descriptions.

_gt8f
Might be worth something to watch part of the Lex Fridman interview with one of the pilots, David Fravor. The entire podcast is four hours long and goes over his career and experiences, I'd argue establishes him as a competent naval officer and pilot. The timecode is when he describes the actual event- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aB8zcAttP1E&t=4264s

In the interview he also describes the record keeping process and basically some of the head scratchers you're bringing about.

One other thing the pilot confirms in that interview is the validity (authenticity) of the leaked "Executive Summary" report, which, was leaked to media and (as far as I know) not really pursued for authenticity verification by others (PDF):

https://media.lasvegasnow.com/nxsglobal/lasvegasnow/document...

mcswell
I think it was Richard Feynman who said the easiest person in the world to fool is yourself. I have no doubt this pilot is a good officer and pilot, but that doesn't mean he saw what he thinks he saw.
_gt8f
Oh, no, sorry - I deliberately didn't interpret the validity of the claim or try to address it. I don't live in the dream land, and I try to double check reality best I can.

To this day all I have from all this is head scratching and we have no proof of anything aside from that the Pentagon -for whatever reason- has confirmed that the cockpit videos were genuinely released by them. You can request them yourself from the Pentagon, directly.

I am convinced that the man is a good officer and a competent pilot. That is all. Occam's razor: things outlined in that report are true -or - the man is a true patriot, participating in a disinformation campaign design to bankrupt the Chinese or Russians in attempting to recreate some of the very expensive things outlined in the larger picture described here.

But I keep peeled to anything related to this story because the implication behind the claims are potentially world-changing.

user3939382
Yeah this was multiple teams of trained military. Fravor had a team of 4 pilots in two planes witness the same thing. The Pentagon subsequently released multiple videos recorded by different teams featuring a craft exhibiting the same behavior with the observations spanning both coasts. This tic tac testimony and evidence, as far as I know, exceeds the credibility of any other UFO report we've ever had. It's not definitive proof of aliens but it definitely warrants attention.
ubertoop
He is not the only highly qualified navy pilot who saw these crafts. [1]

And the 2004 event is not the only time the US Navy has seen these crafts. There was another event in 2014. [2]

[1] https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/12/tic-tac-ufo-video-q-...

[2} https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/26/us/politics/ufo-sightings...

Jan 14, 2021 · lend000 on CIA Releases UFO Documents
Posting the Mick West explanation is the go-to response for critics who have done the bare minimum research. And I have to give him credit -- his explanation of parallax as it pertains to Go-Fast is compelling and probably accurate. We don't have a whole verified narrative with multiple angles/witnesses (besides the two pilots) to enrich that incident.

I'm referring to the Nimitz incident. I don't mean to offend you, but I can say confidently there is information you have yet to consume on that incident. Taken alone and with no context, the IR video isn't convincing proof of anything, and West points that out, while ignoring that there is other information. But there is more verified info from the original NYT piece that makes this case special [0]. How do you explain the fact that passive radar from the ship was tracking this object on and off for two weeks before they finally deployed a squadron to investigate it? How do you explain the fascinating pilot testimony (they had multiple angles, by the way) of the white round object flying around erratically, then mirroring their descent, then shooting off into the sky [1]? Or the fact that their primary radars were being jammed (technically an act of war)?

Any of these pieces of information taken alone could be inconclusively explained away, but as you compound them, forcing a "normal" explanation looks more and more like the Catholic church telling Galileo that the cosmos orbit around the Earth.

[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/26/us/politics/ufo-sightings... [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eco2s3-0zsQ

Joe Rogan interviewed David Fravor, a retired Navy pilot, alongside a documentary maker who was interested in UFOs. The conversation was cautious but not particularly skeptical.

It sounded like Mr. Fravor saw something in his airspace with his own two eyes. I don't know what it was (blimp, foreign aircraft, whatever), though I doubt it was extraterrestrial. (Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence)

I couldn't spot anything obviously wrong with Mr. Fravor's story by itself.

On the other hand, if the DoD wanted to nudge their pilots to report things they see, and had a story like David Fravor's to put out there in order to encourage current pilots to report what they see, that would be a propaganda event to encourage, so to speak, at least by declassifying harmless footage and not squashing the story.

https://youtu.be/Eco2s3-0zsQ

throwaway316943
If you take him at his word then whatever he saw was not something we know how to build. Not unless you have a blimp that can go from hovering over the ocean to matching a Super Hornet in a tight spiral, cut across the middle and accelerate so fast that it’s gone in a blink. He could be lying though.
rmrfstar
Yeah, if you had a crazy new electronic warfare technique you'd probably spread as much FUD as you could. You'd also spread FUD if you had nothing, Star Wars style. It's definitely one of those two things.
subsubzero
I saw the Fravor interview with Joe Rogan. Lex Fridman interviewed him as well and that was pretty detailed. Its an interesting case as you had radar data(unsure if that was released) along with pilot eyewitnesses from both Fravor and the other fighter jet pilot that saw it. What Fravor said about the craft was if it was US based why have it be in an active area where fighter jets are training(this could lead to collisions etc).
Absolutely, David Fravor’s (the pilot who actually chased the thing) interview with Joe Rogan[1] was one of the most compelling eyewitness accounts I’ve seen, and with that the associated video has a lot more context.

If these things really do behave in the way he’s described, ET or not it suggests a fundamental leap in technology - it baffles me that there isn’t more interest.

[1] https://youtu.be/Eco2s3-0zsQ

One of the Navy Pilots from the Nimitz incident talks about those details on Joe Rogan: https://youtu.be/Eco2s3-0zsQ
Apr 29, 2020 · 4 points, 0 comments · submitted by Osiris30
And here's the pilot of that encounter in an interview: Joe Rogan Experience #1361 - Cmdr. David Fravor & Jeremy Corbell (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eco2s3-0zsQ)
Here’s an interview with one of the Navy’s pilots that actually chased one of those things! https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Eco2s3-0zsQ
The theory that this is US-controlled drone tech does not jive with the claims made with regards to aerodynamic performance by David Fravor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eco2s3-0zsQ

Basically, skeptics need to embrace the idea that such an off-the-cuff, obvious theory like "it's drone tech" or "it's Chinese or Russian tech" like the one you mention is well outside the realm of things that should be taken seriously, given the current up-to-date evidence and claims. Such a theory would have to additionally claim that the existing evidence is completely fabricated, and those involved going on record are complete frauds or disinformation agents. Theories that at least include those aspects would have much more credibility, given that they at would at least fit the evidence, but would require a high degree of assumptions.

Frankly, a much less reaching theory at this point is that we simply don't know what these things are, have completely failed to determine it, and can't safely conjecture anymore they are human created or purely natural phenomena. This is a perfectly suitable place to be given our place in the universe and our current level of understanding, and doesn't require any further leaps to explaining their origin beyond "we just don't know." Its fair to speculate, but we should recognize most of such speculations are probably unfalsifiable.

In terms of action, it does mean we should try to find out more if we haven't yet fully exhausted our ability to do so. Hard to say, given the evidence, if our government has done so, but civilian industry certainly hasn't.

jml7c5
That video has been convincingly explained here, without resort to secret or alien technology: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLyEO0jNt6M
tgflynn
The US Navy has said that they are unable to identify the objects in those videos. Assuming they aren't lying I would be inclined to think that they would be better at identifying those objects than a retired video game developer (no disrespect to Mick intended). If he is right then it's a case of gross incompetence on the part of the military, which would be a huge concern in itself.
lend000
West does have a convincing explanation for "Go Fast" which certainly looks like it could be a weather balloon due to parallax (ignoring the pilot testimony at least) -- but if you look at his attempt to describe the Nimitz one, it's pretty weak. He claims it's a reflection of "a distant jet" that would have had to be in restricted airspace, and despite the pilots having a visual on the same object, and the Nimitz's passive radar detecting the object and sending the fighters to intercept it at the correct location in the first place. That would also be a tremendous design error or equipment failure on the targeting pod, which seems unlikely given that all the other data for that encounter supports the video.

There were three videos disclosed, and only one has a convincing explanation (not the most famous one the parent is describing). The one present in the parent's linked video referred to the Nimitz incident, where the pilot is the commanding officer for the first squadron that went in and observed the object, whereas a second group went in and filmed the tape that was eventually released hours later. You should watch the interview and see if Fravor seems legitimate to you -- it's a great listen.

jml7c5
>He claims it's a reflection of "a distant jet" that would have had to be in restricted airspace, and despite the pilots having a visual on the same object, and the Nimitz's passive radar detecting the object and sending the fighters to intercept it at the correct location in the first place.

There was no visual on the object in the FLIR1 video. The video was taken hours after the visual encounter with the tic-tac. The plane that took the video was not vectored to the object in the FLIR1 video. Rather, they were flying south when their radar picked up an object 30-40nm away. They viewed it on FLIR, and saw a blob. At no point did they have a direct visual of it.

As they had been told about the tic-tac encounter from other pilots, who had told them to be on the lookout and to try to record it, they were very susceptible to incorrect interpretation. It is very plausible that they recorded a distant fighter moving in same direction as them and jumped to conclusions.

-----

I would argue that the "Gimbal" explanation West has is very convincing. In particular, the supposed rotation of the craft is clearly just the camera rotating.

lend000
> There was no visual on the object in the FLIR1 video.

Do you have a source for this? I've heard rumors there was an interview with the radar operator but haven't seen it myself. In any case, this is almost certainly the same object that was visually observed from multiple angles hours prior, which had been jamming the previous fighters' radars and observed passively from the Nimitz, considering it had been tracked in the general vicinity of the carrier strike group for over a week prior (passively by the Nimitz).

> I would argue that the "Gimbal" explanation West has is very convincing.

These radar systems do not typically suffer catastrophic breakdowns (such as locking onto a false bogie) from any causes shy of physical trauma or targeted jamming techniques. These things are sent back to the contractor for repair if they fall outside of a very tight spec range during regular testing, long before any discernible error would show up. Even when jammed, the state of the art wouldn't likely be able to create a false bogie in this spectrum; a jamming signal would manifest as intolerable noise throughout the image. If glare was not only visible, but allowed a system lock, that is a catastrophic system failure and not something that would be overlooked -- it would be sent back to the contractor for repair and the entire incident would be scrapped for this reason.

No malfunctions were reported on the receiver chipset, the pod, or any other component for either the Gimbal or the Nimitz recordings, to my knowledge.

Mick West is a smart guy, but he clearly does not know radar and is grasping at straws here. And he doesn't even attempt to describe the extremely precise relative orientations that would be required of two distant objects to keep the "glare" in the exact center of the lens while the fighter is moving about and recording the video.

I'm glad for his analysis to rule out the Go-Fast video as inconclusive at best. I have no interest in wasting time on false leads. But for the other two, we have legitimate, exotic phenomena that no one has successfully explained away, and it's increasingly seeming impossible to do so without venturing beyond the boundary of our current circle of knowledge.

lend000
> You mentioned restricted airspace etc, but AFAIK there's no info on the GIMBAL video apart from that it was taken somewhere on the East Coast.

Correct, there is significantly less background here than on the Nimitz video, to which I was referring.

I've seen all of Mick West's videos in this playlist now, and his explanation for the Nimitz footage is even weaker than for Gimbal. He skips the difficult points such as accounting for movement of the object and the momentary loss of radar lock for FLIR-1, and for the relative positioning required to keep a distant reflection in the center of the lens for Gimbal. He fixates on the rotation of the targeting pod, which may be valid, but doesn't seem as interesting to me as the fact that there are no heat plumes coming from this "jet" in Gimbal. Not to mention, neither of you seem to appreciate how catastrophic of a design failure it would be to have distant glares generating opaque images and radar locks. If there is one area where defense contractors innovate, it is in meeting specs and testing. If the specs are not met, you end up in F-35 hell, not in production.

>just that the glare makes it look like something more fantastical than it is Btw, the glare would still be moving or disappearing entirely relative to the image as the craft rotates and moves forward with more sensitivity the further the object was. If it was truly a distant second object casting this consistent glare, that object would be performing even more impressive maneuvers than the described UFO's, keeping the exact same angle between the pod lens and itself for an extended period as the fighter moved about.

I encourage you and Mick to keep challenging these videos, but don't be satisfied unless someone is able to replicate it (not a part of it, the whole thing). If it isn't exotic, it can be replicated, so the burden of proof has finally shifted now that we have reasonably solid evidence and credible witness testimony all together in a content treasure trove.

An aside: every legal system in existence is built around witness testimony -- even in the digital age. Do you believe Bill Cosby is innocent? Because there is far more evidence of exotic phenomena than of Bill's criminality, and yet only one is socially acceptable (although that is slowly changing), and most people follow the herd.

Another thought experiment: if you lived in Galileo's time with your same personality - who do you side with, honestly? The Catholic Church, or the heretic who believes in planets orbiting the Sun?

If you ever decide there is indeed "a phenomenon" occurring, and you want to learn more about it, there are far more interesting cases than the ones we've discussed, although I know of no single incident with the same volume of highly credible data as this 2017 release.

jml7c5
I pulled most of my info from these two posts: http://parabunk.blogspot.com/2019/07/aatip-tic-tacs-and-more... http://parabunk.blogspot.com/2018/07/the-2004-uss-nimitz-tic...

>Do you have a source for this?

It seems the source used is more suspect than I'd like. It's the "executive report" from the To The Stars Academy which I am loathe to put any trust in. The quote in question is "LT ______ was clear in that he couldn't confirm that it was the same object as described by the FASTEAGLE flight. He never had visual, only seeing the object via the FLIR."

---

>a jamming signal would manifest as intolerable noise throughout the image

What sort of jamming signal are you referring to? The video doesn't involve radar, and I was under the impression that the only effective way to disable FLIR is to shine a laser at it.

>And he doesn't even attempt to describe the extremely precise relative orientations that would be required of two distant objects to keep the "glare" in the exact center of the lens while the fighter is moving about and recording the video.

I'm not sure what you mean with two objects. Can you elaborate? As I understand it, the theory is that there is a single hot object (or perhaps a two-engine jet) in the distance. The glare in the FLIR image is produced in the same fashion as the glare in a regular camera pointed at a bright object; nothing needs to be precisely positioned.

You mentioned restricted airspace, but AFAIK there's no info on the GIMBAL video apart from that it was taken somewhere on the East Coast.

lend000
> You mentioned restricted airspace etc, but AFAIK there's no info on the GIMBAL video apart from that it was taken somewhere on the East Coast.

Correct, there is significantly less background here than on the Nimitz video, to which I was referring.

I've seen all of Mick West's videos in this playlist now, and his explanation for the Nimitz footage is even weaker than for Gimbal. He skips the difficult points such as accounting for movement of the object and the momentary loss of target lock for FLIR-1. He fixates on the rotation of the targeting pod, which may be valid, but doesn't seem as interesting to me as the fact that there are no heat plumes coming from this "jet" in Gimbal. It seems like his whole gimmick is to find one nitpick and claim victory, not to try to piece together the full, most accurate story of what was witnessed given all the information. Not to mention, neither of you seem to appreciate how catastrophic of a design failure it would be to have distant glares generating opaque images and target locks. If there is one area where defense contractors innovate, it is in meeting specs and testing. If the specs are not met, you end up in F-35 hell, not in production.

Take a look at Fravor describing the video step by step which may clear up some of your questions -- my link skips right to where he walks through the videos, but the whole interview is fascinating, minus Corbell [0].

>just that the glare makes it look like something more fantastical than it is

Perhaps I misunderstand the way you were ascribing it to glare? The image is pretty much the same in TV mode and I believe the pod can even hold a target lock while flying directly into the sun. This is partially because of the radar component providing ranging, which Fravor describes is being jammed in the FLIR1 video, interestingly. Nothing else will be close to the same intensity as the sun, nor will it stay on the center of the target, if you are suggesting there are two objects overlaid. If you are instead saying the whole video is of one glare and the pod had a catastrophic system failure by allowing that, that seems like a huge logical jump.

> I was under the impression that the only effective way to disable FLIR is to shine a laser at it.

That is more or less my point.

I encourage you and Mick to keep challenging these videos, but don't be satisfied unless someone is able to replicate it (not a part of it, the whole thing). If it isn't exotic, it can be replicated, so the burden of proof has finally shifted now that we have reasonably solid evidence and credible witness testimony all together in a content treasure trove.

An aside: every legal system in existence is built around witness testimony -- even in the digital age. Do you believe Bill Cosby is innocent? (I don't) Because there is far more evidence of exotic phenomena than of Bill's criminality, and yet only one is socially acceptable (although that is slowly changing), and most people follow the herd.

Another thought experiment: if you lived in Galileo's time with your same personality - ask yourself honestly: who would you side with? The Catholic Church, or the heretic who believes in planets orbiting the Sun?

If you ever decide there is indeed "a phenomenon" occurring, and you want to learn more about it, there are far more interesting and weirder cases than the ones we've discussed, although I know of no single incident with the same volume of highly credible data as this 2017 release.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eco2s3-0zsQ&feature=youtu.be...

firethief
> Frankly, a much less reaching theory at this point is that we simply don't know what these things are, have completely failed to determine it, and can't safely conjecture anymore they are human created or purely natural phenomena. This is a perfectly suitable place to be given our place in the universe and our current level of understanding, and doesn't require any further leaps to explaining their origin beyond "we just don't know." In terms of action, it does mean we should try to find out more if we haven't yet fully exhausted our ability to do so. Hard to say, given the evidence, if our government has done so, but civilian industry certainly hasn't.

This is compatible with dvh's theory AIUI, which is not about explaining this particular case but about explaining why we're hearing about this stuff. If the government wants people to report UFO sightings, and they're encouraging it by amplifying instead of suppressing certain UFO reports, why would they shine the spotlight on the reports that are actually their top-secret drones? They'd pick something like this, where no one actually knows wtf it is. They don't have to fake the incident, they just pick something weird that happened and say "hey media, check this out".

zuckluni
What a time to be alive.

I never thought I'd see it, but it's happened.

The tipping point has been reached where conspiracy theories denying this stuff have become crazier than the reports of it.

I think a new and very rich vein of crazy is about to make itself available to the masses for their entertainment, that is the mental gymnastics some people will tie themselves into to deny the existence of something which they find impossible to face.

jeffrallen
Are you taking about climate change or UFOs?
saber6
Re conspiracy theories - I basically admitted we (I) don’t know shit after the Snowden leaks. We joked about the NSA mass spying on us for years. It wasn’t a joke.

I have no information that leads me to believe UFO-tech is in a different category currently. It’s probably real. Just a question of when we all learn about it.

firethief
I specifically haven't taken a position on what the sightings actually are. I'm speculating on why the government has changed their approach to information about UFO reports. I think they want to avoid the Streisand effect that happens around UFO coverups, and maybe also encourage reporting (because if some UFOs are actually foreign tech (aliens included I guess), they'd want to know)--they can easily do both by getting it on the news as a normal weird thing we hear about and shrug.
tgflynn
I think the fact that 13 years passed between the Nimitz incident and it's public disclosure makes it highly unlikely that it was an intentional disinformation campaign.
firethief
I think a lot of things make that highly unlikely, but I'm not sure why you're telling me?
firethief
If you're saying it wasn't staged, I'd agree that that's obviously true.
tgflynn
Yes, that's what I meant.
A slow reply... but I didn't read that article, I was assuming it was the same one from this pilot's testimony on joe rogen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eco2s3-0zsQ

The pilot was saying that the ship had been picking up unknown objects on radar for a while before that experience.

I'm definitely extremely skeptical about whether or not its true, but the theory being argued for the nimitz sighting is that it bends space in front of and behind the craft for propulsion, but not sure what that would mean for sonic booms. It's kind of like putting a bowling ball on a bed and pushing your hand down in front of the ball and pulling up on the bed behind it to move the ball. Again, I'm very skeptical about it.. but it seems potentially plausible. This joe rogan episode where he interviews a navy pilot was pretty interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eco2s3-0zsQ
Dec 22, 2019 · 2 points, 0 comments · submitted by evo_9
Joe Rogan did a great Podcast with one of the pilots in this incident:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eco2s3-0zsQ

Here's a short clip from it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnIG-i2WCfg

He's really knowledgeable, has a ton of flight experience and carefully details everything his and the other pilots see from their aircraft.

krtkush
Fighter Pilot Podcast had him too. It was great to listen to - https://www.fighterpilotpodcast.com/episodes/035-ufos/
blhack
Yeah I loved that episode! I would love to see somebody who could lean against him intellectually interview him though.
multiplegeorges
This is a criticism that could be made of every Rogan episode.
There is a Joe Rogan podcast with David Fravor, a pilot who also saw it. I believe he explains it's all visual locking but there are a lot if different camera types.

https://youtu.be/Eco2s3-0zsQ

djsumdog
Yep, I was going to mention that podcast. They have a camera pod that can literally just track fast moving objects visually (probably uses computer vision stuff internally). He also mentions how the camera pods can switch between standard, IR and a few other modes. The IR didn't show any heat large heat sources, which you'd see on a commercial jet liner or fighter jet.
mathgenius
I'm interested, but this is all I have to say about it: get a bunch of physicists in a room and I'm sure they could come up with 100 other possible theories for this other than "aliens did it". I'm not saying these theories will be particularly convincing, some of them may involve time-travel (physicists are a whacky bunch) but these UFO people seem to be locked into a way of thinking of these things as solid objects zooming around, "an f-18 couldn't do that" etc. etc. Meh.
Joe Rogan also had an interview with him recently: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eco2s3-0zsQ
Is this a submarine[1] article? Honestly reads like CIA agitprop regarding UFOs and the like. I mean, he quite literally says in the subtitle:

> should remind us that seeing shouldn't mean believing.

It's clear to anyone who has done research into UFOs that the whole phenomena was a US military psyop (I can provide sources if anybody asks). However, the new stuff coming out from the community may finally reveal the truth: [2][3]

[1] http://paulgraham.com/submarine.html [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEWz4SXfyCQ [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eco2s3-0zsQ

ksaj
Paul's got a point there. Remember for a while they kept telling us that boy skirts were becoming the norm. Other than the occasional and very rare Utilikilt that I saw in one season and never again since, nope, there was no "norm" attributed to boy skirts.

But they kept hammering at it for a few years, and even had a few male runway models wearing boy-skirts. You still never see them out in the wild. A lot has to change before you will.

This is the other use of the term "social engineering." It doesn't always work. But it is always obvious in hindsight.

I was watching Roe Rogan's podcast with one of the Tic-Tac incident jet pilot, in particular this part:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eco2s3-0zsQ&t=35m50s

[A cube floating into a spherical force field]

It made me thought of Salvatore Pais other patents on the subject.

Last week Rogan had Capt Fravor who was one of the alleged witnesses to the "tictac" video that the pentagon confirmed the legitimacy of 2 years ago. Worth watching if you're into this kind of thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eco2s3-0zsQ

not_real_acct
> Last week Rogan had Capt Fravor who was one of the alleged witnesses to the "tictac" video that the pentagon confirmed the legitimacy of 2 years ago. Worth watching if you're into this kind of thing.

On Rogan's forum, I posted an explanation of how these Navy "UFOs" work. I've included a history of their progress and citations:

https://old.reddit.com/r/JoeRogan/comments/dfehjt/an_explana...

LoveDeathRobots
https://old.reddit.com/r/JoeRogan/comments/dfehjt/an_explana...

> The US Navy has made it abundantly clear that they have this technology .. When motionless, the craft point their gravitational waveguides DOWN, which causes them to hover.

OK then, tell us why they allowed two shuttles to explode rather than use this gravitational waveguide technology?

not_real_acct
Because the technology was classified at the time.

In 2008, a CIA analyst named "Ron Pandolfi" signed off on the declassification of the technology in a documented that he signed, here : https://fas.org/irp/agency/dod/jason/gravwaves.pdf

Pandolfi testified before the senate in 1998 in regards to the Chinese stealing U.S. technology:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/campf...

The US patent office rejected the Navy's patents initially, then signed off on them after the Navy protested that China was working on something similar. Details here : https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/28729/docs-show-navy-g...

pedrocr
>In 2008, a CIA analyst named "Ron Pandolfi" signed off on the declassification of the technology in a documented that he signed, here : https://fas.org/irp/agency/dod/jason/gravwaves.pdf

That document says very clearly the technology is not feasible.

not_real_acct
> That document says very clearly the technology is not feasible.

Yes, that's true. In the declassified document from 2008, they explicitly said it was unfeasible.

In the patent from ten years later, they explain how they did it.

Here is a cut and paste from the Navy's patent (https://patents.google.com/patent/US10322827B2/):

"The JASON report considers relatively low EM energy fluxes, when compared with those generated by the physical mechanisms described in the inventor's aforementioned published paper (on the order of 1033 W/m2, and beyond). This exceptionally high EM power intensity induces spontaneous particle pair production (avalanche) out of the vacuum of free space, thereby, ensuring complete polarization of the local Vacuum energy state, thus resulting in modification of the local spacetime energy density. It is because of this fact, that the JASON report's conclusions must be revisited, are incorrect, and are directly in conflict with the current invention."

In my Reddit post, I get into more detail, in regards to the relationship between JASON and the US Navy. (JASON was a program started by DARPA, who created the Internet.)

istorical
Did your post get deleted? Anyone have a screengrab?
frickinLasers
The whole account was deleted, with all the author's replies in the thread gone too.
bzgai
What did it say?
noodle_face_
You can always try Removeddit. Just replace reddit in the URL with removeddit, like so:

https://removeddit.com/r/JoeRogan/comments/dfehjt/an_explana...

frickinLasers
So, um...does anybody have a copy of this post?
runjake
I'm not going to refute your post, as I can't think of anything more plausible.

But, I will mention that flying a Navy aircraft dangerously close to other military aircraft -- especially between aircraft in formation is aside from being highly-dangerous, is highly-frowned upon, and highly unprofessional.

I don't see US military flight crews taking this risk, even if they are piloting "black" aircraft. I don't see this scenario happening (without an accompanying court martial).

Citation: Served in military in this area. FWIW, I have no better idea of what's going on than the rest of you, other than:

1. The possibility it's a government-manufactured hoax in order to misinform somebody for some reason, or...

2. A multi-spectral (visual/IR/radar) spoofing of some sort, which would mean the US could test things on live crews without actual danger to the crews.

penagwin
I was thinking the same thing. The only other thought was they were testing to see if our own procedures could detect the craft?

But then I would have expected the crews who saw it to be quickly hushed - not publicly talking about it.

mr_overalls
Tom Mahood - a UFO skeptic with an advanced degree in physics - gives a plausible argument that the Air Force has been testing particle beams designed to spoof radar for quite a long time at Groom Lake.

https://www.otherhand.org/home-page/area-51-and-other-strang...

"The way it works is like this. When directed toward the sky, a properly tuned proton beam, focused by magnetic lenses, would pass through the first few thousand meters of air with no apparent effect. If the energy levels are adjusted right, the beam itself wouldn’t be visible. Then, when the energy of the beam dropped to a critical value, it would dump its remaining energy in a very short distance, ionizing the oxygen and nitrogen atoms of the atmosphere, causing one damn fine glowing ball of plasma."

"Assuming a circular beam aperture, the plasma would also take on a circular shape. Viewed from the side, the plasma would have a lenticular cross-section, and possibly even a different color from the bottom to the top due to the energy gradient of the dying beam. Very much like a spectral distribution). In short, it would look just like a glowing saucer. The beam could quickly be moved laterally, giving the plasma the appearance of instantly moving across the sky, much as a searchlight can jump 'instantly' across the bottom of a cloud."

hos234
This is from 2004, way before stealth drones went mainstream but all were in development.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_RQ-3_DarkStar

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_Polecat

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_RQ-170_Sentine...

starpilot
This was a really good podcast if you've been following this stuff, and cleared up many of the inquiries posted on HN. Some key points:

- The object had been tracked for 2 weeks by radars: SPY-1 (ship) and E-2 (AWACS aircraft)

- Pilot made naked-eye visual contact with the tic tac from above, watching it move over the water

- There was a cross-shaped wake under it

- It jammed their radar when they attempted a lock, which is why they switched to passive tracking (IR)

- Visual estimate of the speed puts it at faster than mach 3 (SR-71), with instantaneous acceleration

On the show, the pilot pointed out the white "aura" around object in the IR video feed. Since it was set to black-hot, this would mean the nearby air was for some reason colder than the ambient air. He said this was also visible to naked eye as a "bubble." Anyone know of any propulsion that would be associated with a temperature drop to the vehicle surface, along with optical distortion?

Edit: There's a good chance the "aura" is an image processing artifact: https://www.metabunk.org/nyt-gimbal-video-of-u-s-navy-jet-en...

Also since it was black, its surface was hot, not cold.

clSTophEjUdRanu
I'd be very interested to see what sort of jamming was used. What shape were those pulses? Incredibly interesting that whatever it was would know to jam radar.
starpilot
Yeah. To me this is the biggest indicator that it is of terrestrial origin.
tanseydavid
If the craft actually creates a 'vacuum' at the quantum level it seems superficially reasonable to think that it might jam conventional radar as an effect of how it 'deals with energy' rather than an intentional jamming system.

But I must admit I know very little about these things.

yetihehe
Yeah, some aliens can fly through galaxy, use methods of flying we don't know, but can't reason about usage of a radar beam?
starpilot
Dumbass. You know what I mean.
mrfusion
If it was cold maybe it’s something with superconductors.
not_real_acct
> Anyone know of any propulsion that would be associated with a temperature drop to the vehicle surface, along with optical distortion?

Check out my Reddit post, I go into greater detail on how these work.

In layman's terms, a vaccuum has been created around the skin of the craft. That vaccuum allows the craft to travel at speeds far beyond an SR-71. And, interestingly, allows them to travel underwater!

The US Navy patent doesn't describe a temperature differential, but it's possible that the absence of air (or water) around the skin of the craft is causing a temperature differential and the 'halo' that you see in the videos that were confirmed "authentic" by the Pentagon.

Check out the Navy's patent here : https://patents.google.com/patent/US20170313446A1/

a quote from it:

"An artificially generated high energy/high frequency electromagnetic field (such as the fields an HEEMFG can produce) can fulfill all three conditions simultaneously (especially in an accelerated vibration/rotation mode), when strongly interacting with the local vacuum energy state. These interactions are induced by the coupling of hyper-frequency axial rotation (spin) and hyper-frequency vibration (harmonic oscillations/abrupt pulsations) of electrically charged systems (high energy electromagnetic field generators), placed on the outside of the craft in strategic locations. [0024]

In this manner, local vacuum polarization, namely the coherence of vacuum fluctuations within the immediate proximity of the craft's surface (outside vacuum boundary) is achieved, allowing for ‘smooth sailing’ through the negative pressure (repulsive gravity) of the ‘void’ (the void within the vacuum). It may be stated that the void ‘sucks in’ the craft."

Did you watch the latest interview with David Fravor on Joe Rogan's show? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eco2s3-0zsQ
egfx
I did and watched the whole 2 hours. He curiously glosses over the apparent frequency of the events as in, did it just happen in those 2 weeks, and no mention really if there is enough data to prove that these are truly solid objects with mass. That’s why I’m curious to know if the radar is sensitive to mass.
Oct 08, 2019 · 18 points, 0 comments · submitted by dfischer
Oct 06, 2019 · 4 points, 2 comments · submitted by starpilot
None
None
maxharris
Here are some things to watch and read - all from mainstream media sources - if you haven't seen any of this before:

Anderson Cooper on CNN: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60ZJQ4I7_3M

Michio Kaku: https://facebook.com/michiokaku/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWEhY5NzaBQ

New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/26/us/politics/ufo-sightings... https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/26/science/tom-delonge-ufo-r... https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/26/us/politics/ufo-sightings... https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/18/insider/secret-pentagon-u... https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/us/politics/pentagon-prog...

Vice: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqdOXfuzDIw

The Hill: https://thehill.com/homenews/house/460334-top-homeland-secur...

Politico: https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/06/navy-withholding-u... https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/23/us-navy-guidelines...

The Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2019/09/18/...

starpilot
New info from a pilot involved:

- The object had been tracked for 2 weeks by radar, SPY-1 (ship) and E-2 (AWACS aircraft)

- Pilot made visual contact with the tic tac from above, watching it move over the water

- There was a cross-shaped wake under it

- It jammed their radar when they attempted a lock, which is why they switched to passive tracking (IR)

- Visual estimate of the speed puts it at faster than mach 3 (SR-71), with instantaneous acceleration

HN Theater is an independent project and is not operated by Y Combinator or any of the video hosting platforms linked to on this site.
~ yaj@
;laksdfhjdhksalkfj more things
yahnd.com ~ Privacy Policy ~
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.