HN Theater @HNTheaterMonth

All of the hyped UFO videos released over the past few years are easily explainable given a basic understanding of geometry, imaging and gimbals.

Mick West has some great videos on it: https://youtu.be/Q7jcBGLIpus

⬐ throwaway29303

  All of the hyped UFO videos
  All

You should read and watch this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27349789

The original post was: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27348698

⬐ y-c-o-m-b

I'm not going to pretend I understand much of the math/physics involved here, but that comment about the object moving at 46,000mph has me very intrigued.

⬐ kadoban

That speed makes me less interested. It's more obviously a mistake of some kind.

⬐ smcameron

Mick West... after a bit of rummaging around in the cobweb infested corners of my brain I remember Cowboy Programming: https://cowboyprogramming.com/

⬐ helloworld11

I truly don't understand why everybody keeps referencing Mick West's debunking video of these pieces of UFO footage. He gives the distinct impression of being a smugly dogmatic "skeptic" who approaches this subject with all the answers set in his mind beforehand and then molds any arguments or evidence to fit what he's already convinced of, He does this as rigidly as a deep UFO nut would automatically assume something unusual in the sky is always aliens. Note that this behavior is emphatically not genuine skepticism, it's all the opposite in many ways and no more reasoned or rational than a blind belief in the paranormal.

I actually corresponded on the guy about inconsistencies in his own claims about the navy UFO videos and he gave no satisfactory justification for his extremely superficial arguments, which essentially focus on his own perceptions of inconsistencies in the footage itself and simply disregard weeks of repeated sightings, radar tracking and up-close eye-witness encounters between trained, professional pilots and the objects themselves in the air.

These are pilots who on at least a couple of these occasions observed the objects from fairly close range, in broad daylight and had their observations at least partially confirmed at the same time by also professional operators of sophisticated tracking systems (radar etc) onboard the Navy's ships.

Mick West mostly disregards all of this

Debunking with a critical eye is good and necessary but again, one sometimes one gets the feeling that certain debunkers feel a need to do so at all costs because that's their label, even if their own "rational" interpretations make leaps of logic much worse than simply admitting that something inexplicable was observed.

> I found 3 pentagon confirmed videos today of Unidentified flying shapes going super fast. Whatever they are, this is pretty surreal

If you're talking about the 3 videos I assume you are, I'd recommend checking out Mick West's videos on them:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7jcBGLIpus

⬐ maxharris

I'd recommend checking out Chris Lehto's videos. Lehto piloted F-16s and has a great deal of experience with FLIR imagery: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tyw4JA00AMc

⬐ treesprite82

Lehto's videos have some crucial misunderstandings - such as about focal length and hyperfocal distance central the point of his first video (https://i.imgur.com/8xAjbgg.mp4), and about weight affecting load factor in his latest video (https://i.imgur.com/n5vOzZI.png).

With corrections, people are getting around 15nmi using the same technique as Lehto.

Lehto seems intelligent and has very relevant experience though. I think he just made the mistake of jumping straight into the debate shortly after seeing the videos, when West has had years.

⬐ monkeydreams

Can you put [2020] in the title? These are not related to the new UFO videos from 2021, which appear to relate to different optical anomalies.

⬐ tiahura

Made me think of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26778406

⬐ dtx1

On FLIR: Here's a peer reviewed paper proving mick wests wrong: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336062892_Estimatin...

His explanation is "it only looks like it's moving, due to the zoom". This paper, as well as the pilot that took that video disagrees. Interview with Chad Underwood, the pilot that took the FLIR Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPXFcFyZma0&t=262s

Mick West never answered to this critique, nor did he publish any detailed analysis beyond "it only looks like it's moving". While he is correct more often then not, his knee-jerk approach to debunking without actually looking at the facts is tiring.

⬐ trott

> His explanation is "it only looks like it's moving, due to the zoom". This paper, as well as the pilot that took that video disagrees. Interview with Chad Underwood, the pilot that took the FLIR Video

Mick West's claim is that the object appears to be moving erratically because the camera keeps losing track of it. He specifically addresses the Underwood interview here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sqq4AsQch6g

⬐ dtx1

Thank you, yes but he does not address the peer reviewed paper, which is much more convincing in my opinion. And he does not do so because it's conclusions are not trivially debunked.

The majority of movement happens in the last few seconds of the video which the paper analyses. The tracker may have lost track, but as a reference the non-moving bars are still valid and we get heading information from the video as well, so a movement of the plane cannot be ruled completely but we know that if any movement happened it was within known bounds of less then a few degrees of angle at most.

If you take the time to read the paper you will see that they estimate the lowest possible acceleration of the object which ranges from 50% above what a tomahawk missile can endure to something insane like 5000g of acceleration.

This is all still non-conclusive but to state that the object isn't moving at all after the careful statistical analysis of the paper requires a lot more then just a few vague hypothesis without any math to back it up to be convincing. Again, i can only recommend reading the paper it's much more detailed then i could be in a comment.

Besides, i don't mind his analysis he's right about the new "pyramid ufos" beyond any reasonable doubt. He is also right about the gofast video, his math is trivial to validate, though no one who made the video has ever claimed the object actually went fast. It's just the video title.

As for the gimbal video, we don't know much about the events surrounding it, and while it does look like an exhaust rotating due to the camera system, there's still a lot unexplained there. The comments of the pilot on tape "it's going a 140 knots against the wind" and "look at the ASA there's a whole fleet of them" are interesting. Again nothing conclusive but without detailed sensor data and context, his explanation is no more or less convincing then no explanation at all. We simply don't know.

On the other hand, we do know a lot about the flir video and the context it happened in and as far as i'm concerned a peer reviewed paper trumps a science commentators vague hypothesis until we have either more data to confirm one hypothesis or the other or an error is spotted in either hypothesis.

⬐ helloworld11

Thank you for this link.

I truly don't understand why everybody keeps referencing Mick West's debunking video of the Nimitz UFO footage. I actually corresponded on the guy about inconsistencies in his own claims and he gave no satisfactory justification for his extremely superficial arguments, which essentially focus on his own perceptions of inconsistencies in the footage itself and simply disregard weeks of repeated sightings, radar tracking and up-close eye-witness encounters between trained, professional pilots and the objects themselves in the air.

These are pilots who on at least a couple of these occasions observed the objects from fairly close range, in broad daylight and had their observations at least partially confirmed at the same time by also professional operators of sophisticated tracking systems (radar etc) onboard the Navy's ships.

Mick West mostly disregards all of this

Debunking with a critical eye is good and necessary but sometimes one gets the feeling that certain debunkers feel a need to do so at all costs because that's their label, even if their own "rational" interpretations make leaps of logic much worse than simply admitting that something inexplicable was observed.

just because it hasn't been explained easily does not imply there's a problem with our beliefs about technology. for example, that they are objects at all is already an assumption that could be wrong. what do you make of this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7jcBGLIpus

Source? Here's mine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7jcBGLIpus

⬐ gdy

Perhaps, they meant Lex Friedman's follow-up to the interview

⬐ shadowprofile77

I truly don't understand why everybody keeps referencing the Mick West debunking video of this UFO footage. I actually corresponded on the guy about inconsistencies in his own debunking claims and he gave no satisfactory justification for his extremely superficial arguments, which essentially focus on his own perceptions of inconsistencies in the footage itself and simply disregard weeks of repeated sightings, radar tracking and up-close eye-witness encounters between trained, professional pilots and the objects themselves in the air. These are pilots who on at least a couple of these occasions observed the objects from fairly close range, in broad daylight and had their observations at least partially confirmed at the same time by also professional operators of sophisticated tracking systems (radar etc) onboard the Navy's ships. In the case of the Nimitz "tic-tac" UFO events from late 2014 this happened especially, during weeks leading up to the brief video that was finally captured. Mick West simply disregards all of this and in an email I wrote to him even claims that the weeks of incidents previous to the video being captured were "separate" events from the video because they didn't concretely, confirmably show the same thing.... What? An absurd conclusion.

Debunking with a critical eye is good and necessary but sometimes one gets the feeling that certain internet debunkers feel a need to debunk at all costs because that's their label, even if their own "rational" interpretations make leaps of logic much worse than simply admitting that something inexplicable was observed.

⬐ e2e8

My own view on this is that the only thing that is worth discussing here is the actual physical evidence that we have. Specifically, the 3 IR videos. Mick and others on youtube that I have seen give a very reasonable account of those videos. That is all the actual data we have. Everything else is just something somebody said and to me that is worth nothing. Trying to evaluate those accounts leads to very unproductive internet arguments. If somebody says there is other actual physical evidence, then lets see it and examine it. Until then the case is closed.

You mean these ones... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7jcBGLIpus

Save yourself time and watch the Mick West debunking videos... https://youtu.be/Q7jcBGLIpus

⬐ shadowprofile77

Oh please. His conclusions are awful and especially his conclusion on the 2004 video. I actually emailed the guy to clarify a few points just to see if i'd misunderstood something he'd said and no, as per our email exchange, he essentially bases his entire debunk on the video itself while totally ignoring the wealth of eyewitness accounts from all the days prior to it being recorded.

With that, he arrives at the conclusion that this was a plane (in the 2004 video), despite the pilots and radar operators involved emphatically stating very, very different observations about what they saw during the 2 weeks or so of these events.

Rational, analytical debunking is good, so long as it forms reasonable and grounded conclusions. In this case though, Mick West essentially seems to fall into the trap of: I'm a debunker, so I have to debunk, no matter the contortions and deliberate disregards involved.

It's unfortunate.

> these have low credibility

Lower then low, to the point that whenever somebody mentions them, I believe there was just a "wish to be true" and then stop.

When checked, it was just a "rerelase" of the old already published material (one can also think about to whose benefit that distraction was) which was already carefully debunked by Mick West:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7jcBGLIpus

Mick West's full playlist with explanations:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-4ZqTjKmhn5Qr0tCHkCV...

An article mentioning Mick West:

https://petapixel.com/2020/04/28/that-navy-ufo-footage-has-a...

Also, one day after NYT published their article "No Longer in Shadows, Pentagon’s U.F.O. Unit Will Make Some Findings Public" they published a correction too:

"Correction: July 24, 2020 An earlier version of this article inaccurately rendered remarks attributed to Harry Reid, the retired Senate majority leader from Nevada. Mr. Reid said he believed that crashes of objects of unknown origin may have occurred and that retrieved materials should be studied; he did not say that crashes had occurred and that retrieved materials had been studied secretly for decades. An earlier version also misstated the frequency with which the director of national intelligence is supposed to report on unidentified aerial phenomena. It is 180 days after enactment of the intelligence authorization act, not every six months."

Emphasis mine, now imagine how many articles in how many media were written before the above correction, and it will explain what most of the consumers got as the message (namely, the first, utterly fake version with fake "crashes").

Yes, and Mick West made more on that and similar topics:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7jcBGLIpus

Not weird at all:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7jcBGLIpus

Mick West's full playlist with explanations:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-4ZqTjKmhn5Qr0tCHkCV...

An article mentioning Mick West:

https://petapixel.com/2020/04/28/that-navy-ufo-footage-has-a...

https://petapixel.com/2020/04/28/that-navy-ufo-footage-has-a...

I thought this was a pretty good explanation of the 3 sightings:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7jcBGLIpus

⬐ lend000

Mick West's explanation of "Go Fast" seems highly plausible (the video could be reproduced by a weather balloon, with parallax producing the difficulty of getting a radar lock and the appearance of fast movement). But for the other two, even ignoring witness testimony, it seems like grasping at straws to fit a narrative to a predetermined conclusion.

⬐ beaner

The parallax explanation for the gofast video seems less believable when you view the video and consider the beginning of the footage, when the camera seems near-fixed and the object is flying quickly by it, and the operator has to actively track and lock-on to the moving object.

⬐ autokad

i dont understand how the background behind the 'balloon' could be moving so fast. I dont think it was a ufo, but I definitely do not think it was a balloon.

⬐ Johnjonjoan

Imagine the balloon is 2km up and the plane is 8km up. The balloon is stationary and the plane moving fast. The plane centres a camera on the balloon and maintains the centre.

As the plane flies over the balloon it is going to need to move the camera to keep it centred. When it does this the balloon remains centered (stationary) whilst the ground appears to move under it. However its just that the angle the camera is at had to change to keep the balloon centered giving the allusion that the ground is moving relative to the balloon.

⬐ beaner

But in the moments when the camera is at rest while the operator is trying to focus, the ocean is moving slowly in the opposite direction as the object, meaning that the jet is flying in the same direction as the object. If the object were static, then upon lock-on, the ocean in the background would slow down or reverse direction. What we see instead is that the ocean background speeds up, meaning the object is traveling faster than the jet in the direction the jet is going.

⬐ lytigas

The field of view of the camera is only 1.5x1.5 degrees[1], roughly 3x the size of the moon viewed from the ground.

[1] "NAR" in the upper left, and https://forums.vrsimulations.com/support/index.php/A/A_Forwa...

⬐ ak217

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20019375

⬐ javert

> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20019375

This is an amazing explanation.

If this is the explanation, why didn't the Pentagon just say so?

⬐ booleandilemma

We’re in the middle of a national crisis 20x worse than 9/11, and they need something to distract the populace with?

⬐ javert

But they don't need to distract the population from the coronavirus crisis.

⬐ lend000

I have a thread, too.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22353309

Frankly, I don't think these videos alone are the highest quality evidence of this kind of thing, but they are interesting because it is difficult to dispute the credibility of the witnesses and the timeline of events described by them. Usually you get some tangible evidence (video) or solid witness testimony, not both at the same time.

I've never clearly seen anything with my own two eyes that I couldn't explain in prosaic terms. However, I know groups of people saner than I who have, and science suggests its highly improbable we are the only planet with life [0], let alone the first one to evolve a sophisticated civilization. People come up with Great Filter hypotheses and what not to compensate, but considering we may be less than a century from self sustaining space stations, that hypothesis is running out of air for its only known test trial.

It kind of sucks to think we don't really have manifest destiny with the universe, but the burden of proof is on the skeptics to prove there are some really damning parameters for the Drake Equation before saying it is so unlikely that there are aliens in our neighborhood.

[0] https://exoplanets.nasa.gov/news/1350/are-we-alone-in-the-un...

⬐ hindsightbias

“When we update this prior in light of the Fermi observation, we find a substantial probability that we are alone in our galaxy, and perhaps even in our observable universe (53%–99.6% and 39%–85% respectively). ’Where are they?’ — probably extremely far away, and quite possibly beyond the cosmological horizon and forever unreachable.”

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1806.02404.pdf

Done and done.

⬐ lend000

Did you even try to understand the paper? They rightfully point out the uncertainty in estimating even the order of magnitude in the Drake equation, then build a model on uncertain, if not completely speculative facts including the Kardashev civilization model, and the validity of the "Fermi observation," which is in fact being debated in this very thread.

⬐ crashity2

Great Filter... you mean like a pandemic brought about by a population density and economic footprint that exceeds the carrying capacity of the planet? Handled ineffectively by a retarded former reality TV host? With a population desperate to "get back to business" at the peak of the disease because they want someone to do their nails?

No way a technological society could destroy itself through collective stupidity... just not possible.

⬐ gremlinsinc

Checks notes..yeah this works.. also checks notes.. nope this isn't reddit. (seems more like a reddit comment, an observation not a critique).

I think honestly humanity is being squandered by income inequality. Imagine if money wasn't an issue for anyone. Imagine that we had a HUGE appreciation of science so much so that 90% of kids grow up to be scientists and explorers.

Surely that would get us to have higher and better technologies and also get us further in space flight. But instead elites would rather the potential scientists of the future 'know their place' and remain there in poverty never getting a degree/etc...

⬐ rtsil

> considering we may be less than a century from self sustaining space stations

The jump between space stations and interstellar travel is huge. I agree that it's improbable that we're the only planet with life, but being visited by aliens is as, if not more, improbable.

Consider the age of the universe, our (humanity, with the ability to apprehend the existence of alien life) existence in it is but a blip. What are the odds that one or several forms of life capable of interstellar travel exist during that same time period, not before or after. That alone, among myriad other reasons, makes me pessimistic.

⬐ postalrat

If they are sending out probes how long do those probes remain active? Can they repair themselves or build more on their own? I assume that is what we would be seeing.

⬐ gremlinsinc

We should create message bots and probes who basically explore far reaches of space and categorize data, send it back to all other nodes and essentially make as detailed a 'map' of life/discoveries/etc so that not only we could use it benignly but so could other species who come after us. Assuming they could figure out and translate/understand how we categorize it.

⬐ incompatible

Wouldn't they have been easily observed by now, perhaps even making contact? Unless they are deliberately trying to remain unobserved, in which case being caught on video from an aircraft seems careless.

⬐ agumonkey

I liked the optical distortion idea. It's not super fitting to me, but it was a nice thought.

⬐ catalogia

If he's right about the Go Fast video, doesn't that call into question the others as well? They all come from the same organization; figuring out that one of the videos is obvious horseshit should have us extra suspicious of the others, no?

⬐ lend000

We don't know that he's right, and the Navy has officially verified the videos belong to them just last week -- these aren't a product of the organization that released them. However, the Go Fast video was not the interesting one from a witness testimony standpoint. See the Nimitz incident [0], in which the object was observed by dozens of witnesses from several vantage points, including three fighters (at two different times), the passive radar on the Nimitz (intermittently for over a week), and an AWACS.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Nimitz_UFO_incident

⬐ catalogia

Whether we know anything at all is a matter I'll leave to philosophers. I'm sufficiently confident that he's right about the Go Fast video that I'd bet my left nut on it.

The Go Fast video being wrapped up in this matter leads me to conclude that the Navy didn't try very hard to figure out that video, which leaves me with no reason to believe they tried harder with the others.

⬐ afpx

So... we should be able to reproduce the phenomenon?

⬐ hindsightbias

The go fast parallax explanation exposes just how impressive the Navy tech is, whereas we’re asked to believe Mark 1 eyeballs with very fuzzy videos or radar claims.

Same group claims USAF officers showed up demanding the E-2 Hawkeye tapes before they could even be secured. Did they use teleports or HALO to board a carrier that quick?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and these aren’t it. Tell me where the AF or VQ (Navy) ELINT aircraft were or what direction the antennas on St. Nicholas island were pointed.

⬐ Renaud

Another one released today by Thunderf00t:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfhAC2YiYHs

⬐ takeda

Also, I could swear I saw the gimbal and flir videos few years earlier. The time of release also seems like this is an attempt to draw attention away from the disinfectant and UV light blunder, as this administration did many times before.

The fact that one of the videos is called gimbal and another FLIR Forward Looking InfraRed), tells us that Pentagon knows those are artifacts and most likely those are training videos on how to distinguish artifacts from a real thing.

⬐ joshschreuder

As per Mick West’s vid, these were declassified in 2017 so it’s very possible you saw them earlier.

⬐ acqq

That's only the reminder in the sense of "I've made other videos before about that" of Mick West. The relevant playlist of Mick West with many videos with detailed analysis is:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-4ZqTjKmhn5Qr0tCHkCV...

For example

https://youtu.be/4Btns91W5J8

Explains how the camera's automatic tracking system contributes to the appearance of movements which aren't real at all.

Or:

https://youtu.be/PLyEO0jNt6M

how the appearance of the "fast movement" is actually due to the plane speed, not the speed of the object observed, which is almost certainly something simple like a weather balloon

...and much more details there.

⬐ kart23

It doesnt say anything about the radar readings recieved, or the pilots reactions. You dont think these navy pilots know what planes look like on their radar and thermals? Mutiple ship and aircraft radar picked up consistent readings, movements, speeds that simply weren't possible.

Personally, I think it's some black-budget government project that somebody wasn't supposed to reveal. It might be from us, it might be foreign. But I really dont believe its extraterrestrial.

⬐ lowdose

> Personally, I think it's some black-budget government project that somebody wasn't supposed to reveal.

That's exactly what they want their adversaries to think so adversaries are going invest a ridiculous amount of resources in achieving projected but non-existing capabilities.

Japan's FOMO reaction is proof this genius form of inception is working. The authority fallacy never fails at scale.

⬐ krapp

If our adversaries are that gullible and incapable of grasping even basic scientific principles, why should we be worried about them?

⬐ lowdose

Well they wouldn't be the first nation state to invest an enormous amount of resources in trying to develop science fiction like capabilities.

Excluding a range of possibilities with a reasonable amount of certainty is a very expensive exploration quest. After concluding it was all a wild goose chase it is still superior to nudge your adversaries in a direction that doesn't exclude this specific range of opportunities.

⬐ krapp

I feel like the range of possibilities that appears to break the laws of physics entirely doesn't need resources to exclude, at least in the absence of harder evidence than some grainy video. If you're referring to Star Wars, at least that seemed physically possible.

⬐ imtringued

The starting assumption was that the footage is showing things that are physically impossible. You do not actually need to find out the truth to disprove that statement. You just need to find a single counter example and that is exactly what the video is doing.

⬐ None

None

⬐ simonh

>It doesnt say anything about the radar readings recieved, or the pilots reactions.

To be fair, for the last video which shows telemetry data on the screen, he does explain what it means and how it shows that the object being tracked is actually stationary or moving very slowly.

As for the highly trained professional pilot's reactions, check out this breakdown of that last video, in which the pilots are freaking out. It show from the visual data readouts that it's a small object slightly above ambient temperature that's about 1m across flying very slowly at about 2k altitude. Oh and if you look closely at the object, you can see slow rhythmic oscillations, known in the technical community as 'flapping'.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmb8hO2ilV9vRa8cilis88A

⬐ highlysyntropic

So your idea is, that some YouTuber, who wasn't there, who doesn't have all the data, and who doesn't work with those advanced systems, somehow knows, from a low resolution video, how to correctly identify the objects, when the Pentagon, and the Navy, and the pilots, with all their experience and data, still are okay to call them unidentified?

That's a good one.

It's almost as if, the possibilities opened by it being unidentified are so scary (why?), you need to distort and pervert the normal faculties of reason and logic and kowtow to faith in a YouTube prophet who's gonna spin a nice story to make it all sound okay.

BTW, if you are feeling confident and like you can out-identify your defense forces, at least pick a theory that fits the data, rather than selectively ignoring inconvenient data.

I notice that all these prophets/conspiracy theorists, like Ms West and Mr Thunder, ignore that the aviators and radar tech have stated that there were fleets of these objects, coming in for days at a time, dropping from above 80kft to see level.

So fleets of weather balloons, space birds, or bird shit storms, that's really where you're going with this?

Good luck.

⬐ lgats

I do not think that was the [youtube] link you intended

I think you mean this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7jcBGLIpus

One thing that is not really explained is why experienced pilots would not be aware of the phenomena explained in this video. Seems to me they would experience this all the time.

fwiw I don't think it's actually an extraterrestrial object.

⬐ MuffinFlavored

what do you think it is? a really advanced hobbyist f*cking with society?

⬐ dorkwood

It's interesting that people jump straight from "object we don't understand" to "therefore it must have come from another planet". If I ever suggest to someone that it could be, for example, an animal that no one has ever seen before, atmospheric phenomena we've never observed before, experimental aircraft from another country, experimental aircraft from the US, disinformation campaign by the US military for some yet unknown reason, lone scientist's experimental drone, simultaneous hack of all pilots systems, etc, I'm usually met with "don't be silly, those are impossible". Well, why isn't "alien spaceship from another planet" also impossible? Why is that more likely than the other explanations?

⬐ morty_s

This. Being a pilot is a lot of work. Depending on the craft, there’s a lot of things you must know and commit to memory; some things shouldn’t be committed to memory (best if technical manuals, standard operating procedures, etc are used).

Very experienced pilots share similarities with very experienced engineers. Maybe the analogy I’m looking for is: an engineer might not know the capabilities and limitations of each peripheral device they use, but can still be experienced. Also bear in mind, that this type of piloting is a high-stakes job; extraterrestrial craft are arguably less common than those made on earth and the pilots probably take this into consideration.

That said, I think this this whole ordeal is really interesting. Reading the comments, I think the “lasers” and “plasma” stuff + dropping “vehicle” from the nomenclature (i.e. “unidentifiable aerial phenomenon”) is rather interesting.

Apparently, no real gymnastics needed — just some domain knowledge. I was also freaked out by these videos until I saw this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7jcBGLIpus

⬐ imustbeevil

You're citing a game developer, not a rocket scientist. He doesn't have any domain knowledge. The video you linked is the definition of "conjecture".

A Navy Pilot said he sat next to one of these things within eyeball vision and it disappeared. That's domain knowledge.

⬐ erdos4d

My friend, I'm sorry, but you really think this explains anything? As others have pointed out in this thread, this is for people who want this to be an understood phenomenon and are willing to turn their brain off to get there. Navy pilots can recognize planes and balloons, they aren't wowed and mystified by such objects. This video is just weak.

⬐ hindsightbias

Your multiple appeals to authority are just that.

If you can't debunk the math, take some.

⬐ erdos4d

Yes, I do find a bunch of navy pilots to be far better qualified to judge the object than this Mick West guy. They are literally trained to recognize this exact sort of object and motion. I guess they are wrong though cause they didn't make a video that says what a certain segment wants to hear.

⬐ catalogia

> Navy pilots can recognize planes and balloons, they aren't wowed and mystified by such objects.

I think you should consider the possibility that they are deliberately deceiving you. That certainly seems to be the case with the 'go fast' video. Public information on the gimbal camera equipment is lacking, but if the USN is willing to lie about the go fast video, they'd be willing to mislead people about the others as well.

⬐ imustbeevil

That sounds an awful lot like "don't trust anyone except me".

Why do you believe Mick West, the game developer that made Tony Hawk's Pro Skater, more than multiple retired Navy Pilots?

⬐ erdos4d

I just answered another post in a similar manner, but you bring it up, so I will reply to you as well. Why would the US navy want anyone to believe there is something buzzing about that they couldn't identify, and according to the pilots account, could literally smoke their ass? Have you noticed them saying such things in the past? I have not. Also, I am 100% sure they DO NOT want you to believe such a thing exists. In my experience, they want you to believe they could handle absolutely anything, that they are the baddest dudes who ever walked the earth, and you are 100% safe with them protecting you. Or something to that effect. Seriously, why would they lie about this? Does this position square up with any of their interests? Skepticism is fine, but not when it literally runs afoul of basic common sense.

⬐ catalogia

> Why would the US navy want anyone to believe there is something buzzing about that they couldn't identify, and according to the pilots account, could literally smoke their ass?

Maybe they think people will assume they're lying about skunkworks type technology, when in reality they're just lying about a weather balloon. This was my original assumption, that they were teasing the existence of radically new technology. However I think the conclusion that the gofast video actually shows a balloon is pretty damn airtight.

Mick West debunked these before:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7jcBGLIpus

⬐ themodelplumber

He's mostly "debunked" them for the group of viewers who really want this to be phenomena we already understand.

The broader group of researchers, who are open to anything from atmospheric physics phenomena to straight up aliens, are worth giving a listen regarding his debunking. IMO they ask good questions.

⬐ catalogia

Have you watched his debunking of the "Go Fast" video? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLyEO0jNt6M) I don't see any wiggle room around what he lays out, certainly not enough to warrant putting 'debunk' into "scarequotes". The object simply was not 'going fast'; it was a weather balloon sized object moving at weather balloon speeds that only looks like it's going fast due to parallax.

The only question in my mind is whether the USN is filled with fools who couldn't figure out what he figured out, or whether they're deliberately fucking with us. I'm strongly inclined to think it's the later.

⬐ afarviral

I just came here to share the same video from Mick West. It does seem that there are very "boring" explanations for the all of this footage.

⬐ erdos4d

Dude, navy pilots are trained to recognize this. They've had years now to come out with a statement saying it was a balloon and make it go away. They haven't and this story continues to pester their PR guys. But 'ol Mick here is way smarter than all of the pilots and the Navy experts and he says its a balloon, so they're all full of it and it's a balloon? I can't even begin to describe how dumb this sounds. Get real.

⬐ catalogia

Did you miss the "I'm strongly inclined to think it's the later." part? They're fucking with us.

⬐ erdos4d

Lol, let's mind-fuck the public and tell em there's shit running around that can radically outperform our best jets/pilots... Um, No. That's even dumber.

⬐ afarviral

Could it possibly be to inspire young minds, get easily influenced people hyped to a part of the military and perhaps see things no else gets to see?

⬐ catalogia

If there is an error in Mick West's debunking of the 'go fast' video that changes the conclusion, then please point it out. How fast do you think it's moving, and why do you think that? Otherwise I'm afraid I have a contrary opinion about who's being dumb here. All you've done in this thread is appeal to authority.

⬐ erdos4d

I do not know how fast it is going, but I also don't think this Mick guy can tell from the video either. We can't tell from the video because it does not have the required information for either me or Mick to make a determination. The pilots who took the video are very sure its going fast and I think they are correct. They had the extra sensory info to make that determination and I will side with them over what Mick or I can determine by looking at the video. I'm really surprised I have to say that on a board like this which is supposed to cater to intelligent professionals, but apparently I have to. There is no appeal to authority here, I am pointing out that the people who took the video obviously had information available to them that made them say it was moving and fast, plus they are trained to make precisely that determination. I mean, go believe the ex-dev who makes videos for a living if you want, I'm sticking with the pilots.

⬐ afarviral

I tend to agree that the debunking video is a little too sure of itself with regard to the speeds, though I think we could also be over-estimating the competence of the crew in the videos. Maybe they thought it was moving fast because they didn't take the time in those moments to read their instruments. As for the shapes of the objects, I would accept that they are most likely planes, and the rotation an artifact, but this doesn't rule out the possibility they are some classified new aircraft.

⬐ ilitirit

The immediate question that springs to mind is why the US Navy with all its sophisticated technologies were not able to identify these as known aircraft or balloons.

If they could identify these objects, why lie?

If they could not and these are in fact explainable as known craft/balloons, doesn't that imply a serious security risk?

⬐ koheripbal

Because the objects are products of the US gov't research.

Most likely, IMO, guided MRVs being tested. ...that's why the folks at ArmsControlWonk are suggesting as well.

⬐ d883kd8

From YT comments: Interesting times - the gvmt is releasing UFO videos and enthusiasts start debunking them. It used to be the opposite back in my day.

⬐ Daniel_sk

This explanation sounds plausible. I have a theory that maybe releasing this is also part of strategy to justify spending on the "Space Force" by Trump?...

⬐ dr-detroit

We will always have the mercury california raisins as proof of some conspiracy. They even officially colorized it! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQII-O6Nn2U

⬐ dtx1

He does not, he presents explanations that ignore almost half the facts and for the flir video is possibly factually wrong, as the object does seem to move in the video and not only the camera

While the "go fast" video might be a balloon and we lack enough evidence for the 'gimbal' case to dismiss his explanation (or metabunks for that matter) completely, the Context of the 'flir' video, beeing multiple people observing strange tic tac shape crafts (fravor and the other female pilot, so far unnamed), multiple radar systems picking up on them as confirmed by the princeton radar operator and the flir video showing what are possibly unheard of flight characteristics as analysed in this paper https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/21/10/939/htm make these superficial debunking claims rather tedious if not outright disingenuous.