10 votes

Why isn't there more discussion about the UFOs reported by navy pilots?

I normally never take reports of ufos seriously, but major news outlets are reporting on videos taken by Navy pilots and the news anchors seem to take it as a joke. Even if these ufos are just high tech government drones or weather balloons, you'd think people would at least be curious in finding out what these things are.

Around the office normally I hear chatter about the news and current events, but nothing about these ufos. Nobody brings them up. On discussion forums, talk about the ufos seems really sparse as well. Even subreddits dedicated to ufos seem to not care very much about these videos being on the mainstream news. Now with legitimate proof that there is something strange in the air, why does nobody seem to care?

What are the leading explanations to what these things are? One explanation I've heard for at least one of the videos is that it's a stationary weather balloon that only appears to be moving due to the camera on the plane moving. I can accept this explanation for that video, but what about the other videos? And what about the navy pilot testimonies? Is this all just a publicity stunt for History Channel's new show?

8 comments

  1. [2]
    Deimos
    (edited )
    Link
    Personally, I thought that at least the New York Times article seemed very publicity-stunt-like, almost like a sponsored article. The weird mention of the show in the middle of the article felt...

    Personally, I thought that at least the New York Times article seemed very publicity-stunt-like, almost like a sponsored article. The weird mention of the show in the middle of the article felt very strange and out-of-character for the NYT:

    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.

    Overall, there also just still isn't any truly definitive evidence, and there are perfectly reasonable explanations for the strange videos. I thought this was a great comment about it on HN:

    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, 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.

    16 votes
    1. Defluo
      Link Parent
      It occurred to me that this could be some kind of PR move by the history channel but I didn't think CNN and New York Times would stoop low enough to have sponsored content. But it seems like every...

      It occurred to me that this could be some kind of PR move by the history channel but I didn't think CNN and New York Times would stoop low enough to have sponsored content. But it seems like every mainstream news article does mention the history channel show. Now that you point it out it seems obvious that it's all sponsored content. I knew the big outlets misreported stuff and would report on fabricated stories without checking sources, but this feels like a new low.

      Also thank you for that HN comment/explanation, that seems the most likely now. If history channel went low enough to pay mainstream news outlets to promote their videos, there is little doubt in my mind they paid these pilots to make up events as well.

      7 votes
  2. [2]
    Algernon_Asimov
    Link
    What is there to discuss? As per this article: There's nothing interesting in the idea that pilots are seeing strange objects in the sky when they're probably just military drones or spy planes....

    What is there to discuss? As per this article:

    No one in the Defense Department is saying that the objects were extraterrestrial, and experts emphasize that earthly explanations can generally be found for such incidents.

    There's nothing interesting in the idea that pilots are seeing strange objects in the sky when they're probably just military drones or spy planes. The most interesting explanation I can think of is that China or Russia has developed some spy technology that the US doesn't know about - and that's not the sort of thing that is going to start office gossip.

    4 votes
    1. Defluo
      Link Parent
      I honestly think it is interesting if they're seeing advanced military drones with the capabilities that they're talking about. We won't ever get to see how they work, but the more academic types...

      I honestly think it is interesting if they're seeing advanced military drones with the capabilities that they're talking about. We won't ever get to see how they work, but the more academic types could at least analyze the videos and speculate.

      After reading Deimos's comment though, I think this is just sponsored content in the main stream media, which is horrifying.

      1 vote
  3. [2]
    Bishop
    Link
    Howdy pardner. So I tend to get most of my news, for better or worse, from reddit – and I've recently decided to go on a reddit hiatus. Can you link me to anything particular regarding this story?...

    Howdy pardner.

    So I tend to get most of my news, for better or worse, from reddit – and I've recently decided to go on a reddit hiatus. Can you link me to anything particular regarding this story? It sounds interesting!

    1 vote
  4. alyaza
    Link
    probably because UFO =/= anything interesting per se. a lot of UFOs are, most likely, as cliche as it sounds, weird military shit that isn't known to the public or misidentification of mundane...

    probably because UFO =/= anything interesting per se. a lot of UFOs are, most likely, as cliche as it sounds, weird military shit that isn't known to the public or misidentification of mundane things. anything more than that is extraordinary, and would require extraordinary evidence that simply isn't likely to exist, much less be conclusive.

  5. moocow1452
    Link
    There seems to have been some Conspiracy Theory Inflation going on post-9/11, where aliens used to be a pretty big deal, but lost ground to government cover-ups that seemed more plausible, and...

    There seems to have been some Conspiracy Theory Inflation going on post-9/11, where aliens used to be a pretty big deal, but lost ground to government cover-ups that seemed more plausible, and Flat Earth which is more for the "trust no one but me" crowd. You also can't prove that it's not a secret government vessel by the nature of secrets and governments and vessels, and if you could somehow could prove its from space, the average person's life doesn't change the next day compared to the fallout of an uncovered political conspiracy.

  6. Comment removed by site admin
    Link