HN Theater @HNTheaterMonth

This is the footage from the 2004 Nimitz Incident that is one case study in the paper:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rWOtrke0HY

This is another more compelling video, but was not covered in this paper (was from 2015):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxVRg7LLaQA

The US Navy has certified that these videos are authentic, and were not for public release. [1]

1 - https://time.com/5680192/navy-confirms-ufo-videos-real/

⬐ SiempreViernes

The 2004 video looks a times like it's something like dust in the detector: implausibly steady small scale features seemingly unconcerned with atmospheric noise.

I find it strange that the twisting motion at 2:04, is attributed to object acceleration instead of the telescope turning to avoid the pole of an alt-az mount.

⬐ typeformer

The object turns on its end and the pilot saw it do this with his own eyes, it's an is aerodynamically unstable position.

If you want more info regarding the AtFlir system see the link in this post:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21013316

⬐ arthurcolle

I hope they release an HD version of the normal video feed at some point. There might be a mountain of potentially usable data that isn't being released at present.

Apparently during the Nimitz incident there was a brief period where there were hundreds of these UFOs that descended from the sky (upper bound that the radar picks up is 80,000 feet, and these were at picked up at that altitude) and were basically tracking the Nimitz Strike Group. Such a wild story.

⬐ openasocket

I hope they release the raw footage with telemetry data. I'm not sure about ATFLIR specifically, but I know that these sorts of systems usually embed actual telemetry data in the feed (in a similar way to close captioning data) which is then rendered onto the video by the media player. All these copies of the footage are of the video after being rendered, with the data stripped out.

⬐ dfsegoat

According to the Sr. Radar/EW officer on the USS Princeton which had all the radar tracks (Kevin Day I believe) - all of the data were wiped.

"Despite this, Day intended to write an after-action message about the encounter. When Day went to review the records from the previous day, all the data was gone. He never wrote the after-action message." [1]

[1] - http://entertainermag.com/blog/2019/08/30/exploring-the-unbe...

⬐ Enginerrrd

I can't help but notice that in the first video, the sensor switches from aimed to the right, to being aimed to the left as it tracks the object. Then, at the peak of left facing azimuth, the object coincidentally zooms off to the left in the direction of what I assume is airflow around the sensor. That sure sounds consistent with a piece of debris stuck to the lens cover, but I'm lacking a lot of critical information.

⬐ typeformer

There were multiple jets scrambled, they all tracked the objects, with radar, infrared video, high-def video, and laser range finding. Why are people so stubborn about this?

⬐ humble_engineer

There is this phenomena with UFO's, I don't remember the name of it, but it goes like this, even if they landed at the White House and CNN covered it, there would still be people who were doubtful, just because it would be the most significant event in human history, so given that these are not that case, but just strong evidence, there will be a lot of people who are essentially morons.

⬐ rasz

Just like in that 2018 Gatwick Drone situation!

⬐ Iv

Having spent a few years in skeptic groups helping debunk aliens and yeti footage, I must say that these are refreshing documents: authenticated videos, sensors are specified, we even have original audio of one!

I would like to just ask something I may have missed: how did they shield themselves from the (very) classic error of mistaking something small and close, like a bird or a bug, for something big and distant? There is an abundance of footage of blurry insects close to a camera being mistaken for very fast alien ships.

I mean, this is supposedly locked by radars, why is the distance measured by those not given?

And I must say, reading the analysis of the Nimitz incident by this paper, it is a glorious case of over-analysis. They base themselves on an oral recollection of approximate values, add to it wild assumption ("Since we want a minimal power estimate, we took the acceleration as 5370 g and assumed that the UAV had a mass of 1000 kg.") and to unnecessarily complicated calculations to guess random things about this supposed vessel.

Also worthy of note is that this is part of a program [1] paid by a senator in the direction of a close friend, who is a UFO enthusiast, and had to justify spending 22 million USD with some things.

In such a case, I don't think they have an excuse for not having actual radar data as well. I suspect such data would dismiss cases as something easily identifiable like a meteorite.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Aerospace_Threat_Iden...

⬐ typeformer

We know for sure that at least the radar from E-2C Hawkeye plane in the area that had returned was confiscated by plainclothes officials who landed on the Nimitz via helicopter.

⬐ lolc

How do "we" know this?

⬐ typeformer

Because the guy on the plane responsible for the data testified on camera that he was instructed to grab the the "bricks" (specialized hard drives) immediately upon landing and they were then confiscated and quickly flown off of the carrier rather than being stored in the safe as per usual.

Watch Histoy's Unidentified series.

⬐ lolc

Oh ok. I don't trust that story. Sounds like somebody is embellishing if not inventing things. It's unfortunate but this is my general experience with UFO events that get publicized. People confabulate stories that fit the alien origin and government conspiracy narrative.

Time to slink out now for me. I derive some entertainment from the puzzling over what a UFO might be. The ensuing unwarranted speculation into alien origins puts me off. And the people who posit a government conspiracy tend to assume just those origins.

⬐ saul_goodman

In all of this, folks should just go back to this interview with one of the pilots (Commander Fravor) who was one of the 4 people who actually saw the tic-tac thing first hand. Even he calls BS on some of the claims others involved (radar and technicians) have made. So, I would be careful about accepting some of the less directly involved parts of the 2004 story at face value. This doesn't diminish the incident at all, just shows how incidents like this can become twisted over time.

This jumps to some of his comments about the other folks involved in the story: https://youtu.be/f7XJD_54aNk?t=549

Another part of what he says: https://youtu.be/f7XJD_54aNk?t=1868

Say what you will of Corbel, but the entire 2 hours of interview are worth watching, Fravor is about as solid of a person to report this as you can get.

⬐ dfsegoat

> Also worthy of note is that this is part of a program [1] paid by a senator in the direction of a close friend, who is a UFO enthusiast, and had to justify spending 22 million USD with some things.

Per your link, the AATIP program you are mentioning only ran from 2007-2012, and was then dissolved. The new videos are from 2014/2015 etc. and with this all happening now, why do they have to justify anything for a program that no longer exists?

Further, I don't think $22M really needs to be justified "with some things" when compared to the remainder of defense spending:

- The Air Force is spending $850M to replace a $5 part in the W88 nuclear warheads currently in service. [1]

- A single F-35 aircraft in FY2019 is $85M. [2]

... compared to these, you can probably find dozens of small DOD programs that were laughable, but still ate $20-100M with zero accountability [3].

1 - https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/30039/u-s-to-spend-hun...

2 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning...

3 - https://www.fbo.gov/index.php?_psort=current_set_aside_s-d-a...

⬐ saul_goodman

I'm all for calling out BS where it exists, but lets get our facts straight. The program (AATIP) existed beyond 2012, they just changed how it was funded. Luis Elizondo, former lead investigator for AATIP, explains this here: https://youtu.be/D3r6SmrCUM0?t=706

⬐ dfsegoat

I was not aware! Thanks for the education!

side note: Somebody should probably clarify this in the wiki article for AATIP:

> Although the official AATIP program has ended, a related group of interested professionals have extended the effort, founding a nonprofit organization called "To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science".

The videos in the article are Gimbal[1] and Go Fast[2]. The incident that occured in 2004 is FLIR1[3].

This[4] analysis of Go Fast is pretty good, and sounds plausible, the author concludes that it's most likely a bird. He also analyzes FLIR1[5] and takes a look at Gimbal[6]. To me, it seems like FLIR1 might just be another jet moving away, and the "Tic-Tac" shape is just the IR-cone of a jet exhaust. As to Gimbal, Parabunk has yet to offer an analysis...

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tf1uLwUTDA0

[2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxVRg7LLaQA

[3]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rWOtrke0HY

[4]: http://parabunk.blogspot.com/2018/04/analysis-of-ttsa-2015-g...

[5]: http://parabunk.blogspot.com/2018/04/the-2004-uss-nimitz-tic...

[6]: http://parabunk.blogspot.com/2018/04/ttsa-gimbal-and-go-fast...

⬐ godelski

Honestly my first thought after watching Go Fast was a bird. I've never flown as fast as these guys, but it looked a lot like when you see a bird underneath you. Seeing the analysis and that the pilots thought it was much closer to the ocean I can see the confusion. But I think the author put it well, that if you realize that it is not low flying, end of story.

I wouldn't be surprised if there were a ton of stories like this. Flying is stressful and hard on the brain. It is easy to think something is at a different altitude or speed than it really is. If I made that misjudgement I'd be certain I saw a UFO too.

⬐ repolfx

Hmm, are there many Ocean going birds that can fly at 50mph?

⬐ mikeash

How certain is that speed?

⬐ oliveshell

Apparently yes. It looks like the Grey-Headed Albatross, a pretty large seabird, can reach a maximum horizontal speed of nearly 80 mph:

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

⬐ noetic_techy

Can't be. Only 3 albatross species exist in the northern pacific and none of them fit the length: Short-tailed albatross, Black-footed albatross, Laysan albatross. None of which are long enough head to tail.

The only other explanation is a Brown Pelican, which is too slow average 25 mph.

https://sora.unm.edu/sites/default/files/journals/jfo/v049n0...

⬐ godelski

The question was about if. So average speeds aren't great. We actually need to consider two different speeds. The obvious is maximum horizontal speed. The other isn't so obvious, maximum dive speed. We don't really know if the bird is flying horizontal to the ocean or it is diving. It could be flying somewhere in between. I did find a mention of a brown pelican diving at 41mph (which seemed like an average number). Consider that it might be higher than normal, better winds, just a stronger bird, or slight radar errors tracking such a small object, and that extra 9mph doesn't seem unreasonable. Or... it could not be specifically a brown pelican and just some other bird that fits the parameters. There are quite a lot that have diving speeds WELL over 50mph.

⬐ None

None

⬐ mikeash

It always strikes me when these stories mention the UFO’s speed and altitude, usually presented as confirmation that the object is beyond known technology.

You cannot determine the speed or altitude of an unknown object visually! Close and slow looks just like distant and fast. Unless you have some other way to determine one of those variables (being able to judge the distance because you know the size of the object, for example), any claim of a UFO’s performance is bound to be bogus.

⬐ klingonopera

AFAIK the rangefinder on the targeting system is pretty good, with that data and the data of the plane (direction, altitude, velocity, etc...) getting the speed of an object is pretty trivial.

If this is indeed a bird, then you can definitely trust the sensor's data. If it's a smoke plume, something ethereal, ball lighting or anything not quite solid, the rangefinder will give false values.

⬐ mikeash

This particular video is from a FLIR, which as far as I know is a passive system. How does it determine range?

⬐ klingonopera

Because it's not just a FLIR, it's a Raytheon AN/ASQ-228, an ATFLIR.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/ASQ-228_ATFLIR

⬐ colanderman

It's appropriate that the first video is called "gimbal", because that's exactly what it is.

Watch the angle readout at the top of the video. The rotation of the object happens exactly around the time that the angle passes 0°. Why is this?

Have you ever watched a PTZ security camera rotate up and over the vertical axis and down the other side? It will tilt up until it nears the vertical axis, at which point it will rotate around that axis, and then tilt back down, now facing the other way. It does this to avoid gimbal lock [1], a state in which it would lose a degree of freedom of rotation. (In this case, it's not the vertical axis, but the forward axis.)

Why doesn't the image rotate then? [shallow speculation] The video software keeps it oriented so that it matches the plane's orientation. (Note that the feed is square, making it easier to make full use of the sensor regardless of rotation.)

Why does the object rotate? This should give you a clue where the object is. If the background is not rotating while the camera is rotating, but the object is, the object is on the camera. It will appear to rotate as the video software rotates the image to compensate for the camera rotation about the forward axis.

So why is the object moving? Well, it's not moving, not if it's on the camera. But whenever the camera moves, it would look like it's moving relative to the background.

So why is the camera moving? It's tracking the object. But the object isn't moving! Well, the camera doesn't track movement. It tracks position. The object is slightly offset from the center of the frame, so the tracking software slightly moves the camera to compensate. This of course does not change the situation, so the tracking software repeats its compensation. This constant camera movement in a single direction gives the appearance that the object is moving.

Why does the object show up on an infrared camera in the first place? It must be warm.

So… what is this warm object, which is stuck on the camera, slightly off-center, causing the tracking software to follow it, through and around the camera's axis, giving the appearance that the object is moving and then rotating?

Well, it's the same thing as this article in the NY Times, which, in service of securing funding from the UFO & Hitler Channel (as @floatrock astutely noted), decided to lend its gravitas to an easily-explainable video glitch which has been paraded by conspiracy theorists as incontrovertible validation of their deepest-held beliefs that extraterrestrials, against all probability, regularly visit Earth.

Bird shit.

Why am I paying for a NY Times subscription again?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimbal_lock

⬐ klingonopera

I'd say a fly instead of avian excrement, but yeah, sounds conclusive.

⬐ lisper

The problem with that theory is that the object rotates but the clouds in the background don't.

⬐ colanderman

I called out that fact as evidence for the theory, so I'm not sure what you mean. Can you clarify why this is contradictory?

⬐ lisper

Sorry I misunderstood your argument on first reading. My mistake.

⬐ wnkrshm

That was the first thing I looked at, the angle vs. the movement. It doesn't necessarily have to be something on the camera, it could be internal interreflections.

The entire optical system is shielded from the environment by a transparent cover, probably spherical for a large field of view. Optical systems usually have some degree of internal interreflection that you try to suppress with anti-reflection coatings on the internal lenses. Usually, these coatings are highly angle-dependent. Specifically for very shallow incidence, almost parallel to the optical surface, you can't do much, there will be reflection. Another source of interreflection is the housing of the optical system - you usually try and suppress that by making surfaces 'black' but a very broad spectrum, brilliant light source can still produce a significant amount of reflected radiance.

The system was probably made with some requirements on these artifacts but it's always possible that for a certain off-axis angle, light gets coupled into the external, curved cover and then through the imaging system. Some of it makes it through at an angle that actually hits the sensor, in this case a virtual image or just some caustic from an object way off-axis.

Maybe it's the reflection of the sun from the sea. It is pretty static in terms of global incoming angle and does turn just right in relation to a turning aircraft to still hit the sensor - especially if you turn to still track it and keep it in the optical system's field of view.

⬐ noetic_techy

This incident is much larger than just the three FLIR videos, these objects were seen on multiple days, with both east and west coast incidents, at multiple vantage points. Forget TTSA as the source, are you really discounting these credible eyewitnesses testimonies from multiple vantage points? This goes well beyond just FLIR video, new radar technology was being deployed in both incidents and it flew by multiple aircraft at close proximity on multiple days. You'd think at some point an human eyeball would have recognized a bird.

https://youtu.be/PRgoisHRmUE (recreation of ONE of the west coast incident starts at around 9:00 in)

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/27666/what-the-hell-is... (note embedded videos of testimonies)

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/28231/multiple-f-a-18-... (new tech, east coast)

Even if you buy these skeptical writ-ups which only focus on FLIR videos and not the accounts of the whole incidents on multiple occasions, exactly what bird would fly at 48 mph that far off the coast of CA and be that 2 meters large? Even at 4 ft in length, a brown pelican averages only ~25 mph. The only other likely species at that size is an Albatross, however only 3 albatross species exist in the northern pacific and none of them fit the length: Short-tailed albatross, Black-footed albatross, Laysan albatross. Plus, a pelican only reaches 10,000+ riding thermals, which you wont find that far out into the ocean. What kind of bird can fly instantly back to a CAP position or ascend from 50 ft to 20,000 ft instantly?

https://sora.unm.edu/sites/default/files/journals/jfo/v049n0...

These writ-ups debunking the incident are pretty tunnel visioned.

⬐ puranjay

I do wonder if this is what they've released, what does the unreleased footage looks like?

⬐ dosy

These things are not birds. To call them birds is insane, except if you're using the euphemism for "aircraft". Otherwise you and the other so-called "debunkers" with their convoluted logic are saying "I sitting at my computer am right, but all these government officials, scientific instruments, military personnel and civilians, they're wrong". Definition of crazy.

They're craft from unknown origins reported by multiple highly credible witnesses and systems and now being revealed to the public in a concerted way from the Navy, and former DoD and intelligence officials.

The narrative on this topic has changed, it's time to get up to date on the new perspective which is not ridicule but curiosity.

Take a look at these recent articles:

https://www.foxnews.com/science/christopher-mellon-official-...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/05/28/ufos-exist...

https://nypost.com/2019/05/29/ufos-have-come-out-of-the-frin...

⬐ floatrock

Yep, none of these are new, and the thing about the navy making it standard operating procedure to report these things to get around the stigma of ufo sightings was a story from a month or two ago.

The real reason why this article is newsworthy is about halfway down:

> Lieutenants Graves and Accoin, along with former American intelligence officials, appear in a six-part History Channel series, “Unidentified: Inside America’s U.F.O. Investigation,” to air beginning Friday. The Times conducted separate interviews with key participants.

Happy memorial day, go enjoy some promoted TV.

⬐ audiometry

When you start knowing to look for it, it’s amazing how many “news articles” are well-disguised PR exercises. I first started realizing this when simultaneously I noticed many articles, in many outlets, about Amelia Earhart. Then I recognized that almost all of them included a remark about an upcoming tv series on the subject...