Posted by david-gpu 23 hours ago
Two of them have already leaked before. Both of those are missiles being viewed with an infrared camera. One of them shows a missile passing through the field of view rapidly with a motion blur streak behind it. The other shows a missile performing maneuvers and a camera artifact showing a star-like diffraction+aperture artifact around the bright IR light source.
None of these pieces of imagery look like something doing something particularly interesting. What happens is a military personnel records a video. They don't know what it is in the moment. It gets labeled "unknown" and put on a DoD file server, and then either they or someone else who stumbles across it clips out part of it and starts to spread rumors about this amazing video of a UAP they saw. There are people who work for the DoD who appear to spend a great deal of their free time scrolling around internal DoD file servers looking for anything they can portray as proof of aliens, and sometimes they leak their stories and even clips to public UFO influencers like Jeremy Corbell.
Your comment is all certainty, and the thread has rewarded that. People are seeking definite answers - seems proportional to the uncertainty they sense. Do you really feel qualified to provide that? Seems a big responsibility to take on, sort of like a public Explaining influencer lol.
Your idea that gossip enriches mundane with magic is unnecessary here, because the media themselves are 'unexplained' (if we remove your certainty).
It can be compelling and attractive to fill the silence or the unknown with an invention of certainty - sort of like a prophet or shepheard - but the edge of known demands more curiosity and wonder for an honest approach.
The color it appears on infrared footage depends on the other pixels in frame. It uses dynamic ranges to map infrared values to a visible light spectrum. If the rest of the frame was ice, or you were looking up into space, a bird would probably be rendered as very warm.
If the rest of the frame is a warm ocean surface and warm wind turbines, then a flying bird may be rendered as cold relative to those pixels.
Balloons can also show up as a different temperature than the background of the frame depending on what the balloon is made of, altitude differences (ambient temp at high altitude is colder than at the surface), etc.
But here is a paper showing penguins photographed with a temperature-sensing IR camera, showing the majority of the surface of their body being around -21ºC thanks to the highly insulating plumage.
For example, If I take a blurry photo of something I see outside on a full moon that's probably a raccoon and proclaim its a photo of the elder god Nug, spawn of Azathoth, the Lord of All Things, and someone points out that its probably a raccoon but the photo is so bad there's really no way to ever tell the right attitude isn't to say:
"It can be compelling and attractive to fill the silence or the unknown with an invention of certainty - sort of like a prophet or shepheard - but the edge of known demands more curiosity and wonder for an honest approach."
The truth is that when we see photos of Nug the mind-bending eldrich horror of the sight disturbs the vision part of our brain. The photos are all perfectly clear, but simply too terrible for our tiny minds to ever percieve.
IR imagery can be flipped between black=hot or white=hot. These systems are about creating contrast to aid visualization, not recording scientific data.
>> What sort of balloons show up as contrast instead of neutral?
A hot air balloon? Any balloon that has recently changed altitude? Any reflective balloon reflecting sunlight (Mylar is common). Or, in thin air, a non-reflective balloon absorbing sunlight and warming faster than it can dissipate that heat.
I'm grateful for the entertainment and the sense of "gov't doing something people want/revealing something they lied about" tho. Restores confidence in the big system. I'm really curious to see what comes next :)
Since HN is not supposed to be used for ideological battle, that seems unfair. So have a counterbalancing upvote.
Couple frames: https://imgur.com/a/MyGZj3x
Original video: https://www.dvidshub.net/video/1006088/dow-uap-pr38-unresolv...
The "star shaped" object moves relative to it akin to a reflection actually.
The interesting question here is, whether that is "white hot" or "black hot" imagery. The trail the object leaves is white. If it was a flare, that would mean white is hot. Then the object would be cold.
You cannot have a "camera artefact" from a cold spot in the sky.
It is black hot. We know this for sure because someone in the DoD previously leaked a single screenshot of the video, which did not have the on-screen data elements redacted, and you can see the BLK indicator. That person believed the star shape was the physical shape of the object, not a lens artifact, and told this to the UFO influencer they leaked it to. That’s how this particular video eventually ended up included in this data dump.
The smoke trail must cool rapidly and be colder in temperature than the flare itself and the parachute above it. The ambient air temp and time of day may be relevant to this (direct sun could contribute to warming the parachute). Since it is infrared footage, the colors are all based on a dynamic range, so the smoke only needs to be slightly colder than the parachute in order to appear lighter in color.
Imagine that, 70ish years later there is people that cannot grasp how modern the A-12 prototype was. [1]
In my opinion the US has a real scientific education problem. So much so that people still think that alien life that built machines so advanced that they can bridge distances over lightyears travel time... just the belief that they will remotely resemble our appearance anyhow is statistically so close to 0 that I have no words to express how unlikely it is to happen. You have a greater chance getting hit every millisecond of your life by a lightning strike than this being the case.
Someone with the tech to travel the stars (or something weirder like between dimensions) could make probes the size of bugs, sand, or dust. They could also image us at incredible resolution from afar, receive all our signals, and so on. They might be able to do even weirder and crazier forms of surveillance we don’t even understand yet, like high resolution imaging with neutrinos or gravity waves.
They could study us all they wanted and we’d never know.
Look into how advanced some of our spy tech is, and we have barely left our planet.
> missiles
> diffraction+aperture artifact
Uh if the US military cannot identify birds, balloons, light, and more importantly missiles after thorough cross-agency review, I think you're not seeing the forest for the trees.
These case reports happen often because one person filmed something and perhaps that one person didn’t know what it was. The video then gets saved and catalogued as unidentified. The video is then so lacking in information and context that it is literally impossible for people to later figure out exactly what object it was. AARO (and before them the UAP Task Force) has been investigating a lot of these case reports and many of them get resolved as “balloon-like objects” or “objects consistent with a balloon”, because the video is consistent with it being a balloon but they want to avoid stating definitively that they know the object was a balloon. If I recall correctly something half of the imagery that gets reported as UAP in the US military ends up falling into the “likely/definitely birds and balloons” bucket.
It is foolish to dismiss this, it’s simply a fact that balloons and birds are a common underlying cause for sightings which are reported to AARO as UAP. There have also been other cases where videos recorded of airplanes have been reported to AARO and they were able to figure out that it was airplanes. It’s not that “the US military doesn’t know what airplanes look like”, it’s that one person operating an IR camera in the military recorded a video and didn’t know what it was, so they reported it as being an unidentified aerial sighting. And then it gets put in this bucket of reports called “UAP sightings”. And maybe never gets resolved because there’s not enough information there to do anything with it.
The UAP Task Force did a presentation to Congress in which the head of the office showed a frame of the now-viral “green triangles” UFO video filmed with night vision camera on the deck of a US Navy vessel. The UAP Task Force was staffed with UFO believers and they believed the green triangles shown in the sky were pyramid shaped aircraft. They failed to realize the triangles were merely an artifact of the focus and the triangle shaped camera aperture and that in that frame of video, all of the triangles were known bright stars in that region of sky at that time of year. They could have figured all this out. People on the ship that day would of course know that those points of light in the sky were stars, and that the triangles in the video were just camera artifacts, not in the real world. But years later, the UAP Task Force looked at the video, and didn’t know that.
AARO has been doing a better analytical job than the UAP Task Force did. They fired everyone and hired people who weren’t predisposed to paranormal beliefs. (Jay Stratton staffed the UAP Task Force with people he knew would help bolster his preexisting paranormal beliefs). But this latest data dump was not done because AARO had finished evaluating these cases and done extensive work to narrow down possibilities. This data dump (and the ones coming next) was forced on an accelerated timeline by a handful of paranormal activists in Congress who just like the media attention and want to promote all kinds of fringe religious and paranormal ideas.
This here is the source of the problem. Also, the Congress critters that fund this are UFO believers too. That's the only reason this is still going on.
The UAP Task Force in the example I described above actually did so some analysis on the "green triangle" Navy UFO video but they still failed to identify the fact that their screengrab they presented to Congress was literally just stars with a bokeh artifact making them appear as triangles.
> assuming that anything released that is not resolved has to have gone through intense rigorous investigation, such that it means there is no known explanation for it
Yes.
> therefore it must be something truly anomalous
No, that is false. You are missing my point that, in the instant cases, presuming your point is true, is that this is a failure of the combined capacity of the US government. Nothing to do with cabals or aliens. Those are particular to your arguments.
Assuming your argument is true, my argument is strengthened. My argument is what your argument implies but does not make explicit because it wants the argument to be about cabals and aliens.
This theory is the one of yours least easily dismissed, but requires further evidence to be more convincing, I believe.
Re the counterpost - i admit it's a good effort to match the graphics - but it still looks markedly different. Thermal overexposure seems less likely given paucity of other examples - what about active jamming? IR laser pointing? Hunch just now: sth about polarized light? Idk.
There's not really much ambiguity here regarding these factors now:
- it's a small bright infrared light source attached to a parachute
- the star shape is a camera artifact
Do not cite the deep magic to me, Witch. I was there when it was written.
In the 90s there was a wave of diamond-shaped craft in Europe. All were taken by cheap disposable cameras with four-bladed aperture. The current trend now is fuzzy moving images. They are fixed points like stars and the "motion" and color changes comes from the digital camera's algorithm trying to make sense of a one-pixel signal from the ccd. (See flat earth videos claiming that stars/planets are actually spotlights.)
He's not flashy or trying to be entertaining, just thorough, evidence-based and scientifically rigorous. He'll even do controlled experiments, recreations and 3D models to validate what's going on. And he's unfailingly respectful no matter how unhinged the claim. His work explaining the "Gimbal Video" is a good example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7jcBGLIpus
Frankly, I don't follow it these days as I have nowhere near Mick's saintly level of patience to so calmly endure a never-ending game of whac-a-mole. Rational, evidence-based skeptics like Mick are doomed to Sisyphean toil because even after they've resoundingly explained a hundred vague claims, UFO (and Chem-Trail, Flat Earth, etc) true believers will always find a new one to hitch their belief to. Because, apparently, a consistent trend of 100 consecutive falsifications implies nothing about the likelihood of #101. And at the end of the day, it's impossible to conclusively prove a negative.
Right. And I do think that meticulous effort is invaluable because it heightens the cost of cognitive dissonance which can be important to reaching people on the sidelines.
But it makes you wonder if the debunking community should be a bit more intentional about intercepting whatever these psychological processes are that make people immune to evidence-based correction, and target those mechanisms the same meticulousness in patients of a debunk.
Although obviously I think the trouble with that is such a task would amount to helping steer such people into a fabric of social and cultural connectedness that's more valuable to them than the conspiracies are. Which seems a tall order. But maybe engineering an alternative psychological virus that crowds out the conspiracies in favor of something else is a more efficient option.
You haven't spent much time arguing with people who refuse to listen to any evidence at all, have you? The "psychological processes" you describe are, in many cases, that people will simply stick their (metaphorical) fingers in their ears and say "La la la, I'm not listening!" In other words, a willful, determined refusal to listen.
It's not a matter of psychological processes, at least not for the people I've interacted with in the past. It's plain and simple refusal. They've decided that they're right, they know it, and nobody is going to tell them otherwise, darn it!
As the old quote goes (which is apparently very difficult to pin down to its origin): "My mind is made up. Don't confuse me with the facts!" (https://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/02/13/confuse-me/)
P.S. Edited to add this, because I meant to write it earlier and forgot: It's just stubbornness. You can't cure stubbornness with psychoanalysis. Some people just don't want to believe in what you're trying to tell them. As the even older quote goes, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink." You can lead a stubborn person to all the evidence in the world, but you can't make him think.
That's right. Not sure why you sound a bit unhappy with this.
In particular, a source can become more untrustworthy over time if the source is repeatedly proven to lie or be reckless about the truth. I'm not sure you can apply the same logic to "categories of claims". What is the rationale behind your implied frustration that people are not "learning" that some "categories of claims" tend to be untrue? (not to mention the arbitrary grouping of totally disparate ones like Chem-Trails and Flat Earth)
It’s not arbitrary. Alien UFOs, Chem-Trails, and Flat Earth are obviously all generated from the same distribution of bullshit: ambiguous or misunderstood phenomena explained by positing a vast hidden conspiracy.
I'd prefer to speak about "evidence in support of/against" rather than "facts", which often conceals a presuming-the-consequent kind of fallacy.
> denial of science
Whether "science" is believed or denied by any particular person has no effect on whether or not extraterrestrial intelligence has or is visiting earth.
Demanding that "science" be believed is un-scientific. I am not drawing an equivalence between science and religion here, but pointing out that your argument is a super hand-wavey appeal to an inviolable "gospel". I'm old enough to remember when a theory like intra-galactic panspermia was regarded like canals-on-Mars.
In my view, ETI theories are lacking any credible evidence and this makes me sad.
And the facts are just ... released. It's the interpretation of the observations that are disputed. And unless you think they are all fake, the explanations that do not involve alien tech are non-trivial to say the least.
I'm not sure why you'd think there is any shared causal structure with flat earthers at all.
"UFO-crazy uncles" are known to exist. This is not an extraordinary claim. The existence of such uncles provides no evidence for or against extraterrestrial visitors or other aerial phenomena.
One can be right for bad reasons.
But they're not wrong that the stuff coming out of the back of jet aircraft is changing the climate.
Small, localized weather engineering programs have long been real (cloud seeding), and planetary-scale climate engineering projects are now openly discussed by governments. E.g. https://www.epa.gov/geoengineering/about-geoengineering "Types of solar geoengineering techniques include: Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI) – adding small reflective particles to the upper atmosphere (stratosphere) to reflect incoming sunlight. Sulfur dioxide (SO2), one of the types of chemicals considered for SAI, can chemically react in the stratosphere to form reflective sulfate aerosols."
The people who claim they're monitoring chemtrails aren't even watching aircraft which are deliberately dispensing payloads, because it just isn't that common in the first place (unless you go out and watch crop dusting, but then you can also just see the guy land, get out, and talk about it).
Hand washing prevents illness
COVID came from a lab, not a wet market
Hunter Biden laptop was real
And then a counter example of something broadly accepted but untrue. The humoral theory and blood letting, practiced for thousands of years. This is what killed George Washington.
Copernicus, but "close enough".
Yep. The planets do not, in fact, revolve around the Sun. They revolve around the solar system center of mass (barycenter). This is an error of about 0.25 degree viewed from Earth which was significant at the time.
> Hand washing prevents illness
Did the person who we credit for hand washing advocate for it because he was "crazy", or because he had a well-founded theory?
> COVID came from a lab, not a wet market
The lab-leak theory has not held up to scrutiny. It is considered refuted. Though IMO the initial backlash was excessive.
> Hunter Biden laptop was real
No one outside of politics said the laptop "wasn't real", many emails were cryptographically authenticated very early on. There was a great deal of concern by experts that a coordinated disinfo op was being played into the election. It was, though probably not with the involvement of foreign actors this time. Nothing about that laptop ended up being relevant to the Presidential candidate actually running for election.
> And then a counter example of something broadly accepted but untrue. The humoral theory and blood letting, practiced for thousands of years. This is what killed George Washington.
We're talking about examples of things a "crazy uncle" might believe that turned out to be true. These are just abandoned pre-scientific medical theories and treatments.
Not to anyone who is intellectually honest.
Convince me I'm wrong.
Trump is running candidates against any incumbent who doesn't vote for redistricting to gerrymander the map.
I'm willing to bet he starts "joking" about how Roosevelt got more than two terms and the amendment to limit terms is a deep state crime.
The prosaic explanation is the more likely one, meaning the events are unrelated.
If gas prices double from here it will be less stupid distraction and more overt authoritarianism... the ICE question has not been settled. ICE is still violating your neighbors and making a mockery of what is supposed to be a society of free people. They merely thought the overt city takeovers and shooting Americans in the head had become a bad look that wasn't worth it politically. The persistence of this calculus is not inevitable.
More than anything, that's the one thing that they want to avoid. That's something that's radicalized at least one person into doing something rash and could radicalize more.
The reality is that there's no shortage of dirt in them (that likely doesn't pile up to guilt beyond a reasonable doubt), but his base doesn't care, and will never care.
1) Maxwell was under prosecution at the time, so some of it was related to that.
2) The kind of people being mentioned as potential indictees are the kind who can do something about it.
There was no reason for why the administration had to wait for the files to be unsealed to go after anyone it wanted to. Unsealing them only makes the records available to the public at large, not the rest of the DOJ.
not so fast. There is new info coming out about Kerry being implicated.
Would you like to know more? The timing is viewed more naturally I think in a trajectory from the 2017 NYT article, through the series of congressional hearings, whistleblowers and attempted UAPDA legislation, to recent statements by Obama and Trump re "classified info", that seemed to lead directly to here. Through all this, the chorus of increasing public interest and demands.
More starkly - it's odd to see this issue in anyway partisanly or linked to a particular administration, or even news cycle. It's a persistent topic of human interest, across cultures and decades. The Trump intersection I think can be explained because he's the most "renegade" (yes, a pun), least controlled and most effective. These latter claims themselves are deeply controversial for some, and may contribute to making it hard for such folks to see any such prosaic explanations of the timing and reach for something a little more out there.
Instead, I just see elaborate narratives about political motivations and garbage evidence like that laughably low-effort fake video presented in Congress by Representatives.
Sorry, I encounter someone who believes exactly what you wrote at least once a week.
It is unfortunate how many have succumbed to Trump derangement syndrome and are rendered unable to discuss this topic critically, moving to complete dismissal because of the controversy surrounding the messenger.
The UAP disclosure movement has been decades in the making. Trump was simply the one willing to push it, exactly because of his counterculture, renegade nature as you put it.
Are we alone? Is there other intelligent life in the universe? What's the meaning of life? They've robbed themselves of the ability to engage with these questions, and it's a shame.
"NASA, ESA, and Roscosmos all confirm definitive concrete proof, and publish this proof, for the presence of organisms, or technology created by organisms, which originated from outside Earth's atmosphere, and was present within Earth's hill sphere at some point since 1900."
This real announcement (with some edited visuals to make it look like he was delivering it inside the White House press room) was used in the movie Contact to seem related to the more extraordinary discovery of alien intelligence that was portrayed in that movie.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obrBARvWtiA
The White House objected to this use at the time, but never took any sort of legal action to have it removed or anything AFAIK.
What else can we expect? Ghost stories, locke ness, I’m sure we can predict a bunch of others.
Edit: I had a look at a bunch of the videos and didn't find anything remarkable, in my opinion. The witness testimonies read like so many others.
This seems like it would be a CLM, as the authority of their testimony is central to their function as federal LE.
For example, see this document: https://www.war.gov/medialink/ufo/release_1/western_us_event...
(from series of documents from incident data 9/1/23)
It would have been some fantastic spy tech, alright.
Dataset: https://www.war.gov/Portals/1/Interactive/2026/UFO/uap-csv.c...
Mirror: https://gist.github.com/ahmetcadirci25/e4edb7d30109fdb8ff14b...
Could be useful for anyone interested in data analysis, anomaly detection, or open government datasets.
On the other hand, there is no link in the CSV for NASA-UAP-D3A, Gemini 7 Audio Excerpt, 1965 but the link in the webpage does work. It utilizes https://api.dvidshub.net/ to request the content.
Another example are incident dates like with DOW-UAP-PR36, Unresolved UAP Report, Middle East, May 2020 that are N/A in the CSV but have an incorrect one inside the snippet (5/1/20 as opposed to 5/14/20). It also seems like there are duplicate incidents just with different media. By the way, the video in this incident is compelling.
I look forward to dissecting the dataset but it's far from perfect. There is definitely a massive amount of potential here.
Which people claim was posted at this URL:
https://www.war.gov/medialink/ufo/release_1/memo_jcs_admiral...
(the dates of the ship's movement don't align with its actual movements, and the C/O name is wrong)
The file for "65_HS1-834228961_62-HQ-83894_Serial_153" is here:
https://www.war.gov/medialink/ufo/release_1/65_HS1-834228961...
"War" is the application of violence for political ends. "Defense" is only a subset of that.
So yeah, sure, in the current attitude and action that are very much "hey let's go back to that great time where we openly agreed war of conquest are a good thing" they have it makes sense.
Nope. Actually renaming it was too long and complicated a process, so instead they're pretending they renamed it.
Specifically, actually renaming it requires an Act of Congress, since it is specified in law.
They're weak and ineffective, so they cosplay with letterhead instead.
The other name changes by the Trump administration are also not catching on.
70+% also continue to call the Gulf of Mexico "Gulf of Mexico".
A large majority also continue to call Mount Denali "Mount Denali".
A significant majority is still calling the Kennedy Center that instead of "The Donald J. Trump and the John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts".
No, it didn't.
For a few years before it was the Department of Defense it was the National Military Establishment (with an initialism with a very unfortunate pronunciation given its function) and before that it didn't exist at all.
Now, before the National Military Establishment was formed to unify the nations military bureaucracy, there were two separate cabinet level departments, the Department of War (which oversaw the Army) and the Department of the Navy (which oversaw the Navy, including the Marine Corps.) When the NME was created, the Army was split into the Army and the Air Force, and the Department of War was likewise split into the Department of the Army and the Department of the Air Force. Both of these new Departments and the Department of the Navy remained (briefly) cabinet-level departments with their own Secretaries, while the NME was headed by the new Secretary of Defense.
Very quickly, though, further reforms were adopted in law and the NME became the Department of Defense and the service secretaries were formally subordinated to the Secretary of Defense and were now subcabinet positions (which is how the DoD got its unique, within the US executive branch, Department with its own cabinet level Secretary with subordinate Departments headed by a subcabinet level Secretaries organization.)
TLDR: The Department of War was not an earlier name for the Department of Defense, it was the name for the Department of the Army before the Air Force was split out from it.
> Palmer Luckey suggested naming it back. People agreed, so they did.
Well, again, it couldn’t be named back to “Department of War”, because its only previous name was “National Military Establishment.” And while some people obviously agreed that it should be called “Department of War”, they didn’t actually rename it. The name in law of the organization named “The Department of Defense” in 1949 by amendments to the National Security Act of 1947 remains “The Department of Defense”. It hasn’t been renamed. The present executive branch leadership has adopted nicknames for the department and the titles of its officials ("secondary titles” in the language of EO 14347 which formalized the system of nicknames [and also recounts as if true the false history that “Department of War” was previously the name of the Department of Defense].)
https://www.war.gov/medialink/ufo/release_1/2024-04-30-compo...
I wonder if there’s satellite imagery of this event, or maybe if in the near future we’ll have greater satellite coverage so we can corroborate these claims with imagery.
The more cameras we have (in everyone's pocket, in the streets, in the sky), the less "sightings" we have (of UFO and cryptids).
Tells you something.
That’s the correct interpretation, yes?
Sailors saw mermaids all the time too, I don't think they're all hiding under a rock since we invented the camera
It would tell you that they are not of this world. The same way as you can't photograph (other) spiritual experiences.
"cool" is not the word that comes to mind looking at this image.