Slashdot Mirror
UFO Disclosure Group Releases Newest Navy F/A-18 Super Hornet UFO Encounter Video (cnn.com)
alaskana98 writes: CNN and other media outlets are reporting that the "To The Stars Academy of Arts and Science" group has released the third in a series of videos purportedly showing an encounter between Navy F/A-18 Super Hornet pilots and an object moving at seemingly impossible speeds off the East Coast of the United States. The video was captured by the Raytheon: Advanced Targeting Forward-Looking Infrared (ATFLIR) pod and includes audio of the pilots excitedly observing this object from far above as it zooms over the ocean surface. The ATFLIR system has trouble getting a lock on the object at first but then gets a lock on it eventually demonstrating that whatever this this was it wasn't a figment of the pilots imaginations. If the video is authentic there are indeed some strange things flying in our skies. The video can be viewed here.
They found Jonathon Livingston Seagull.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
It's nice to see something flying in a straight line, but I'm not going to get excited till I see something move/bank/turn at a rate that exceeds current flight technologies. THAT will be impressive.
[Sorry, this signature is unavailable in your country/region]
Looks like a weather balloon to me.
They were flying at exactly 25k feet for the entire segment of that video?
UFO means unknown flying object. UFO does not mean alien. Just my 23 cents to those who will jump to conclusion. My own hypothesis are that the explanation are immensely far more likely to be something mundane which cannot be proven but neither can it be discarded, e.g. some dust before the equipment, insects or equally mundane stuff. Alien do not even come in the top 5.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
You are people, therefore, you are stupid.
I'm glad we had this discussion.
The accompanying audio does not sound like "highly trained" personnel. It sounds like a couple of (stoned?) jocks playing a video game. If that is the standard of professionalism for fighter pilots, then it explains a lot about recent armed conflicts.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
Why has /. stooped to the level of publishing UFO conspiracy bullshit? I call it bullshit because it lacks any substance of real information. "The video is of something... but we don't know what exactly but it's definitely a thing!" Great... when you find out what it is then you will have a story. Until then you should stfu.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
If you want, you can choose to think this means basically whatever you want.
Bugs/spiderweb in front of the camera, aliens here to warn us of Trump that showed up too late, water reflection onto the optics, angels here to warn us of Trump too late, a laser pointer tracking the craft, or demons in the sky celebrating that it's too late for us to prevent Trump.
Any of them could be possible... and because of that, it doesn't really mean any of them. Like countless angel/fairy/alien/moving spot 'videos' that last a few seconds, aren't controlled or properly repeatable, and are of very suspect content that could be recreated in several available ways.
Posting anonymously because skepticism suffers from a rather nasty praise/punishment ratio in today's America.
wtf is this doing here?
My turbo research before I'm off to work is that it could be a small-ish meteoroid in free fall. It appearing as a cold white object in the IR-camera's "black mode" could be due to it still retaining the near-zero Kelvin temperature from space, though I'm unsure how the atmospheric entry would have affected that.
Noted scientific skeptic Phil Plait's article on a possible event such as this: http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad...
Featured video (1m 50s in): https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
If you follow the video from 1:35 to 1:55, the range displayed on the screen drops from 4.4 nautical miles to 3.4.
That's 0.1 mile per second or 185 m/s. The speed of the F18 itself and the shifting angle makes calculating the speed of the UFO more difficult, but it looks looks like the object is approaching the plane rather than flying away. So part of the 185 m/s are from the F18's own speed. As a rough guess, the thing was doing perhaps Mach 0.5. There are a lot of man-made objects that can do that. A drone maybe?
C - the footgun of programming languages
The motion of the water is upwards/right. If they were filming with a constant pan/tilt the water would appear moving down/left given their heading.
Now, they locked the camera tracking at the object (at somewhere between 0 and 25k ft) and that would make the water appear to move upwards/right even if the object wasn't moving at all, due to the parallax effect. This is similar to how a street light appears to move relative to the background (when you look at it, i.e. track it), while the background and the light in fact are stationary, you're just changing perspective when you drive along the road.
So, it is entirely possible to get this effect with a very slow moving, or even stationary, object due to the parallax. The "apparent fast linear motion" is also consistent with the fast linear motion of the aircraft.
It could be a drone, a bird, or even a bag floating in the air. To tell otherwise, one would need more information, primarily the of the FoV of the camera.
Or just a bug.
I mean, seriously, the computer flipped a bit. This is evidence that the computer flipped a bit.
It tells nothing about if an object was even detected.
Sensors are useful when they're reporting information in their expected and well-calibrated regions. Odd-looking data does not imply an important observation, though it is certainly possible. Odd-looking sensor results imply a sensor problem.
The video doesn't seem to provide evidence of "impossible speed", without knowing the distance to the object the angle of the camera plus the movement of the jet could mean this is anything from impossible speed to a slow moving object that the camera is making appear fast.
But I clearly can tell from the difficult time at first the pilot had at first locking on that the object was moving fast and did not have any wings.
I clearly can tell that you pulled that conclusion out of your ass.
If there is an alien civilisation that has arrrived here recently creating all these weird booms that would mean all of those in control or our government wouldn't be the supreme power on our planet and who will comfort us from scary things?
Worst of all they would have to answer to a more technologically advanced race for being assholes and fucking up the planet we live on. I don't think anyone wants that so even if it is true we should just make up as many reasons as we can so we don't have to answer for anything.
UFOs and aliens are a figment of our imagination. I know, for absolute 100% sure that there is no such thing, I've checked everywhere I go and I haven't seen anything in my city, even on my phone. Obviously anyone who has seen something like this must be falsifying there experiences.
People should not forget, if an alien civilisation came here, the government, military and all the oil companies would be the first to relinquish control, hold hands with us all and sing 'Kom By Yah', therefore aliens and UFOS don't exist.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
It looks like Putin has an updated version of the Lun Ekranoplan
Could be an anti-ship missile, a cruise missile, or maybe even a sea-skimming plane.
Theoretically, which particular bit might you flip on a computer to produce a fast-moving trackable object in a video stream and have the targeting system lock onto it?
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
I absolutely agree 100%.
It's a UFO. It's apparently flying (but that's not proven). It's apparently an object (but that's got a given either). And we don't know what it is.
And?
To be honest, it fits all the classic hallmarks of "UFO as aliens" sightings, from the scale, to the speed, to being just a blob. I'm really disappointed that people are still doing this stuff in 2018...
But I'm much more disappointed that Slashdot sees fit to make an article of it.
"...I am trained in gorilla warfare "
Mano a mano?
All it shows is a video of the targeting system locking on an object that is surprisingly unperturbed by the atmosphere. It doesn't vary in distance, apparent size, doesn't shake or anything that would be considered normal when picking up an object, only slowly rotating as if it were locked in a fluid either right inside or outside the sensor itself.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It looks like a TIE fighter. [yes, thank you, I know it's the HUD that looks like a TIE fighter]
Before the targeting system locks onto the object we can see the same object flying across the screen multiple times as the camera attempts to track it. The behavior is otherwise normal for tracking an object at long distance. Those cameras don't shake like a dude with a camcorder.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
"Here's the official, stolen, government training film of the secret plan to deal with an alien uprising."
(Martial music swells in the background)
(NCO-In-Charge Commentator): "Classified ultra-secret! Air Force generals only! Ten-hut! At ease mens, take your seat!"
(The General): "This is General Curtis Goatheart. If you are viewing this film, then we are under extraterrestrial attack. Beware- your brain may no longer be the boss! If you are beginning to doubt what I am saying, you are probably hallucinating. Listen carefully!"
(One second burst of ringing alarm bell)
(NCOIC): "What to do if an alien appears! ONE!"
(The General): "Drop beneath the seat of your plane and look away."
(NCOIC): "TWO!"
(The General): "Avoid eye contact."
(NCOIC): "THREE!"
(The General): "If there are no eyes, avoid all contact."
(One second burst of ringing alarm bell)
(NCOIC): "How to identify alleged sightings! ONE!"
(The General): "Pie plates, or as reflections in the atmosphere."
(NCOIC): "TWO!"
(The General): "Dry cleaning bags filled with marsh gas, or..."
(NCOIC) "THREE!"
(The General): "Mass insanity!"
(One second burst of ringing alarm bell)
(NCOIC): "How to inform your wife, and others under your command!"
(Bugle blowing reville in the background, faint drumbeat, soft clatter of dinnerware)
(General's Wife): "...Can I freshen that up for you?..."
(The Colonel): "I don't know how she got that requisition..."
(General's Wife): "Oh, she gets it in the back..."
(The Colonel): "Well, she's not allowed to have them unless she's..."
(Another Officer): "Unless she's related to the (undecipherable) of the PX..."
(Sound of a spoon repeatedly striking a water glass)
(The General): "Honey and men- I have something awesome to reveal to you."
(The Colonel): "Well, go ahead, sir."
(General's Wife): "Go ahead."
(The General): "Two flying saucers have just landed on my plate."
(Long moment of silence)
(The Colonel): "Well, turn away sir- I'll eat them."
(Nervous laughter)
(Sound of a spoon repeatedly striking a water glass)
(The General): "Men- our greatest fear is realized- we are under attack from superior consciousness."
(The Colonel): "The eggs, sir?"
(The General): "They're only the beginning."
(More nervous laughter)
(Another Officer): "Can I have some more of those flapjacks?"
(The General): "All right, men- questions? Questions?"
(The Major): "Ah, sir?"
(The General): "Yes, Major?"
(The Major): "Ah, pass the ah, syrup, General?"
(The General): "That's a good idea, Chuck, but syrup won't stop 'em!"
(Another Officer): "But, sir..."
(The Colonel): "Ah, sir?"
(The General): "Colonel?"
(The Colonel): "Are you nuts?"
(The General): "H-Hmmm! That is just exactly what they want you to believe! (chuckle)"
(The Colonel): "The eggs, sir?"
(The General): "Let's just call them 'the phenomena' "
(The Colonel): "Well, if I may respectfully submit, sir, I think you've got your phenomena
scrambled, General."
(More nervous laughter)
(General's Wife): "What about my eggs, dear?"
(The General): "Honey- they're in- everybody's eggs!"
(The Colonel, slightly sarcastically): "Good lord!"
(Faint drumbeat, soft clatter of dinnerware in the background)
(The General's wife begins sobbing hysterically, but softly)
(Another Officer): "I think I'm going to have to leave this table..."
(The Major): "...another cup of coffee, sir- settle you down a bit..."
(NCOIC): "CONCLUSION!"
(The General): "They think he is insane. Yet he outranks them. His option- command!"
(NCOIC): "ONE!"
(The General): "He seals off the area."
(NCOIC): "TWO!"
(The General): "Secures the cooperation of local officials."
(NCOIC): "THREE!"
(The General): "Obtains expert scientific susistence (sic)."
(NCOIC): "FOUR!"
(The General): "Evacuates all government employees, and..."
(NCOIC): "FIVE!"
(The General): "...bombs aliens back to stone age!"
(Martial music swells up in the background)
(NCOIC): "END OF FILM!"
Mono a mono
With evidence like that, who can deny the truth? Seriously, this is just another one in the long series of videos of lights in the sky, that can be just about anything. Proof of ETs it ain't. Provide solid, irrefutable proof, not this nonsense.
They'll be making an announcement next week regarding new initiatives to share their technology with the rest of the world.
Anyone know whether Raytheon's AN/ASQ-228 is available for export?
Really? A bug at 25k feet going mach .6. Because for that sensor to pick up a bug like that it would have had to have been flying with the jet and been maybe a couple feet from the sensor. Not quite even remotely pissible in this realm of realuty. It picked up something moving fast 1000s of feet below it.
Wait, mach .6 is a "seemingly impossible" speed? Since when? Even if this is supposed to say mach 6, we've seen things that fly that fast, like various rockets and experimental scram jets.
This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
Stick a fork in it mate, this place is done.
Are you a bot then if no one reads or comments here anymore? Wait, am I a bot?
I see the Counterstrike crowd has migrated to Slashdot.
Were the pilots on drugs and hallucinating as usual then?
You joke, but altitude hypoxia can result in disorientation, hallucination and mental impairment. At 20,000 ft, your blood is only capable of carrying 2/3 the oxygen it can transport at sea level. Trying to breathe air at 35,000 ft can result in as little as 15 seconds of useful consciousness. Part of your cockpit scan when flying with a pressure demand flow system is a visual check of the flow meter (which works like the little windows at gas stations that confirm the fuel is running) and the oxygen PSI gauge. It's a surprisingly low-tech piece of gear with big green and red toggle switches because when you *absolutely* need to verify that it's working, you need a Fisher Price-level user interface.
"Solid, irrefutable proof" is not necessary to establish a legitimate mystery. There's a difference between the evidence threshold needed to establish "legitimate mystery" and "they are space aliens". The second indeed requires a very high level of evidence.
The witness evidence is incredible, I'd note. In the 1950's there was a military plane with a skeleton crew who watched a flying metallic disk in broad daylight roughly 40 feet from the plane. It looked clearly metallic and clearly like a manufactured/artificial item. The crew never sought publicity, and if anything, were freaked out by it.
The military being this open about military sightings is rather unusual. They usually are much more wiggly. This would normally trigger big news and a rush of talking heads, but that orange dude overshadows news interest. Coincidence? I'm just asking.
Table-ized A.I.
Somebody is a bag of hot air
Table-ized A.I.
Jocko homo.
"He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
Don't assume the software is perfect just because it has "US Government" stamped on it.
The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
Impossible speeds they say? Didn't Putin mention hypersonic weapons in his speech?
Magilla a Magilla
Somebody needs to shadow-ban you and all other off-topic trolls.
This is Slashdot. We started with trolls and they're part of the culture, from appy apps to cows to GNAA. You seem to be looking for Reddit.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Why is the US taxpayer funding a war against gorillas?
For the Gorilla Channel.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
This video has been on Vimeo for two years already. Apparently posted by a SFX guy... https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Not at all UFO in behavior IMHO.
In fact, my first thought was either a drone, or the testing of a new "ground effect" torpedo, which glides just above the surface of the water allowing it to travel significantly faster than a traditional torpedo, while simultaneously be very difficult to target and take out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Why we don't have these already I will never know. Sure, they won't be as effective in 30ft swells. But still would be a great tool to have available.
My assumption would be for the camera to pick up atmospheric disturbances especially of hot objects at distance and the object would thus be dimming and brightening or appear to be shaking, even if the camera was somehow perfectly able to keep track of an object.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Thank you for an informative link (quoted from below).
Whichever bit stores your conclusion about "is the tracking system locked on?"
What a silly question. You clearly don't understand what a "bit" is on a computer, or how it is used, or what flipping one means.
There was a single correct interpretation, and it was also the most obvious one.
Nonsense. There is no one bit for being locked on to a phenomena visible on a video feed. It didn't lock on to nothing.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
You know you don't understand the basics of programming when you say that stuff.
Yes, there is a single bit that stores the boolean value about if the current state is "locked" or "not locked."
It didn't lock on to nothing.
Yeah, says who, Harry Potter? It locked onto something, and that something might very well have been nothing! Do you comprehend any of your own words? Waving your hands doesn't cause you to have knowledge of why the target lock indicator was or wasn't on you nincompoop.
You know you don't understand the basics of programming when you say that stuff.
Funny, I'm beginning to think the same thing about you, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're not reading my posts carefully.
Yes, there is a single bit that stores the boolean value about if the current state is "locked" or "not locked."
Sure, quite likely there is. But like I said, there is no one bit for "lock onto this visible phenomena in the infrared video feed in particular."
Yeah, says who, Harry Potter? It locked onto something, and that something might very well have been nothing! Do you comprehend any of your own words? Waving your hands doesn't cause you to have knowledge of why the target lock indicator was or wasn't on you nincompoop.
It takes some seriously magical thinking to think that the visible thing that the system locked onto was also some kind of glitch that matches perfectly with the targeting system glitch. If you understand anything about how digital video signals work, you'd know that the odds of a glitch producing that flying blip in the video are roughly equal to the odds of a glitch superimposing images of a breakdancing William Shakespeare. Glitches in video tend to produce multicolored garbage that looks...glitchy, usually localized or banded coloring artifacts. The odds of the targeting system randomly locking onto the exact point in space that such an incredibly improbable glitch appears to be moving through are astronomical, making the possibility absurd.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
You're doing the wrong experiments, then.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Mario a Mario?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
From data collected by a sensor at th edge of its specs we make a handful of inductive inferences: it travels, by flight, fast, at a low altitude, with little to no observable turbulence. Thatâ(TM)s still far from solid proof that itâ(TM)s actually an aircraft with unseen capabilities. It might be a UFO, at best it may be a UAP.
Donald Trump's timeline on David Duke indicates that DT is either DT a cowardly liar (not a cowardly lion - that's from a different movie) or had some serious memory problems:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/03/01/donald-trump-and-david-duke-for-the-record
1991: David Duke: Bad man.
2000: David Duke: Bad man.
2015: David Duke: "I don’t know anything about him."
Object is shadow of a Jetliner at 37,000 feet. Stupid 10 million dollar sensor!
No, no, no, no, no, probability is not some blah-blah about Willy and his and his little plays.
There is a long history of this sort of sensor glitch, don't be so airheaded. You know you don't have any idea how likely it is, because you haven't ever looked into it enough detail. You just waving your hands and imagining a probability! But look up past examples, because sensor bugs are a real thing. Little fuckers crawl inside everything eventually, and when they get inside a sensor they die.
In this case it appears the crew just couldn't read their display, and had bumped a knob. But very similar things have happened again and again and again, and yet old Willy never shows up to a local book signing. He'd make a bundle for sure.
There is a long history of this sort of sensor glitch, don't be so airheaded. You know you don't have any idea how likely it is, because you haven't ever looked into it enough detail.
Show me one example of one of these targeting systems glitching in a way that produces a clearly visible false object on the video feed, which appears to move independently of the video stream, and then locking onto it. Just one. I've now researched fighter aircraft sensor bugs and have found no such thing. The closest thing I've found is an F35 system locking onto a non-visible false target among a tight group of targets.
I know that the odds against producing the false object on video are already astronomical from my experience with video editing and data recovery. And considering all the combinations of position, speed, and direction possible in 3-dimensional space, the odds of the radar-guided targeting system then locking onto a false target that flawlessly and continuously matches those factors to those of a supposedly random false target on video is so thin that it would never ever happen before the heat death of the universe, even if you packed the universe with fighter aircraft targeting systems and bombarded them with ideal amounts of radiation to produce glitches from the big bang until heat death. Take a video file and try altering some bytes in a hex editor to see what happens. Let me know when you get something that even vaguely resembles a single moving object.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
There is a long history of this sort of sensor glitch, don't be so airheaded. You know you don't have any idea how likely it is, because you haven't ever looked into it enough detail.
Show me one example...
No, look it up yourself and find out if you're right, or wrong. (Spoiler: Wrong!) Don't ask me to show you stuff, that's exactly why you're full of shit; people talk, you measure their personal Virtue, and if that measurement tells you they're somebody you like, then you believe them and repeat their blah-blah as if it was knowledge you learned. It isn't. It isn't knowledge, it is just rumor. It doesn't make you sciencey, it makes you an idiot.
Don't ask me to show you what I already told you the answer is. You should be able to easily look it up from objective sources, without having to ask me what sources are high quality. If you need to get that meta-data from the same source as the data you're trying to verify, you're just getting taken for a ride, you're not participating in discussions, or even collecting the information necessary to do an analysis before coming to conclusions!
I know that the odds against producing the false object on video are already astronomical from my experience with video editing and data recovery.
LMFAO! No. Just, no.
No, look it up yourself and find out if you're right, or wrong. (Spoiler: Wrong!)
You assert that these astronomically improbable bugs have happened, I try to find when they have and failed, I ask you to show me these occurrences that you say you know about, and next you assert that I'm wrong for not finding them and you won't tell me why? Do you see how full of shit this makes you look?
Don't ask me to show you stuff, that's exactly why you're full of shit; people talk, you measure their personal Virtue, and if that measurement tells you they're somebody you like, then you believe them and repeat their blah-blah as if it was knowledge you learned. It isn't. It isn't knowledge, it is just rumor. It doesn't make you sciencey, it makes you an idiot.
Where the flying fuck did this come from? I'm simply asking for evidence of your extraordinary claims! I've already given you far more credibility and respect than a jackass nonsensemonger deserves. I'll take that back if you show evidence. Show me this evidence you allege exists, I fucking dare you.
Don't ask me to show you what I already told you the answer is. You should be able to easily look it up from objective sources, without having to ask me what sources are high quality.
I TRIED. THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU. SOURCE OR IT DIDN'T HAPPEN AND YOU'RE A FULL-OF-SHIT PEDDLER OF LIES.
LMFAO! No. Just, no.
I have experience, you have "LMFAO, No." Maybe there's hard evidence of complex realistic visible phenomena arising from random bit-flipping in digital video streams somewhere in the same hard-to-find source you refuse to share?
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel