HN is very conspiracy theory and misinformation infused. I have seen more flatearthers, antiwaxers and other kinds of crazy on HN than Facebook, Twitter and TikTok combined. It's probably people here are smart in one field and automatically think they are smart in others. Or it's just the heavy drug use.
> It's probably people here are smart in one field and automatically think they are smart in others. Or it's just the heavy drug use.
Or it could be as simple as motivated reasoning.
Someone I go to for hair grooming is a conspiracy nut. For _some reason_ they have been making odd comments about how they haven't seen as many chemtrails in the air since late January.
Interesting video and anlysis to learn how a gimbal camera tracks and records objects, but that doesn't really address any of the points as to what those objects (since there were several, observed first by radar operators before fighter jets were dispatched) may have been.
No, YOU can see that, but many cannot, including the radar operators in the first place, who scrambled fighter jets after they had already observed those objected doing crazy manoeuvres, like dropping 10,000 feet in 2 seconds and vice-versa.
Do you have a reliable source for this claim? I don't believe claims from pilots without corresponding evidence because I know a bunch of civilian and military pilots and many fall victim to the same logical fallacies, hearsay and poor memory that regular people do. Show me the data.
It's impossible to reach conclusions about the motion of the object solely by looking at the FLIR footage.
But that's irrelevant if you understand anything about the logistics here.
There are really only two possibilities here: either the object really was moving as claimed, or multiple retired military aviators are lying in unison.
As described by the aviators who've described things publicly (Fravor, Dietrich, Underwood, Slaight, Underwood), these encounters cannot possibly involve a gross misunderstanding about the motion of the object.
The UAP was initially spotted by the Princeton on radar. The fighters were initially 60 miles away from the object(s) and were directed on an intercept course by the Princeton, at which point they observed it via some combination of visual observation and/or FLIR. At this point we're talking about a minimum of four aviators (pilot+WSO aboard each fighter) and the radar operators on the Princeton and likely other ships as well. A second flight of at least one (but perhaps more likely two) F/A-18 were dispatched to later confirm. Brings the total to 6-8 aviators.
If the radar operators on the Princeton didn't have a precise understanding of the object's speed, location, and heading they would not have been able to direct the pilots to intercept the objects.
If the aviators had a gross misunderstanding of the UAP's motion they would have been out of visual and FLIR range found themselves quickly, so even an initial gross misunderstanding would have become quickly apparent.
The Alert Five aircraft does (the aircraft they scramble to intercept). It does get followed up by another aircraft a few minutes later, though.
> the F/A-18 is a two-seat aircraft so (if they are being truthful) that's a minimum of four pilots
It's has one or two seat versions. The second seat is not a pilot seat.
> In fact, I think radar is what allows the IR camera to follow the object's motion?
The camera can do it's own contrast based tracking or be slewed to follow another sensor such as radar, navigation data, or datalink from another aircraft.
Apologies, I edited for clarity so the wording from my post is all changed around. I probably managed to actually make it less clear as well. Been that kind of day.
> The Alert Five aircraft does (the aircraft they scramble to intercept).
> It does get followed up by another aircraft a few minutes later, though.
Thanks for the correction. It seems the initial encounter was with 2 aircraft diverted from the training exercise and the follow-up was indeed a single aircraft (during which the publically-available FLIR footage was recorded)
> It's has one or two seat versions. The second seat is not a pilot seat.
These were two-seaters. The WSO is also a pilot in common parlance (they have flight controls back there for emergencies) but not in Navy parlance (they are flight officers). I try to remember to use the more general term of "aviators" but sometimes I use it interchangeably with "pilot" which is not strictly correct.
Perhaps most relevantly, the WSO's training focuses even more on operating and comprehending the output of sensors (FLIR, radar, etc) than the pilot's training.
> The camera can do it's own contrast based tracking or be slewed
> to follow another sensor such as radar, navigation data, or
> datalink from another aircraft.
Yeah. So just to be clear, any "misconception" about the motion of the UAP(s) would involve misconceptions on the part of six aviators, one radar and its associated crew (the one on the Princeton) and possibly multiple additional radars (aboard the 3? Hornets that may or may not have been been directing the FLIR)
The most relevant thing, I think, is that there's no way the Princeton could have vectored the Hornets to a UAP ~60 miles away unless the Princeton's radar had an accurate reading of the UAP's speed and direction.
That's why (for that particular aspect of the story) it seems like there's no possible middle ground. They are not mistaken. They are either lying in a coordinated and consistent way (possible; it's the military) or they are telling the truth.
Mick West covers this issue. It was a illusion, as the stationary object appears to zoom past the confused pilot. In any case this is not a hellfire missle analysis.
If several fighter jet pilots, plus several radar operators on the ship, are all confused the same way looking at the same events, that's rather frightening.
debunked several times. The tic tac was four pilots with an illusion, chasing a paper bag or bird. Stationairy object. Its gimbal rotation. The camera is moving, the object is moving very slowly, the jet is moving very fast. Its a camera rotation test footage.
The puerto rico is two lanters from a wedding down the beach. Again the camera is moving jet speed fast while the objects are moving wind speed.
Brazil was just a drunk kid in the alley wit his body all twisted, there was never an alien
Lol yeah, the radar operators scrambled several fighter jets because they observed a paper bag floating, paper bags that went up and down 10,000 feets within seconds, and paper bags that the fighter jets couldn't follow to the end since the wind lift them up so quick.
And then (tic-tac), paper bag that went in and out of water without loss of speed or splash.
Thanks Sherlock.
Seriously though why is this on HN?