Navy pilots describe encounters with UFOs - 60 minutes

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

Basic logic would tell you that's not the case. It just doesn't make sense that the only scientists that came across such technology happened to also be employed by the military and were told to keep such technology hush hush and that no aeronautic engineers who simply work as professors in universities also came across the same technology and published it on arXiv. Such a coincidence is nothing but a conspiracy.

You use "basic logic" in a subjective way and are sheldon cooper level obsessed with this conspiracy angle. Take stealth tech mentioned above. Pretty much all such research and certainly practical research was in the hands of military researchers and what wasn't was a tiny sideshow going unnoticed. The military have the massive budgets and less oversight and fewer blocks to progress so a lot of research is drawn to it. When the F117 came out in public there was a lot of surprise even among aviation industry types and it had been in play in secret from skunkworks prototypes to operational vehicles flying through the air for over two decades. Could civilian researchers or interested aviation nuts have reverse engineered its existence and design from public domain information? Certainly, but it would have been a hard task and few did and even fewer got it right. It stayed "dark" for a remarkably long period. The Aurora project a posited hypersonic spyplane or technology platform has had legs since the mid 90's and has hints like Californian seismic stations tracking sonic booms at high altitudes and at hypersonic speeds heading out over the pacific, a couple of witnesses on a North Sea oil platform(one of whom was a trained airforce observer) observing a large delta winged aircraft being in flight refuelled above them. Whatever it or they were, they remain "dark" down to today.

However I don't buy the black project super secret aircraft with these sightings. That makes no sense, especially for American black projects farting around American naval groups. Don't buy the Russian/Chinese secret weapon stuff either. That's a near meme among militaries throughout history that the enemy has some secret stuff going on. It's sometimes true, but rarely enough, and when true usually wildly inaccurate. EG WW2 "Foo fighters". The germans did have all sorts of secret often very advanced stuff, but not foo fighters. The whole alien thing is more than a bit dubious too. Travel unimaginable distances using equally unimaginable technology to harass a few planes risking collision and conflict and or probing some housewife from Rhode Island? Eh nope. The unimaginable distances don't particularly trouble me. If Christopher Columbus had seen Concorde his brains would have dribbled out his ears from the shock of it. Hell, a mind like Leonardo DaVinci would have had a very large WTF?? moment. Interstellar travel is likely achievable, we just don't have the physics technology or reasons yet. We might never bother.

PokeHerKing

Deleted User wrote: »

I do not have confirmation bias, I instead believe in Occam's razor.

Yeah you've got common sense and logic man.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

When the F117 came out in public there was a lot of surprise even among aviation industry types and it had been in play in secret from skunkworks prototypes to operational vehicles flying through the air for over two decades.

When details of the F117 came out, nothing about it could not be explained by physics at the time. These anomalies are in no way comparable.

PokeHerKing

PokeHerKing wrote: »

Yeah you've got common sense and logic man.

Glad we are in agreement.

PokeHerKing

Deleted User wrote: »

You've said that experts have concluded that I am wrong. That does not demonstrate that I am wrong.

Again, link to experts that say I am wrong.

My links to experts are the US government releasing this footage and saying they have no explanation for it.

Cam you link to your experts please?

maccored

Deleted User wrote: »

I do not have confirmation bias, I instead believe in Occam's razor.

the misunderstood simplified version or the actual version?

https://towardsdatascience.com/stop-using-the-occams-razor-principle-7281d143f9e6

TLDR: Most people misquote and misuse the so-called Occam’s Razor. Even when correctly cited the concept has only limited abstract merit and is completely non-operational. It has approximately zero real-world applications, so please, stop using it as part of your arguments.

Cheerful S

Cheerful S wrote: »

Debunking UFO videos released by the Pentagon and insiders are you not?. You should in that case notice immediately that FlIR screenshot (posted) from a different encounter entirely.

USS Roosevelt ‘Gimbal’ UFO:

Gimbal and Go Fast are the same video source, taken 10 minutes apart.

PokeHerKing

PokeHerKing wrote: »

My links to experts are the US government releasing this footage and saying they have no explanation for it.

Cam you link to your experts please?

So you have no links to experts that say the common sense analysis is wrong like you claim?

I do not need to link to experts, I am an expert. You can conclude that based on my post history, you can instead believe that there is a conspiracy whereby I have posted about physics a lot over the years just so that I can now claim that I am a physicist, or you can choose confirmation bias and ignore my post history and instead choose to believe that I am not a physicist. Take your pick.

maccored

Deleted User wrote: »

So you have no links to experts that say the common sense analysis is wrong like you claim?

I do not need to link to experts, I am an expert. You can conclude that based on my post history, you can instead believe that there is a conspiracy whereby I have posted about physics a lot over the years just so that I can now claim that I am a physicist, or you can choose confirmation bias and ignore my post history and instead choose to believe that I am not a physicist. Take your pick.

and your point is exactly? 'Don't argue with me because me a physicist'?

PokeHerKing

Deleted User wrote: »

So you have no links to experts that say the common sense analysis is wrong like you claim?

I do not need to link to experts, I am an expert. You can conclude that based on my post history, you can instead believe that there is a conspiracy whereby I have posted about physics a lot over the years just so that I can now claim that I am a physicist, or you can choose confirmation bias and ignore my post history and instead choose to believe that I am not a physicist. Take your pick.

So you don't think anyone with an understanding of physics in the US military/government got a look at these videos before they were classified as unexplainable?

Youre on the other side now my friend, through the looking glass. Youre the conspiracy nut, not me.

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

When details of the F117 came out, nothing about it could not be explained by physics at the time.

After the fact. Newton would fully understand the physics of a Saturn V and it would not be unexplainable, but if he observed on flying overhead it would come as a shock. During the secret development and testing of the F117 and the later B2 quite the number of aeronautical engineers and physicists outside the projects and loop had debunked the notion as unworkable and/or pointless.

maccored

maccored wrote: »

and your point is exactly? 'Don't argue with me because me a physicist'?

Pretty much, yes. This is why I did not mention that I am an expert initially, because people would take the stance that you have just taken.

The point made by many people is we should listen to the experts. The only experts people have mentioned so far are ones saying that it is unexplained. No experts have said that the analysis that I linked to is incorrect. There is an expert (myself) who said it is correct.

If anyone can link to an expert explaining how the analysis is incorrect, then please do.

maccored

Deleted User wrote: »

Pretty much, yes. This is why I did not mention that I am an expert initially, because people would take the stance that you have just taken.

The point made by many people is we should listen to the experts. The only experts people have mentioned so far are ones saying that it is unexplained. No experts have said that the analysis that I linked to is incorrect. There is an expert (myself) who said it is correct.

If anyone can link to an expert explaining how the analysis is incorrect, then please do.

OK, so youre now an expert on UFO phenomena. Good for you (hahahahahahaha). Im sure had you been around at the time you would have classed ball lightening as a conspiracy as well before it was accepted by science.

I will point out - Im not talking aliens. I do though think there are UFOs that the americans at least dont think are their own

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

After the fact. Newton would fully understand the physics of a Saturn V and it would not be unexplainable, but if he observed on flying overhead it would come as a shock. During the secret development and testing of the F117 and the later B2 quite the number of aeronautical engineers and physicists outside the projects and loop had debunked the notion as unworkable and/or pointless.

Not quite. If you simply showed aeronautical engineers of the time a picture of the F117, they could explain how it could achieve what it can achieve in a month's work of research without no other information.

If you showed the same engineers a picture of a tic tac and suggested it could do what is being claimed, they could do not do similar. Because it cannot be achieved.

Fritzbox

Andrewf20 wrote: »

Seems strange that it's usually reported from the USA, but not Denmark, Sudan or Chile for example.

I suspect its the USA creating a fake conspiracy to divert attention from the reality that they are working on developing secretive aircraft.

UFO sightings and close encounters are regularly reported from countries all over the world, not just the USA.

maccored

Deleted User wrote: »

Not quite. If you simply showed aeronautical engineers of the time a picture of the F117, they could explain how it could achieve what it can achieve in a month's work of research without no other information.

If you showed the same engineers a picture of a tic tac and suggested it could do what is being claimed, they could do not do similar. Because it cannot be achieved.

at the same time, if you showed engineers of the 1800s a jet, they would have claimed it was something to do with god

maccored

maccored wrote: »

OK, so youre now an expert on UFO phenomena. Good for you (hahahahahahaha). Im sure had you been around at the time you would have classed ball lightening as a conspiracy as well before it was accepted by science.

I will point out - Im not talking aliens. I do though think there are UFOs that the americans at least dont think are their own

No, I am expert on fluid dynamics and can explain the unexplained without the need to resort to fantasy.

And no, I would not have classed ball lightning as being aliens, being created by China/Russia etc. I would have classed it as an unexplained scientific phenomenon at the time.

maccored wrote: »

I will point out - Im not talking aliens. I do though think there are UFOs that the americans at least dont think are their own

You are perfectly entitled to your opinion.

PokeHerKing

Deleted User wrote: »

Pretty much, yes. This is why I did not mention that I am an expert initially, because people would take the stance that you have just taken.

The point made by many people is we should listen to the experts. The only experts people have mentioned so far are ones saying that it is unexplained. No experts have said that the analysis that I linked to is incorrect. There is an expert (myself) who said it is correct.

If anyone can link to an expert explaining how the analysis is incorrect, then please do.

Seriously. You think that top US government officials, relaying this stuff to the likes of Obama didn't have somebody with at least an LC level understanding of physics have a look at these videos first??

But some guy on the internet saying thats a fecking bird lads has cracked it?:pac:

maccored

maccored wrote: »

i get the feeling aristotle doesnt believe in UFOs - even though s/he admitted the video showed 'flying objects of unknown origin'. the very definition of UFO

In fairness, what do you expect? Aristotle didn't believe in extraterrestrials.

Just wait til Copernicus comes along and he'll snap out of it.

maccored

maccored wrote: »

at the same time, if you showed engineers of the 1800s a jet, they would have claimed it was something to do with god

They would, which is why a jet with 21st century technology was not being created in secret in the 1800s.

I've not read the thread, but I did watch the 60m clip ~13m.
The impression I got from that was, 'we dang well fund the military.' No bias there then.

PokeHerKing

PokeHerKing wrote: »

Seriously. You think that top US government officials, relaying this stuff to the likes of Obama didn't have somebody with at least an LC level understanding of physics have a look at these videos first??

But some guy on the internet saying thats a fecking bird lads has cracked it?:pac:

Yes they did. The objects seen are UFOs, even if the commons sense analysis I have said is correct is indeed correct. The flying objects cannot be identified.

Cheerful S

Deleted User wrote: »

Gimbal and Go Fast are the same video source, taken 10 minutes apart.

They're different UAP incidents still, but around the same day or week in 2015. One video showing an object in the sky flying past cloud and another is an object above and close to the ocean/sea. There are terrain and environment differences and noticeable size differences with both.

Gimbal video the object appears to come to standstill in the air after flying for a bit and does an angle rotation. This does not happen with the Go FAST video.

PokeHerKing

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes they did. The objects seen are UFOs, even if the commons sense analysis I have said is correct is indeed correct. The flying objects cannot be identified.

But there's zero common sense in relaying that to the president if that's the case. Or releasing these videos.

So your common sense is starting to look more than a little conspiratorial IMHO. But I'm no fluids expert like your good self.

Cheerful S

Cheerful S wrote: »

They're different UAP incidents still, but around the same day or week in 2015. One video showing an object in the sky flying past cloud and another is an object above and close to the ocean/sea. There are terrain and environment differences and noticeable size differences with both.

Gimbal video the object appears to come to standstill in the air after flying for a bit and does an angle rotation. This does not happen with the Go FAST video.

which is why that video is called Gimbal.

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.

Wibbs

Cheerful S wrote: »

I never got this argument personally. If some in the military picked up a craft of unknown origin. Least in my view, very few will see it again once its picked up in the desert and taken to a new place. . It not like there exhibiting the craft for everyone to see it. It’ll be very easy to keep an unknown object at a secure base somewhere under lock and key with only a few have the keys to get in and have a further look and do research. There really no need for thousands implicated in keeping this find a secret from the public.

Nah. If you have four people in a room that contains a secret, you can be 100% sure at least one will talk about it outside that room. Secrets don't remain secret for long. This is the major problem with conspiracies. Now have conspiracies happened, have secrets been kept? Sure, but the shock of the reveal comes after the fact. Before the reveal you can see such things are often discussed pretty openly, just that public or political interest isn't enough to get it on the front pages, or there isn't enough to join the dots to form a fully accurate picture. The stealth tech was a good example. Your average bod or bodess on the street was blissfully content with not knowing about it. Aviation periodicals mused about it at length, often with some degree of accuracy, US politicians were publicly complaining about the rising costs of black projects including stealth. It wasn't very secret at all.

Take the hypothetical hypersonic "Aurora" project. That's been a firm fave of legit advanced aircraft theorists and UFO cranks for decades. Now let's imagine tomorrow the US military said, Yep, it exists and here it is. OHMIGOOOOD! It's real. Now climbing down from that shock of admission; hypersonic tech has been on the go since the 1950's when x-15's and the like were going to the edge of space. The Russians, British, French, Chinese and Americans have leaked/demonstrated hypersonic tests of engines, even a few well funded commercial businesses have given it a go and there's lots of research literature on the matter out there. The biggest issue seems to be sustaining such flight speeds beyond a minute or even 30 seconds. Now if you threw a trillion quid at that as a black project back in the 80's because you were looking to replace the SR71 as an example, I have little enough doubt a hypersonic tech demonstrator, or even a working prototype could have been made. A couple of years ago one of the heads of Lockheed Martin's Skunkworks publicly described hypersonic technology as "mature" and they were working on it. I'd bet the farm it is and they did and quite a while ago. Yet all through that time hypersonic flight has been in plain sight for many decades.

Cheerful S

Deleted User wrote: »

If you showed the same engineers a picture of a tic tac and suggested it could do what is being claimed, they could do not do similar. Because it cannot be achieved.

Is it not obvious then why they think the craft could be alien?

PokeHerKing

PokeHerKing wrote: »

But there's zero common sense in relaying that to the president if that's the case. Or releasing these videos.

So your common sense is starting to look more than a little conspiratorial IMHO. But I'm no fluids expert like your good self.

I don't understand. You believe that the government has been keeping it secret, but you're now saying that because they are releasing the video, it's more evidence for the fact that it is a secret?

Cheerful S

Cheerful S wrote: »

Is it not obvious then why they think the craft could be alien?

Yes, which is why the pilots believed that. If there was an optics expert in the cockpit on the other hand, they would not jump to that conclusion.

PokeHerKing

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't understand. You believe that the government has been keeping it secret, but you're now saying that because they are releasing the video, it's more evidence for the fact that it is a secret?

I never said anything was being kept a secret.

You're claiming these are easily explained phenomenon.

You now appear to be claiming the US government know this but because they're phenomenon and still "technically " unexplainable? That they'll class them as UAP/UFO anyway.

Im saying if that is the case it would not make sense to be relaying that info to the president or releasing footage or even discussing it really.

So why are they if you're right, is there another dark op reason you think they'd be claiming the easily explained as unexplainable?