Hacker News Reader

Comment by gruez | Hacker News Reader

From the headline alone: the "physics we don't understand" part only really makes sense if you assume the things you see on camera correspond to physical objects moving in space, and not some optical effect. If you thought a lens flare was a physical object you'd think it was "physics we don't understand", but the effect itself is perfectly explainable using physics we understand.

View on HN

The DNI's UFO report clarifies that these objects were observed with multiple sensors and spotted by eyewitness. If you see something with radar, on the camera, you pick it up with the electro-optical system, and you and a few other folks see it with your eyes, then it is probably not a lens-flare.

The DNI concluded that the UFO's are likely physical things.

https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Prelima...

I don't see it saying that. Some objects were seen on camera. Others were on radar. I see no report of an object being on both radar and visual (or other spectra) simultaneously. And they certainly have not released any actual raw data in that regard. Not any raw data full stop (ie no camera original images).

A multi-sensor confirmation would show identical simultaneous movements across different sensors and platforms. Everything short of that is probably explainable due to the specific limitations of individual sensors.

The second bullet point of the executive summary on page 3 of the PDF.

"Most of the UAP reported probably do represent physical objects given that a majority of UAP were registered across multiple sensors, to include radar, infrared, electro-optical, weapon seekers, and visual observation"

Page 4 of the PDF, first bullet point:

"144 reports originated from USG sources. Of these, 80 reports involved observation with multiple sensors."

Ya. Not simultaneously detected. These are days where one sensor sees something, then another sensor sees another thing, then a pilot goes up looking and sees something else. That is not confirmation. Multiple sensors seeing things in sequence, not all seeing the same thing at the same time. Once the word gets out, everyone starts finding things on their screens to report.

Appendix A defines a "UAP event" as "A holistic description of an occurrence during which a pilot or aircrew witnessed (or detected) a UAP." And "UAP Report" is the documentation for a UAP event. The DNI document says that 80 UAP reports have confirmation from multiple sensors.

The UAP event spans the time where a pilot or aircrew witnessed the UAP. During this time the UAP was confirmed by multiple sensors.

There is no language in the report to make it seem like the "confirmation" happened at different times or on different days. If that is what is meant, then the report is very misleading, but I don't think that is what is meant. What language from the report leads you to this interpretation?

Then where is that data? All I have ever seen of "confirmed" sightings is stories and descriptions. Let's see the radar tracks. Let's see the exact camera locations and specifications along with raw images. Let's see the overhead satellite images. Let's see the ship camera footage. Funny how we never get more than an occasional tidbit of the actual data.

A group looking to keep their paychecks throws out a flimsy, unsubstantiated one-liner. When it comes to light that the statement was made by misrepresenting the data (which is still secret), what then? Nothing. They got their paychecks and made an honest mistake. Everyone moves on.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So far the only thing that about this report has been how much hot air they can blow out of a human ass.

The Pentagon released a preliminary report [1] two weeks ago stating that UAPs (their term for UFOs) are physical objects and demonstrate advanced capabilities that the US Navy cannot explain.

[1] https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/reports-publications/...

Cannot explain, means even if you know how, you cannot explain it.

The headline is a quote from the "former fighter pilot Alex Dietrich". The BBC wrapped it quotation marks.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com