Radar footage shows Hellfire missile fired by US Military bounce off UFO
nypost.com
nypost.com
"2:42 Check out the readout on the bottom right . One of the numbers is the target height above terrain - and after it's hit that goes down from 86 to 59 over about 6 seconds before the video cuts off. So after being hit the object isn't continuing on course, it's falling at an increasingly fast rate. The video was sent to Rep. Eric Burlison with no chain of custody and no context, and it's a video taken of a screen which crops out 80% of the analytical data along the edges of the screen, but that's the MOST IMPORTANT PART which would tell us the distance, speed, size, range, angle and other critical information for interpreting the video. This could be drone to drone intercept footage from a training mission, we just don't know at this point."
Also note that the article's title contains an error - this is not "radar footage, it's IR camera footage. Before assuming this is even an "orb" at all, check out this video on how these cameras work: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qsEjV8DdSbs
I'm no expert but my most likely bet is someone cropped IR footage of a drone intercept and sent it without context or SME interpretation to a congressman.
Seriously though why is this on HN?
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.
Gee, I wonder why.
Unfortunately we don't have any public radar data to evaluate - only hearsay which is very often unreliable.
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.
> 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.
As for what the UAP was, I don't have an opinion.
Mick has a new video up on this Hellfire video, though.
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
This video, though, isn't remotely convincing. It looks like the hellfire deflects off a bog standard drone, yet doesn't detonate, which disassembles and the look-down video cuts before we see the actual consequences. The path of the object is basic inertia where a rolling object is falling to the ground but we're seeing top down so it's "maintaining course".
These UFO things are always sadly a lot of noise and astonishingly little substance. There are "kooks" -- people who have decompensated and no longer are rational -- in every large enough set, including the military. There are always terrible evidence like these videos, coupled with people giving their completely unsubstantiated crazy takes.
https://www.navy.mil/Resources/Fact-Files/Display-FactFiles/... "It can also be used as an air-to-air weapon against helicopters or slow-moving fixed-wing aircraft."
https://www.twz.com/sea/littoral-combat-ship-can-now-rapidly...
Shooting at Sufficiently Advanced Aliens also sounds like a bad idea...
It shows an MQ-9 Reaper drone tracking a glowing orb off the coast of Yemen before firing a Hellfire missile straight at it.
But instead of blowing the object to bits, the so-called “orb” appeared to shrug it off and keep flying.
The video was taken in October 2024, but has only just been released to the public. "
- https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/36642473/ufo-struck-by-us-mili...
Air to air missiles don't always explode in a fireball like in Hollywood movies. Often it's more like a shotgun blast that peppers the target with holes and relatively minor damage that then causes mechanical failure. The Dutch safety board's analysis video of the shootdown of MH17 has great animations and forensic photos.
Yes many air target missiles do just that but this is a hellfire, normally used for ground targets. So there is no flying alongside its intended targets, it's just a big boom warhead.
Because it's meant for ground targets I could imagine the detonator needs something really firm to hit in order to detonate though. A drone might not suffice in all circumstances
https://www.twz.com/usaf-testing-mutant-missiles-that-twist-...
This area of defense technology has been moving very quickly in the past few years, many assumptions the general public holds about military weapons and tactics are long obsolete.
What's next, flat earth hearings?
The "U" stands for "unidentified". That's all. No need to be abusive
I'm sure if you could push that, you would. You probably push the elderly and children. You ought try pushing your intellect, for something other than money and ignorance.
PS: since a mod will see (and flag) this comment, please take a moment, if you have the necessary UI, to look at my downvote history. Almost every comment I make gets at least one downvote. I think I've made a friend or two here, but I don't requite. You guys enforce a lot of subtle things; is this encouraged?
”Now its zoomed out”.
Looks like the usual dumb nonsense, enough to convince only the gullible.
Release the damn Epstein files!!!!
I hope he will write, sing, and dance a big beautiful love song about Trump's sexy secretive birthday letter to Epstein.
Why do you attribute either opaque or transparent behavior/comms on UFOs from the power structure, if there is nothing to be gained either way by said power structure?
IF there is any discourse to be had on UFOs, power structures hiding things etc. it would be on the topic of US DoD obfuscating Next generations Weapons testing for sake of operational security. This has been a formal USAF departments initiative since the 80s, and it's very transparent initiative.