I highly recommend Mick West's work on reconstructing the situations in each of the released videos so far: https://www.youtube.com/@MickWest
His reconstructions make it clear that these phenomena result from properties of the optical system used in the sensors as well as diffusion of infrared light through miles of atmosphere.
>His reconstructions make it clear that these phenomena result from properties of the optical system used in the sensors as well as diffusion of infrared light through miles of atmosphere.
From his analysis on the (suggestively named) GIMBAL video, it's clear that the only thing his reconstruction proves is that the rotation ("It's rotating!") and outline is a result of the optics platform. I take no issue with that.
The DoD's claims about extraordinary flight characteristics are not, however, based on the silhouette or the rotation. They have all the flight data from multiple aircraft and ground systems. Their conclusion is based on, at least, additional information from the Situational Awareness display ("There's a whole fleet of them, look on the SA"), the longevity of their flight time (reportedly 12+ hours per Lt. Ryan Graves), and hypersonic flight maneuvers (simultaneously observed both visually and on radar, per Cmdr. David Fravor and SCPO Kevin Day).
Low-information UFO enthusiasts are the ones who got excited about the shape and rotation (which West focuses on), but the DoD never cared about that. Even the name GIMBAL suggests that they were already aware of those confounding effects prior to public release.
Everyone interested in the topic should watch the Mick West videos, but be careful not to make more of his videos than what's actually there (ie the subset of claims he can support with reconstruction data).
In addition, I've found his demonstrations of airplane bodies appearing as wingless tic-tacs in atmosphere due to light scattering, a very similar effect in which jet exhausts infrared blows out the contrast making it difficult to see any detail at distance, demonstrations of bokeh lens flare in several videos, and his speed reconstructions in simulation to be really useful. Particularly several which seemed after analysis to be mylar balloons.
The process he demonstrates for looking up aircraft flight paths, loading them into Google Earth and interpolating through them is also really useful.
I really appreciate the data-driven occams razor approach he takes to analyzing all the available evidence.
Neil deGrasse Tyson is similar. They both approach the subject with a very unscientific, bad faith attitude.
I disagree with them both. I have experienced something that I do not believe has a prosaic explanation. Further, I do not believe that relativity is the end of physics as Tyson or west so strongly imply.
Curiosity in this subject should be encouraged, not ridiculed.
Many people have. I have a friend who credits God for helping her find the perfect pair of shoes for her wedding.
The range of what can be explained by a prosaic explanation is wider than most people like to admit.
Whether you believe or not in god (and that he will busy himself with finding shoes for you), everyone will agree this is firmly outside the realm of science. So if we're writing this kind of assertions in a conversation about UAPs/ETs, what does this say about the latter?
I don't think proponents of UAPs (especially UAPs-as-ETs) want them to be put side by side with "Jesus speaks to me".
In other words, nobody (credible) is claiming that aliens or anything of the sort exist.
And unfortunately, yet more people seem to not understand -- surprisingly, in a forum such as HN -- that "things exist that we cannot yet understand" is completely normal for science and it has been since humans engaged in science as a way of understanding more about the universe.
"We don't understand this sensor data yet" is completely normal for science, it's not some shameful failure that must be covered up, the sure evidence that our models about everything are crumbling and secret 3 letter agencies must become involved to make sure Western civilization doesn't collapse.
Geez.
I do not see anyone, let alone multiple people, making that claim. Can you link to one?
Here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42160277
And you here, though disguised so you have the easy way out of claiming you were just hypthesizing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42160930
Plus, if you are going to claim the two aren't conflated in general, i.e. that most conversations about UFOs are also about ETs, then I'll peg you for a dishonest person and will have nothing further to discuss with you.
And then you call them a liar.
So you can conflate all you like, and will, but that’s your problem. There is no evidence as to the source for UAPs, interplanetary or otherwise.
I do not know what is going on, and make zero claims that I do. The one and only claim I make is that something is going on, but what that exactly is is now.
You, on the other hand, can read minds.
That’s the more fantastical claim.
I’m sorry, but West is not convincing. He has a predetermined outcome in mind, namely, that there is nothing but man-made vehicles in the sky, and that there is zero chance for it to be anything else. Ever.
This conclusion does not match the evidence, and symbolizes a tragic incuriosity about the possibilities the universe holds.
Unfortunately eyewitness testimony (even from trained pilots) is notoriously unreliable, and none of the other supposed evidence seems to be available for analysis.
Mick doesn't seem to shy away from looking at any available evidence. It's not his fault that nothing incontrovertible has shown up yet.
People have been using this to imply ETs, even in this comments section, and it seems disingenuous to me to pretend otherwise or act surprised.
Since forever, the rational explanations for Groom Lake phenomena and similar, after filtering the obvious "bunch of liars trying to sell books", has been "top secret military tech" or "meteorological phenomena". Where's the news in that?
However, let me point out that this:
> The news is that the US military is acting very much like they aren’t responsible for recent sightings
... has multiple prosaic interpretations that are also relatively likely. To name a few:
- "The news" is not the US military. You have at least one level of indirection there.
- The US military saying something doesn't make it what they truly believe. Disinformation is a real military thing. Even disinformation aimed at a third party (e.g. rival nations who could believe the US military is asking its own population [things]).
- Inter-agency rivalry is a thing. Top secret projects may not be known to everyone within a military.
- Drones are now widespread, so the US military encouraging the usual UFO believers to be on the lookout may help them spot actual threats. It doesn't have to be anything physics-defying, just true unidentified flying objects.
- Finally, though less likely in my opinion, it could be the US military believes in UAPs of physics-defying or even ET origin, but it's just another case of Men Staring at Goats. I mean, in their history they have believed all sorts of kooky things with zero backing evidence.
Not really. Adversaries have caught up, with stealthy aircraft and drones.
We’re in the “huh, what was that?!” spot the Russians and Chinese and Syrians and whatnot are quite used to being in.
In fact, while evidence of intelligent ET life visiting this planet would be shocking to us a species philosophically, theologically and scientifically, it would in any many ways be better than the hypothesis they are actually trying to prove/disprove:
That an adversary has an advanced aircraft that can outrun allied aircraft with ease, and can embed itself into restricted airspace easily, at will, and we don't know what the intentions are.
This isn't an experiment in finding ET. This is an experiment in defending national and international airspace from an unknown phenomenon that could be a threat.
People hand-waving away the explorations of this stuff has done more harm to national and international security than any other train of thought from the scientific community. We're meant to be interested in learning new things, not just finding things that fit our existing models - especially when that new thing could be a weapon from some unknown adversary.
Consider the madness of a Chinese weather balloon not too long ago - why is this somehow not as important?
That may explain some of the sightings. That article specifically mentions foo fighters in the context of night flying. Were foo fighters seen during the day too? (I haven't researched them at all)
EDIT: Actually the foo fighters wiki article is pretty even handed I think: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foo_fighter?wprov=sfla1
For one thing, he makes arguments in bad faith and with poor use of honest analysis. Consequently, many people have done a pretty thorough job of debunking his own debunking efforts (you can easily find some of these through both a YouTube or a Google search).
West takes a very classic debunker approach (not that I don't say skeptic, but debunker specifically) of prima facie deciding that the inexplicable can't possibly be the case and thus guiding all of his arguments, rather dogmatically, to showing how it isn't the case, regardless of the quality or plausibility of what he argues. It's a dishonest and tedious way to view the world, but couched in enough rational sounding discourse to seem solid.
Many people give such arguments more weight than they deserve because, well, nearly any aspect of examining the UFO phenomenon is at least associated (often very unfairly) with the most extreme of quacks and cranks and thus bias tends towards giving more weight to a seemingly skeptical interpretation, regardless of its specific qualities.
I've communicated with West on this subject even and noticed quickly that when questioned on the weaknesses of specific arguments, he simply doubles down on his base statements, but without addressing the precise counter-skepticism being thrown at him. This does not make for honest reasoning and good faith..