▲ 247 points
back
320 comments
>"We know a little more about the UFO itself. It is described as “wingless, white, and shaped like an oblong pill. It was 24-30 (40 in the NYT article) feet long and had no visible markings or glass. The USS Princeton was able to faintly track the “capsule” via its SPY-1B radar system, but the fighters were not able to get a radar lock on the object. The “capsule” was not only more maneuverable than the Hornets but also much faster —for it to have reached the CAP point ahead of the Navy fighters it would have had to have flown in excess of 2,400 miles an hour. According to FighterSweep.com, which published a detailed chronicle of the event in 2015, the object did not emit hot jet exhaust typical of ordinary aircraft."
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a14456936/that-tim...
This lists three possibilities: Malfunction of equipment and/or crew, US government operating a real UFO, or aliens operating a real UFO.
I can think of one more which seems more likely: US government testing secret radar spoofing tech (probably operated from a submarine).
I'm skeptical of the part where it went to the CAP point. First, it was apparently only detected at the CAP point by the USS Princeton, it was gone by the time the jets arrived so we don't have multiple confirmation. But more importantly, how did the craft know to go to the CAP point? Even if the jets were bearing in that direction at the time (and I don't think they were) how would it know the distance to travel? Was it listening in on radio chatter, meaning they have reverse engineered our communications protocols, broken our encryption, and understand enough of our language and technical jargon to determine where to go? Were the exact coordinates of the CAP point even discussed over the radio while in the presence of the craft?
And the whole thing just seems weird to me. If you're an alien vessel visiting our planet, it seems like you're either going to try to make contact, or ignore people and just gather samples. But this? Just sort of bothering the US Navy? You could argue it was gathering samples of ocean water or something. But then why go to the CAP point? That can't be to collect scientific data. And that doesn't make sense as their attempt to contact us. As I mentioned above, they'd have to have a lot of knowledge of our language and communication to know where that point is, which means they know enough to simply make radio contact.
Presumably some or many ufo sightings are highly classified military tests that any random military pilot or radar operator is not ever going know about or even be told about after they sighted it.
Its even possible tests are done knowing other military pilots are in vicinity to guage their reaction to it.
To me this is the simplest explanation (if weather balloons and drones are ruled out).
It would make sense that secretive military aviation projects would purposefully fly near unsecretive unsuspecting military aircraft to determine how detectable they are. It also makes sense that the military would publicly embrace the UFO narrative as a way to continue concealing their secretive projects.
The UFOs display fantastical properties that are lightyears ahead of state of the art fighters. I find it a bit hard to believe that some secret project can be that much better than what the public knows without the knowledge leaking somehow.
This is the simplest explanation, indeed. In fact UFO sightings sharply increased starting in the 1940s which corresponds exactly to the period when military aviation research and experimentation took off.
Another explanation, which would fit with current developments, might be that these are computer-generated artifacts.
Increasingly, the picture we are being shown is generated by processing raw sensor data - for example, just compare raw (or partially processed) weather radar data to the processed maps you see in forecasts. Two recent trends -- the synthesis of views from multiple sensors of different types, and their presentation as virtual reality -- have come together in devices such as the F-35 Helmet-Mounted Display [1]. I would guess that this level of interpretation of data and synthesis of images presents an increased scope for artifact generation, and the presentation makes it seem more real.
IIRC, some SR-71 crews had a hobby of local newspapers on towns they usually flew over, to see which ones reported UFO sightings the day after the missions.
This is probably due to the rise of automated vehicles but not for the reasons you'd think. I've dealt with the problem of automated contact aquisition and tracking, esp with Radar, and let me tell you: fast tracks moving at insane speeds with sometimes-faint signatures are the norm. a perfectly calm sea, esp near shore, can create 100s or a 1000 spurious tracks if automated tools are trusted. The incorrect association of signatures to hypothesized contacts can produce "jumps" in their location, altitude that makes it look like inhuman maneuverability.
Second, the proliferation of small aircraft does bias operators (and algorithms) to assume a real contact from small signatures, esp at low altitudes where noise is greatest.
In a well integrated, multi-vehilce sensor network, a small false positive rate for each individual recognition and classication module produces enough bullshit to trick automated trackers into labelling targets. If we cant assume common sense filtering like "aircraft cant go from hover to mach 3 in one sweep", then the possible associations of sensor data to hypotheses is astronomical, and bullshit propegates.
Its a mess when you integrate so many sensors and systems and try to make sense of the resulting noise.
Thought experiment. If we assume that "alien intelligence is here" in some form like UFO sightings, why not also assume they are on the internet?
I believe someone would learn so much more about us from reading wikipedia, than flying a UFO above north carolina at 90k feet. No?
And if they mastered long-distance space flight and life discovery, what stops them from reverse-engineering how to connect to an unprotected starbucks guest wifi. Or even posting here like you and me sometimes do.
Do you think they would be more perplexed by the stuff we do to each other in real life (micro; prisons, crime, violence. and macro; governments, military, borders). Or with the way we treat each other on line? (scams, trolls, harassment, narcissism, mistreating privacy data)
"Any sufficiently advanced alien invasion is indistinguishable from local politics."
> why not also assume they are on the internet?
Not many people assume they're "here" to begin with, but yes, if anyone is here it makes sense to scour the internet. Evaluating the data might be more difficult for them than we think though. Physically connecting to the net may be the easiest problem to overcome. Depending on how they perceive time, and how fast their cognition and data mining is, distilling meaningful information could be a long and arduous process.
How perplexing of an experience it is would depend on their own history and value systems. If they think we're nice, we're in trouble.
UFO is a very potent story. And the US government had used it in the past as decoys (allegedly):
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HyperNormalisation#The_Truth...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Bennewitz
Wouldn't be surprised if this is a sequel.
Is this video legit? Why are they turning the same direction constantly?
Are most of these UFO sightings witnessed by a pilot and co-pilot? Is radar data recorded so it can be replayed later?
The skeptic in me thinks these experiences might seem ‘real’ but aren’t. If there is some measurable and documented proof then there can be an investigation.
There are probably checklists in news sites articles release planning workbook:
...
345. Topics to consider on Fridays and periods with no really important news.
1. UFO
2. Yetti
...
549. Advances in AI
550. Tesla
....
/s
Many wrongly think UFOs being equivalent to alien flying saucers. No, it is an unidentified object, which means that they can be a bird or a plane, until it's identified.
I know this won't satisfy anyone, but I've followed this subject for years with varying degrees of interest / belief.
Someone close to me is former military whose position required a top secret clearance. The work that they did involved analyzing various forms of SIGINT.
After years of me prying, this person admitted to me:
1. Within the Navy (and presumably other armed forces) the UFO stuff is an open secret.
2. The 'official line' used internally is that the craft are extraterrestrial (or at least origin unknown), and ...
3. They're official labelled drones, i.e., there is no reason to believe that they're "manned"
In other words, it's fairly well known within the military (at least where people are likely to encounter them) and the official position is somewhere along the lines of "they're here but not here".
Personally I've never seen anything I'd label a UFO. But the prevailing narrative -- uptick in UFO sightings following the Manhattan Project, interest in our weapons / energy capabilities -- I'm 100% comfortable with.
If it is a military psy-op, it's one playing out on a massive scale over a vast timeframe. That in and of itself is mind boggling.
I feel like a lot of the people commenting on this thread would really benefit from reading The Demon-Haunted World by Carl Sagan (who was himself once a UFO believer).
He has a really good section on UFO sightings, which he compares to stories about abduction by demons from Medieval times.
His main explanation for the increase in UFO stories in the second half of the 20th century is the decline in other forms of abduction myths, like the demon one. People report seeing what they're expecting to see based on the stories they've been exposed to.
The massive increase in aircraft obviously helped too.
Look it’s the greatest reality show ever. Sometime in the future we invent time travel and we send drones back to look at stuff. People have found them and decided, “hey, this obviously works let’s ‘invent’ it.”
So of course they cover it up, they don’t want competition, for the idea they stole, from the future.
Just assume time travel is possible, what makes more sense, traveling back to our own planet or some other super advanced civilization inventing FTL, finding us, and giving a shit to buzz around and mess with us?
Who doesn’t want a sweet 21st century photo to post on future Instagram!
I would really like to believe in alien spacecraft. But so far the only "evidence" I've ever seen has been incredibly poor quality images and video that could be pretty much anything as far as I can tell.
Anyway I believe that people may sometimes see something, but its much more likely its secret military aircraft. But if there was a good recording of something really fantastical then maybe.
Also, Newsweek is the kind of publication that happily publishes whatever the military asks them to.
What’s funny is that UFOs always look and behave like the tech of the time era it was recorded at !
Foia Man in Black's department
CIA records here: https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/collection/ufos-fact...
There are few very high profile UFO cranks, Sen. Harry Reid and Robert Bigelow, who give support for these narratives in the US and are able to lobby government money for UFO issues.
That whole 2004 incident with a video is just one man's story that nobody else in the scene saw the same way. It was not seen as worth of report or anything. One airman in the videos even says "It's a drone".
https://skepticalinquirer.org/2018/05/navy_pilots_2004_ufo_a...
I've seen this and similar videos before. They're presented usually without any context or commentary. In particular I've only ever seen heard people describing what they see live on the infrared camera display, not via eyeballs or other sensors.
By my eyeballs this looks like a CMOS or whatever sensor clipping or processing artifact caused by sunlight glint on the camera housing dome. Google "blackmagic black sun" for a visible light example -- it happens and looks like an issue fixable (or caused) in software.
The white extensions beyond the black blob are where the glinting is below the over-powering threshold. The "rotation" is where the camera and/or dome are rotating relative to the sun as the aircraft orientation changes and cleaning/buffing streaks in the dome are picking up the glint. The camera is clearly not pointing directly forward/aft during the footage, but I'm not sure where it is pointing.
Note how the object stays dead-center below the tracking annotations -- autotracking is good, but I'm not sure it is that good, which again makes me think that the location is determined by camera geometry and is not something flying outside the aircraft.
I feel like a caveman looking at a modern aircraft. There's no reference whatsoever to associate to with that UFO's observed maneuvers... or it could be a distortion of infrared spectrum due to something else.
They are so blatantly trespassing US airspace is very unnerving. It means either doesn't care about being shot down, or simply doesn't think it would happen. For the god sake, we couldn't even identify what this thing is.
I won't believe they are real aliens until they post in Hacker News.
In reality how would we even know they are aliens? If you are an advanced race, you would have the technology to either hide your presence or affect the human identification in some way. If you didn't care if humans saw you, why not show up in Times Square? Why would you only show up in the US and only in ways no one but the military or government can see?
Does not follow Occam's razor.
The space nerd in me says, yes, maybe it's time. Maybe the Fermi paradox is about to be resolved. Maybe we're "just" seeing drones, but at least we're seeing something.
However, the realist in me has lots of reasons to doubt all aspects of this reporting - and it's a good default strategy, especially when things seem too "good" or to spectacular to be true.
In any case, there is not really a lot to go on. Even if this went properly public, what exactly does the data say?
And coming back to the space nerd perspective, if these sightings are indeed extraterrestrial, they don't seem to bode well. Why would someone show off like that but don't leave a message? It's because they either don't care that we see them or because they want us to know that they're more advanced.
I just hope our civilization hasn't yet reached a threshold of development where another civilization considers rubbing us out as a preventative measure.
Must be Sophons
What sort of physics could explain something that could make such maneuvers?
Is it only the US that’s detecting this stuff? That’s a very important question IMO because it might provide some insight into its origin (terrestrial or otherwise) depending on the answer.
It's possible to keep a technology secret, but how easy it is to keep the underlying physics/science secret?
Too simplistic reasoning here,if aliens are actually here, motivation and drive could also be completely alien to us. Toying with hardware near some primitive military infrastructure could be just about anything, tests for an invasion or maybe they are just collecting samples from the jets exhaust or anything
Why don't we consider in the supernatural like angels instead of aliens
https://mysteriousuniverse.org/2012/04/space-angels-aliens-o...
For people who don't believe in UFOs - surely you've got to admit that there's something pretty odd about detailed descriptions of flying machines ("Vimanas") being written about thousands of years ago by the Indians in the Mahabarata?
It's probably the Russians playing around with their Gyroscopic Inertial Thruster drones.
If these things are real, and they aren't a secret US Military/R&D project, it sounds like American air superiority has come to an end and things are going to get real interesting in the next major conflict.
likely earthlights...little understood plasma/ball lightning phenomenon...they can move very fast at times...my aunt (a former bank VP) saw one in san antonio decades ago...in her kitchen...
"Military admits it can't control drone incursions"
Are we saying that the military can't shoot down some prototype that some company is trying to show off? If so, then I would suggest the demo was a success.
Source Washington Post article https://outline.com/sXxw5V
If Newsweek considers this an important story, why not assign it to someone who's spent decades cultivating Pentagon sources, etc.?
Huh. Well, I thought Newsweek jumped the shark, but it seems a number of publications are giving this serious coverage.
Interesting.
What if some of these are optical effects? Like sunlight glinting off water or windshield? The "bright spot" can move from one position in the field of view to another with enormous apparent velocity, because there is no large distant physical object moving about.
The video looks like a spot of debris on a camera lense.
>$?? million aircraft
>mic made of rotten potato
As XKCD points outs, billions of people are carrying cameras everywhere they go, every waking moment of their lives:
Where are the millions of sightings of flying saucers?
I am 100% sure there is no proof of aliens visiting us known by the US government because if there was Trump would have tweeted it by now.
I will be here all day!
to quote the video from a previous UFO article
"it's a [bleep]ing drone, bro"