Why The Navy's UFO Videos Aren't Showing Aliens (syfy.com) 167
Syfy Wire's "Bad Astronomy" column is written by astronomer Phil Plait, head science writer of Bill Nye Saves the World. This week he looked at the recently-declassified videos taken by the U.S. Navy's fighter jets showing unidentified flying objects "moving in weird and unexpected ways." ("The 'aura' around the object in some of the footage could simply be the camera overexposing around a bright object; infrared cameras can do that, creating an odd glow.")
But to prove they're not aliens, Plait ultimately cites an analysis on the site MetaBunk, "run by former video game programmer and critical thinker Mick West" -- and his videos summarizing discussions on the site's bulletin board:
[I]n this one he argues, convincingly to me, that the FLIR video just shows a passenger plane seen from a distance. He also shows that the rotation of the object in the GIMBAL video is almost certainly due to the motion of the camera itself as it tracks the objects. The fighter jet is turning, and at the same time the camera is mounted on a rotating mechanism that allows it to track. These two motions combine to make a somewhat confusing series of rotations in the image, which is why the object in the video appears to rotate around.
But my favorite bit is a video where he gives a single, simple explanation that accounts for two things seen in the Navy videos, specifically, why the object in the GOFAST video appears to scream across the water so rapidly, and how in the GIMBAL video the object seems to travel against a strong wind. The answer: It's an illusion due to parallax, how an object close to you seems to move more rapidly against a more distant background as the camera moves... Given the distance, angle, and motion, it's likely that the GOFAST video shows a balloon.
As a kind of consolation prize, the column concludes by sharing the cheesy opening credits to a 1970 precursor to the TV show Space: 1999 -- called UFO.
But to prove they're not aliens, Plait ultimately cites an analysis on the site MetaBunk, "run by former video game programmer and critical thinker Mick West" -- and his videos summarizing discussions on the site's bulletin board:
[I]n this one he argues, convincingly to me, that the FLIR video just shows a passenger plane seen from a distance. He also shows that the rotation of the object in the GIMBAL video is almost certainly due to the motion of the camera itself as it tracks the objects. The fighter jet is turning, and at the same time the camera is mounted on a rotating mechanism that allows it to track. These two motions combine to make a somewhat confusing series of rotations in the image, which is why the object in the video appears to rotate around.
But my favorite bit is a video where he gives a single, simple explanation that accounts for two things seen in the Navy videos, specifically, why the object in the GOFAST video appears to scream across the water so rapidly, and how in the GIMBAL video the object seems to travel against a strong wind. The answer: It's an illusion due to parallax, how an object close to you seems to move more rapidly against a more distant background as the camera moves... Given the distance, angle, and motion, it's likely that the GOFAST video shows a balloon.
As a kind of consolation prize, the column concludes by sharing the cheesy opening credits to a 1970 precursor to the TV show Space: 1999 -- called UFO.
UFO does not mean extraterrestrials (Score:5, Informative)
The problem is a group of people have distorted the language. They've hijacked the term 'UFO' and, and twisted its meaning among the general population into something that it's not.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Shouldn't fighter be turning them into Identified Flaming Objects?
Re:UFO does not mean extraterrestrials (Score:5, Funny)
If it's up, we shoot it down. If it's down, we blo (Score:2)
If it's up, we shoot it down. If it's down, we blow it up?
Probably a good idea to identify it before destroying it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:UFO does not mean extraterrestrials (Score:4, Informative)
That's called murder.
Maybe in my country. In your country, is called Tuesday.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: UFO does not mean extraterrestrials (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You're... not a pilot, are you? I think most non-pilots don't realize how easy it is for even experienced pilots to get disoriented, even WITHOUT high-speed maneuvering. And on top of that, how easy it is to misjudge other objects in 3D space against a blank background, especially if you're not sure of its size or orientation. Navy pilots are very, very good, but this is literally a one-in-a-million video and they're allowed to make mistakes sometimes.
Re: UFO does not mean extraterrestrials (Score:5, Informative)
I recall the Air Canada pilot who recently reacted with all his pilot training to avoid a head on collision with Venus.
https://www.theguardian.com/wo... [theguardian.com]
Re: (Score:2)
how easy it is for even experienced pilots to get disoriented, even WITHOUT high-speed maneuvering
Flight 19, anyone?
Re:UFO does not mean extraterrestrials (Score:4, Insightful)
UFO means Unidentified Flying Object
Right. Given "I don't know what it is", it's a bit of a leap to say "therefor I know what it is: it's an alien"
Re: UFO does not mean extraterrestrials (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily. It could be... Aliens on the Moon!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:UFO does not mean extraterrestrials (Score:5, Interesting)
Look I can appreciate a bit of linguistic pedantry, but this borders more on intentional denseness. If people ask "Are crop circles [wikipedia.org] real?" then obviously they're not questioning the objective reality of the circles in the crops but their possibly extraterrestrial origin. It's the same with UFOs, even if they don't explicitly spell it out they're clearly referencing the theory that they're alien spacecraft. For example we use GPUs for many things that don't involve graphics now without getting our panties in a bunch about the abbreviation really stands for.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Loch Ness is real. I've been there. Didn't see any plesiosauruses though.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course you didn't. Most people do not know about this, but about a decade ago, Nessie and Big Foot swapped habitats. Nobody would think of searching for a plesiosaurus in the forests of British Columbia, nor search for Big Foot in an underwater bunker.
Re: (Score:2)
Never heard of the Ogopogo? Closer to Big Foot territory there's the Seelkee, which does have much in common with Nessie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
I can appreciate a bit of linguistic pedantry
There are many who hear "US Navy Confirms UFO Footage Is Real, Says We Were Never Meant to See It" and interpret it to mean "US Navy didn't want us to know it had proof of visitors from another planet"
You are the one making a dense mistake (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem is that authorities classify these things as Unidentified Flying Objects.
So you get official declarations that "UFOs exist, here is a video labelled by the government as UFO tape.
Which means idiots conclude, the government has proof that Aliens exist.
This is not a semantic argument, it is explaining why and how idiots believe stupid things.
Re: (Score:3)
Not only does the U.S.A. government have proof that aliens exist, but the current president even campaigned about building a wall to keep them out.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're explaining how idiots reinforce their beliefs. They believe stupid things for entirely different reasons, probably relating to metal illness or not paying attention in elementary school, or both.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought some had a meteorological explanation, small tornadoes or large dust devils momentarily touching down kind of thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Just like modern media hijacked the term "hacking".
Example: if I can "hack" into your website by changing something in the URL, it's not hacking.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't necessarily 'believe' in UFOs as th
Doesn't account for the other sensor data or the p (Score:2, Insightful)
So how does that account for the sensor data and pilot commentary stating its heading and speed?
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure which particular video you're referring to, but the full video analyses are the first three videos he put in this playlist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
As to why a pilot's video doesn't support the pilot's commentary, you'll have to ask the pilot.
Re: (Score:2)
He points out the Navy reached the same conclusion as him in one of the videos.
What matters is the analysis of actual data. Someone mentioned crop circles above. Don't forget part of their received wisdom is that no person could bend over the stalks without breaking them -- except that's exactly what happens when people tried it. No problems.
Thank god (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Next up I want to hear an agile coach's solution to global warming.
Glad you asked! You can start by moving fast and breaking stuff, just like our friends here have been kind enough to demonstrate.
Re: (Score:3)
It also seems to suggest that FLIR, radar and other advanced combat sensors are almost not reliable at all to bother with on advanced combat jets.
I don't doubt that advanced sensors and instrumentation combined with flying over water can lead to misidentification and disorientation. But I'd guess the Navy is also really good at training its pilots to deal with these risks.
The Navy has been flying a lot of high risk combat missions off carriers for decades, including force-on-force missions with other, fast
Re: Thank god (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
This. The linked video references his three other videos that address each of the released footages. Larry would be proud. [amazon.com]
Re: Thank god (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While yours is: "The pilot is infallible."
I mean come on. That's a ridiculously stupid standpoint.
Argue against the guys recreations. Don't argue that he's wrong because he's not a pilot.
Re: (Score:2)
When these videos first hit Slashdot years ago I remember doing the math on the "go fast" one. It's quite simple and literally anybody with high school trig should be have no problem.
Hominem (Score:3)
So is he wrong because his analysis is incorrect, or is he wrong because he is a video game programmer?
Re:Hominem (Score:5, Insightful)
He's wrong because he thought that he didn't need to review all the available evidence before declaring it to be a balloon, a theory long since explored and dismissed, based on available data.
If he knew about the AEGIS data or the Active Radar Jamming data, then he is a liar. If he didn't find them, then he's a hack and a fraud.
Re: (Score:2)
Provide the link to the analysis which you are referring too please?
Active Radar Jamming (Score:2)
It is like the old joke of the dude at the county fair who stuffed a chicken down his Levis and the head of the bird pokes out above the waistband. Two old ladies are looking on and say to each other,
"Gertrude, did you see that?"
"Sadie, at our age it is nothing we haven't seen before."
"But Gertrude, this one is eating popcorn!"
Is it too much to assume that the software in modern military radar sets has an algorithm to sense active jamming that is not confused by a balloon? That David Fravor and o
Re: Thank god (Score:2)
Re:Thank god (Score:5, Interesting)
Marked as funny, and perhaps it was intended so, but a videogame programmer can be very well qualified to interpret video of a dynamic object because generating visuals of dynamic objects is what they do all the time. Professional aerospace analysts, like James Oberg [blogspot.com], routinely analyze and discredit this stuff too.
What is truly remarkable is the lack of any technical analysis whatsoever anywhere supporting the alien UFO claims! Seriously. Give me a link to one. All we get are people pointing to the pilot voice track as the only analysis, and saying "what he said!"
The tack coverage of these videos is to promote them recently is to crow "the government says that the videos are real!" as if anyone ever claimed they weren't fighter camera videos. That has never, ever been in question - only the interpretation of them is.
Re: (Score:2)
Next up I want to hear an agile coachâ(TM)s solution to global warming
Kill everyone? Solved!
Re: (Score:2)
Next up I want to hear an agile coachâ(TM)s solution to global warming
Kill everyone? Solved!
You're not that far off [9cache.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Teen heat (Score:4, Insightful)
Spoiler alert (Score:2)
It's because aliens don't exist (on Earth at least).
Re: (Score:2)
Well, these didn't...bad hair day and they didn't want to be "exposed"...although Texas does seem to be in a perpetual bad hair day.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes they do, come down to south Texas and see for yourself!
I said on Earth, not in Hell!
UFO - UAP (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
The videos are used as evidence. They are not evidence of extraterrestrial craft as they are fully explained. If you want to claim what you hear or was said by pilots, that's something else. Something the videos do not support.
I recall that famous bigfoot shakeycam video of it walking across the forest, with the definitive claim "no man walks like that." Then someone image stabilized it, and yes, that's how a man walks.
Re: (Score:2)
You have to study other factors, like the testimonials from the witness, and their credibility.
This is easy:
Q: What did you see?
A: Aliens.
*Ticks the "not credible" box.
How much can you understand? (Score:2)
"former video game programmer and critical thinker (Score:5, Insightful)
Why are we listening to some random guy's opinion again?
Especially when he doesn't know literally the first thing about science, and only indulges in his trigger-based self-comforting OCD?
The first thing about science, it that its logic is ternary: True, false, and we don't know!
Or, more precisely, it's two dimensional: 1. How certain are we? Aka how useful is our knowledge? 2. What does the certainty point at? Aka how true/false is it?
And he does the exact same thing as regular conspiracy theorists: While they falsely assume "true" in cases of "we don't know", whenever they want it be true, because the thought overwhelms them and makes them afraid,
he falsely assumes "false" in cases of "we don't know", whenever he wants it to be false, because the thought of it overwhelms him and makes him afraid.
It's the same stupid behavior!
Just that the latter is currently more fashionable.
Look, we don't know! And we may never know! That does not mean it is true, nor does it mean it is false! It means it is USELESS! And go bother with something more fruitful, until you have new information!
Re: (Score:3)
It is certain that he knows even less about F-18 radar targeting systems, advanced aerodynamics, and sensor technology
Re:"former video game programmer and critical thin (Score:5, Insightful)
Please view the three videos he made and list where his observations are wrong and explain them as something else. He is not the one hiding from analysis.
Re: "former video game programmer and critical thi (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I know a prop plane pilot who has been flying for decades who has some of the dumbest ideas I have ever heard about aerodynamics.
Being highly skilled at something does not qualify you to understand the mechanics of the thing you're jockeying.
Ben Carson is a skilled neurosurgeon. Don't ask him where to store grain in Egypt though.
Being skilled doesn't make you intelligent or even that knowledgeable.
Re:"former video game programmer and critical thin (Score:5, Insightful)
The first thing about science, it that its logic is ternary: True, false, and we don't know! Or, more precisely, it's two dimensional: 1. How certain are we? Aka how useful is our knowledge? 2. What does the certainty point at? Aka how true/false is it?
I think you have gravely misunderstood both the scientific method and the conclusion of his videos. In short, the scientific method uses facts (in this case, measured distances, angles, airspeed, object temperature, etc.) to construct a falsifiable and reproducible hypothesis that can be used for predicting some type of observed phenomena, attempt to falsify this hypothesis, then iterating until it survives falsification attempts.
Then there's the concept of a null-hypothesis, which is the default position that one's own hypothesis can hopefully reject. For alien UFO claims, the null hypothesis is that there are no alien spaceships visiting us. Only when one's hypothesis has survived several good-effort falsification attempts is it appropriate to reject the null-hypothesis, i.e. to say that there does seem to be alien spaceships visiting us.
Why are we listening to some random guy's opinion again?
Especially when he doesn't know literally the first thing about science, and only indulges in his trigger-based self-comforting OCD?
One of the beautiful things about science is that one doesn't need to be a certified scientist in order to perform it. Documenting the facts used and one's method for reaching a conclusion allows others to criticize and further iterate. His conclusions isn't that there aren't aliens, as you suggested, but rather that this particular video isn't good evidence of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Why are we listening to some random guy's opinion again?
The irony of you posting this online is hilarious. Both in that you actually cared enough about the guy to comment, and the follow on that can only make us wonder why you think anyone listens to you.
Seasoned F-16 Fighter Pilot's mind blown (Score:2)
Navy Pilots never saw a civil airplane beforeâ (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Navy Pilots never saw a civil airplane before&# (Score:3)
Re: Navy Pilots never saw a civil airplane before& (Score:2)
Considering the history of civilian airliners accidentally shot down by military forces and the training received to keep that from happening yes, they probably have. And these fighter squadrons dont stay deployed on carriers, they rotate out and spend plenty of time on land-based Air Stations. A lot of which are near (or might even share airspace with) major airports. These pilots know what a commercial airliner looks like.
Nothing to see here, move on folks (Score:3)
It's just a B747 making a landing approach at the Oakland airport. Can't you see? Problem solved.
Re: (Score:2)
B747 making a landing approach at the Oakland airport
A 777 coming in to SFO. Looks like Sum Ting Wong and Wei Tu Lo got their jobs back.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
There's always the possibility that the sensor readings are at fault either due to technical faults or anomalous atmospheric conditions?
Re: There is one problem with their explanation.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Where does it say that the ship's radar detected it as hauling ass? Do you have a source?
Based on the camera's metrics, applying trigonometry on the object [youtube.com] shows it to be moving at the speed of wind.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:There is one problem with their explanation.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Nothing a radar might detect would change what the videos show. The videos show what they show. It is independent, and in fact the only concrete checkable evidence of these events that we have available.
Now if a radar detection showed a specific confirmation of amazing behavior that the video actually showed, that would be something. But that does not exist in two ways - the video shows nothing amazing, there is no actual radar data available that can be tied to these objects at all.
There are a bunch of claimed strange observations in this training incident that have no apparent relation to each other. Unknown radar contacts of slow objects in formation, claims of a radar contact that disappeared, descriptions of a spot of churning water, and these videos that show nothing unusual, despite the pilot's overamped voice track. Nothing corroborates anything else here.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, there is not actual positive theory here yet that points to anything important.
While I am not arguing that the video data should be ignored, I would like a correlation between multiple data sources, like the radar data from two planes plus the camera visual plus the shipboard Aegis data, all showing an object with consistent and specific heading and speed.
A video showing I Don't Know and a vague assertion that the Aegis saw it, too, that is not concrete enough for important conclusions. "The I Don't
Re: (Score:2)
"The radars on a modern warship has enough accuracy to blow a mach 2 fighter out of the sky from at least 150 miles away"
Wow, you mean the Navy's been developing beam weapons under the guise of radar? Well, those Russkies and Chinese must be really scared of the awesome power of our radar.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, a modern radar is a beam weapon. It's pretty much only dangerous to birds flying closer than 150 feet though. Not surprised the OP got that wrong. Imperial units are weird.
It's aliens (Score:2)
I was abducted by that particular UFO and my butt still hurts.
Simple (Score:5, Informative)
Because people forget UFO is an acronym that simply means Unidentified Flying Object. If a Boeing 747 flies by the on horizon and you do not what it is - it is a UFO. A UFO is also entirely subjective to the source, chances are pretty good that if you are on that 747 you know that you flying on a 747.
The CIA and Air Force took advantage of this back in the 1950s & 60s to provide cover for new aircraft under development like the U2 and SR71. Back then, no one would take some dumb kook in the middle of the desert who talks about UFOs and little green alien men seriously. By encouraging the UFO mantra civilians who spotted real test flights from Groom Lake / Area 51 were likely to have their reports ignored. Fast forward a few decades and those UFOs have become deeply entrenched in pop culture.
https://www.nytimes.com/1997/0... [nytimes.com]
https://theaviationgeekclub.co... [theaviationgeekclub.com]
expert witnesses (Score:2)
We should really ask some people in trailer parks what they think. They're the ones with the most experience in these things
Time Travellers, not Aliens (Score:4, Funny)
I never understood why the credulous conclude that UFO's are Aliens.
Consider the following:
1. Most inhabitable planets are thousands of light years away or greater. It is unlikely that a civilization capable of FTL travel exists closer than 1000 Light Years away.
2. Time and space are interchangeable - so 1000 light years is basically equivelent to 1000 years.
3. Our theories about time travel are about at the same state as our theories about FTL.
4. Why would aliens come here and not talk to us?
5. Why would aliens come here and put stuff in our butts?
6. If, say a thousand years or so from now, wouldn't Time travelers want to come and and observe, without interfering? We have movies about how even killing a butterfly could have drastic consequences.
7. Humans are perverts, drunk interns would definitely probe our butts.
Conclusion: UFO's are clearly time travellers. And probably drunk ones. Explains why they fly in such a jerky fashion too :-D
UFOs could still be alien in a few cases .... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not sure these videos really ever WERE of any significance, though? They weren't DE-classified. They were UN-classified. That means, the military didn't consider them classified information in the first place. They were simply under a blanket of content they'd collected that wasn't ready for release yet because nobody put in any time and effort to review it and determine it was ok to do so.
If they're sitting on any footage of suspected alien spacecraft that they're interested in reverse-engineering or what-not, THAT content is likely given a classification and not getting released.
That said? I saw a few comments from military people who say they viewed a higher resolution, better quality version of these 3 videos before. So it's possible these are just a compressed, scaled down version that's less bandwidth intensive for easy downloading. But higher resolution versions do exist. That might help explain why some people are guessing this footage just shows a passenger jet -- yet Navy folks recording it didn't come to that conclusion at all. There might be details we're just not seeing very well in these compressed down versions?
No shame in saying "I don't know" (Score:2)
This story is fascinating because it involves several experienced military professionals, with multiple sightings over several days, and that some sightings were also tracked on radar. But so far, all this remains eye-witness testimony and second-hand accounts, even if the sources are highly credible.
All we have right now are those grainy infrared videos.
And those skeptics' video presentations do a good job of highlighting the limits of that visual tracking technology and the risks of drawing conclusions b
US top secret (Score:2)
The television work of the Andersons: (Score:2)
Yum.
Look, Iâ(TM)m not saying (Score:2)
Look, Iâ(TM)m not saying it was humans, but it was humans.
Clearly it is a Federation Starship (Score:2)
You can easily see the saucer section and the warp nacelles behind it.
Granted, this is an extremely rare sighting but it is not unprecedented as proven in the 1986 documentary Startrek The Voyage Home.
I don't like playing these games (Score:2)
So why? (Score:3)
Why is the Navy releasing something they know to be a weather balloon, or an F-35 being tested? Which is what I think they're doing, but why?
Re: (Score:3)
Seeing is believing, but that's a whole lot different from *proving*, because believing is also seeing...
Take the cop who shut that guy because he thought the phone the guy was holding was a gun. A lot of people characterize that as a racist execution because it was from a distance that you could easily see that the thing was a phone. But that's not the way the brain evolved to work. If you think you see a tiger in the grass, your brain doesn't pause to collect more data; it puts a picture of tiger in t
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I trust the instruments more than I trust the pilots' eyes.
Re: Eye witnesses? (Score:3)
But that's the point, this isn't a cop saying he saw gun, this is the cop saying he saw the gun and the mm wave scanner saying there's a gun shaped chunk of high density material in the guy's hand.
Re: (Score:3)
But that's the point, this isn't a cop saying he saw gun, this is the cop saying he saw the gun and the mm wave scanner saying there's a gun shaped chunk of high density material in the guy's hand.
It is the opposite of that. The recorded sensor data - which is a visual camera - does not support what the pilot thought he was seeing. This the case were the officer's bodycam clearly shows a cellphone.
I see an AC (not you) just above asserts that the pilot's interpretation is supported by radar - which is simply made up. The whole context around this is that there are no sensors of any kind that report what the pilot thought he saw.
"Evidence inflation" is the rule in the "aliens have arrived" crowd - exa
Re: Eye witnesses? (Score:5, Interesting)
While you shouldn't totally discount the pilot's eyewitness testimony, its value is much less than the instrument readings. Generally where one contradicts the other, believe the instruments.
What I think the video shows is an extremely bright object that screws with the FLIR. In some of the footage it's a white dot that suddenly becomes a black blob. As for the pilot's judgement about how it was actually moving, it's of limited value.
Re: (Score:3)
If there were a simple explanation for these sightings they would have been screaming their heads off over these events.
This is a deeply contrary to fact assertion. Releasing the videos without comment is exactly what the military would do if they thought they showed nothing unusual.
Believe it or not, trying to debunk beliefs in the "alien UFO" community is not a priority by anyone in the DOD.
Re: (Score:2)
US government agencies have a history of *starting* alien UFO rumours.
https://www.nytimes.com/1997/0... [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
"In fact the US government has always had a belief that any recognition of intelligent, alien life, would cause social chaos."
Errr....which U.S. government? The one of 20 years ago, 10 years ago, 5 years ago, now? They been handing down this fact through generations of "government" year on year? And how come "The U.S. government" refers to a single institution at any one time. It has myriad branches and depts. The idea of it has a consistent line on anything is silly.