Newly Leaked US Navy Video Shows UFO Sinking Into the Water (cnn.com) 216
alaskana98 writes: In a newly leaked video, ship based U.S. Navy personnel appear to be tracking an orb-shaped UFO as it tracks closely above the water, eventually appearing to dip beneath water's surface. Last month, a still from this video was teased along with another video showing a triangular UFO transit the sky along with photos of three strange objects at high altitudes captured within minutes of each other by Navy pilots in 2019. These photos and videos all come on the eve of a highly anticipated unclassified report due to be released sometime in June for the intelligence and armed services committees in Congress. Referring to this report, former Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe states: "There are instances where we don't have good explanations for some of the things that we've seen."
Not everyone is convinced that these objects are being piloted by grey aliens. In an exhaustive report by the site "The War Zone," a plausible theory is laid out that purports that these objects are nothing more than cleverly disguised blimps or drones launched by U.S. adversaries, using nothing more than the social stigma of taking UFOS/UAPS seriously as a means to dissuade any serious attempts by the U.S. military to treat these as conventional domestic threats.
Not everyone is convinced that these objects are being piloted by grey aliens. In an exhaustive report by the site "The War Zone," a plausible theory is laid out that purports that these objects are nothing more than cleverly disguised blimps or drones launched by U.S. adversaries, using nothing more than the social stigma of taking UFOS/UAPS seriously as a means to dissuade any serious attempts by the U.S. military to treat these as conventional domestic threats.
Video Camera Artifacts (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
well duh
mod the insightful AC up
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or they could just wait for us to do that for them, just seems like a matter of time now. Back to reality, funny how all video footage of UFOs are super low quality even though one of the pilots claimed he saw UFOs every day hundreds of times... but couldn't get one good photo!!
Re:Video Camera Artifacts (Score:5, Interesting)
I think it's interesting that our minds *automatically* go to extraterrestrial explanations of UAPs, even if we don't believe in that explanation and it's a joke. That conclusion is nowhere in the evidence of our eyes, it is *culturally indoctrinated*. Before November 1929, *nobody's* mind would have gone there.
What happened in November 1929? Hugo Gernsback's pulp magazine *Science Wonder Stories* featured this cover [wikimedia.org] by illustrator Frank R. Paul. It is the first known depiction of a saucer shaped space ship.
Now if you want to skip over the complex but mundane explanations for these phenomena, there are *other* equally marvelous explanations to be had. For example, a priori it's just as plausible that UFOs are *cryptids* -- animals unknown to science -- as alien space craft. What about their marvelous abilities? Well, a letter from Einstein recently surfaced in which he suggested looking at animals to find new physics. Evolution doesn't care about the limitations of human knowledge.
Re: (Score:2)
No way, these are Russian spy planes with super advanced technology sent to spy on America and steal capitalist technology which is superior in all ways.
Re:Video Camera Artifacts (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep.
Seriously: Is that shaky/grainy footage really the best the US military can do in 2021? It looks like something from the 1970s.
To me this seems more like some sort of government program to keep the population stupid enough to vote for garbage politicians.
Re: Video Camera Artifacts (Score:2)
I agree it's pretty crappy footage and I would say these are far from convincing pieces of evidence (given the tendency to have optical artifacts). But I will argue that I've certainly had those times when I see something crazy or amazing and I take a picture only to discover that the picture is far less impressive/convincing than what I saw in the moment.
Re: Video Camera Artifacts (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
You would think. I have a 68 mp phone cam here that can take a perfectly still picture of a sign beside the road while I hold it with one hand, zooming down the interstate at 70 mph. Military budget is close to a trillion dollars, for some insane reason, a year. They can afford better fucking cameras.
Re:Video Camera Artifacts (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The US government typically "leaks" UFO footage and says things calculated to trigger alien enthusiasts when they've got something to hide. In 1947 it was nuclear surveillance balloons. Maybe there's something interesting in the oven now too.
Re:Video Camera Artifacts (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, looking at the video of the "orb shaped UFO", it does not dip beneath the water's surface, it abruptly vanishes as it hits the water's surface, abruptly re-appears for an instant and then abruptly vanishes again. It's very obviously a video artifact rather than a real object dipping below the horizon. The next one looks like some sort of triangular lens flare and the next seems like it's probably an object in the camera, maybe a bug or something. We would need more information about the imaging systems in question, but it's probably classified.
I think part of the problem here is that the military has to take these things seriously, because of the possibility that they are enemy aircraft, so they treat everything as if it's potentially real until it's proven otherwise and it's appropriately logged and marked classified. This is reasonably sensible from a military viewpoint. The trouble is, then the public looks at it and some members look at it from the viewpoint that if it's released classified material, it validates all of their theories and obviously it's aliens.
In some ways it reminds me of that time we almost all died because a Soviet launch detection system saw the sun and thought it was a nuclear launch. The military response was to take it seriously. So seriously, in fact, that the required response was to launch a retaliatory nuclear attack. The officer in charge realized that it was not a real nuclear attack and decided not to launch. For saving the world this way, I believe he was reprimanded for disobeying standing orders.
Anyway, just because something is seen on camera, clearly does not mean it's real, which is something most of us understand. However there are endless youtube videos of supernatural researchers identifying "orbs" and other anomalies in their pictures and videos. Most of the time they are fairly obvious lens flares and overexposures, or just plain reflections and shadows. You know the sort of thing, someone walks down a hallway and a shadow is "following" them. Rather than concluding that it's actually their own shadow and maybe testing under the same conditions, maybe walking forward and backward along the same hallway, to see what happens, they just conclude it's a ghost or a demon or whatever. The thing is, most of the people filming these videos get enough experience that they should be able to tell when these things are just artifacts, so they're basically just liars. The problem is, there's this whole kayfabe (a carnie term derived from "be fake", basically meaning to live the lie) thing going on where they're playing a role and a lot of the people watching are playing along as well. Trouble is, there are plenty of people who genuinely seem to internalize that these things are real. Whether they're just completely credulous or they've just lied to themselves so hard that they're convinced, I'm not completely sure. The real problem is, I used to believe that it was just a small portion of the population, maybe 10% at most that was like that. These days it looks like that estimate is far, far too low.
Re: Video Camera Artifacts (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is not just a problem with pictures. Look at how many anti-vaxxers look at VAERS and then claim 'the vaccines have caused thousands of deaths, don't get the vaccine'. Some of them may genuinely not understand what they are looking at. A lot of them are just plain liars.
Re:Video Camera Artifacts (Score:5, Interesting)
VAERS is a HORRIBLE EXAMPLE to use...
I do not even consider it scientific data. It is fundamentally flawed in how it collects data. I am pro-vaccine, but very anti-VAERS.
The reported data is a small subset of actual incidents. A large portion of doctors refuse to report potential vaccine incidents - even when those incidents entail known and medically documented reactions. Believing that vaccine reactions are uncommon, they will dismiss reactions offhand. Second, there is a conflict of interest, as doctors are administering the vaccines. So the VAERS database is largely useless.
This is BAD, for a number of reasons.
> First off all, the dubious unscientific nature of VAERS database empowers those who are opposed to vaccines.
> Second, it impedes the usefulness in catching manufacturing defects. (And can we be honest here? ALL manufacturing processes have bad batches. I used to work for a company that manufactured chemical testing standards. One time we had multiple reports of a bad batch. After we re-tested multiple times, and had our material independently tested, we were able to show that the actual NIST standard was off. It happens.) We want to ensure that if a particular batch has a higher than average number of negative reactions that we can be alerted, quickly pull that batch of vaccines, and assay them to ensure they were made to spec.
> Third, the current implementation has no way to detect unknowns. See the hypothetical situation below.
SCENARIO: A new vaccine is released. After a year or so, the internet starts to see a large number of mothers claiming the vaccine is making their kids bones brittle, citing incidents of their kids having broken bones shortly thereafter. The internet community basically rebuts that kids break bones, nothing new their, and anecdotal evidence does not make for a valid argument. CBS Morning News does a report on it, and conduct a study with a few dozen kids testing bone density before and after vaccination, concluding absolutely that there was no difference in bone density and that the vaccine was NOT causing kid's bones to become brittle.
Let's review two data collection methods...
CURRENT SYSTEM
VAERS - Almost no incidents reported. Doctors know that it is ridiculous that a vaccine would cause kids bones to become brittle, therefore very few have submitted reports. [Right now, pretty much all pro-vaccine folks like myself are nodding their head that this is the correct way. YOU ARE WRONG]
ALTERNATIVE SYSTEM
Collect ALL Data & Mine It - New system requires ALL incidents of any nature that occur within 96 hours after receiving a vaccination to be reported. And any serious incidents within 2 weeks of vaccination to be reported - regardless of the nature of the incident (fever, breathing episode, broken bones, rashes, ANYTHING)
In the current system, using the VAERS data, the above scenario would report back that there is no issue with the vaccine. However, with a truly scientific method applied, in which all incidents are collected and recorded and then reviewed. The data mining showed an increase in excess of 50% in the occurrence of broken bones in children who had received the new vaccine.
This leads one doctor to conduct a small study on the vaccine. He is an ear, nose, and throat doctor. He postulates and theory, and after conducting a study with 40 children affirms his speculation. The vaccine is causing the body to produce a slight increase of fluids in the inner ear. This results in affecting one's balance and coordination. It turns out that the vaccine was NEVER making children's bones brittle, rather it was impeding their ability to balance, resulting in an increase of accidents while doing routine recreational activities like bicycling, skate boarding, etc.
The end result of this, is that the FDA issues new guidance in regards to the vaccine advising doctors to inform vaccine recipients that the vaccine may impair balance and to avoid any activities whic
Re: (Score:2)
But I believe you (and others) forget one important factor in these recordings, they started with a human, naked eye, observation which was then followed by directing the cameras and sensors onto the object.
Re:Video Camera Artifacts (Score:5, Insightful)
But I believe you (and others) forget one important factor in these recordings, they started with a human, naked eye, observation which was then followed by directing the cameras and sensors onto the object.
Did I forget that? I don't think I ever knew that. If that detail was included anywhere, All I can find is that it was taken from a Navy ship, but no other details. I must have missed it. In that case I would very much like to read the eyewitness accounts to read what they say they saw. I was working under the assumption that, since this is a grainy video apparently at high magnification that it probably would not even have been visible to the naked eye. If you have a source for this information, please provide it.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, maybe. Some claim to be at least. But what do you think a naked human eye is? It's a mediocre lens hooked up to an okay sensor that compresses the bejesus out of the signal and passes it on to a giant organic computer evolved to be afraid of lions.
Re: (Score:2)
Hell, it's not even vanishing at the water "surface." That would be a lot stranger. It's actually vanishing as it crosses the horizon line (which happens to be when it could potentially be considered "in the water" since the ship was at sea). The flickering as it hits the horizon should be a dead giveaway that it's a video artifact, but like you say, the default military response is to take any unknown sighting seriously. And a huge proportion of people seeing these are more than happy to jump to hard t
No spaceships indeed. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yup.
People should remember that ufo stand for Unindentified Flying Object.
(Or the more modern terminology uap - Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon).
Aka it just mean "We saw something in the air, and we have no fucking clue what it could be".
That is, nothing more.
So the us army (as countless other bodies around the world) saying "ufo exist" is correct: Yes, indeed. Sometime there are things that are seen and nobody knows what it was.
But for some weird reason, a lot of nuts need to jump to the conclusion that ufo therefore must absolutely means, "there was a spaceship operated by some aliens much more advanced than us!!".
They completely forget about anything else that might also appear in the air: boring object that just happen to look weird on the video due to complex video artifact, or just a plan optical thing like weird len reflections or bokeh.
(Cue in some interview with some former pilots happy to be in the media spotlight giving their very colourful interpretation about physics defying ships of what actually boils down to "There was some werid spot on the camera. No clue where it came from")
(Cue in also some debunking YT video channels taking the time to look into all the details, numbers, back projection, working through the rotation of the tracking camera, visual artifacts, etc. to arrive to the conclusion the spot should have had a size roughly similar to a seagull, and is probably flying at roughly the speed of a large bird, and most of the in picture weirdness comes from the camera rotating around around and the parallax effect of trying to follow some random bird).
(Cue in the absence of any other signal beside some grainy crappy video footage. No radio or any other forms of emission in the electromagnetic spectrum.
So either these are some extremely advanced aliens that have a perfect cloaking of almost the entire EM spectrum except for very tiny window which conveniently happens to match the domain of thermal and visible light cameras.
Or it's just some boring simple object that does indeed not radiate anything else beside some tiny bit of heat and being visible. A.k.a. a bird)
But, the gap! (Score:2)
...and also, I bet that somebody will manage to turn it into some argument to not fall behind some imaginary gap [wikipedia.org] and encourage defense spending to keep up with the "crazy physics defying ufo alien adversaries"
Re: (Score:2)
This particular one makes me think a bug was walking around the lens and then took off right at the point they say it "dipped beneath the water."
Until we have these things in somebody's hands to be publicly examined, and I'm saying the supposed "craft" that these UFOs are, there's always going to be another explanation for them. That's the thing about cameras or even eyes. They're easy to fool.
Re:Video Camera Artifacts (Score:5, Informative)
Yup.
Triangular space ship is just a bokeh effect.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is probably the worst place for a nympho to pick up guys, unless you are a chubby chaser.
The "triangle" video was thoroughly debunked tho (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The video with 3 objects looks like some sort of blimp-shaped craft made of Mylar. The only thing interesting is that it's still unidentified but it sure doesn't look like aliens or anything like that.
Re: (Score:3)
Batman balloon, special edition.
http://g02.a.alicdn.com/kf/HTB... [alicdn.com]
Offical Air Force UFO identification chart. (Score:3)
https://www.unexplained-myster... [unexplaine...teries.com]
Re: The "triangle" video was thoroughly debunked t (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, it would be nice if they would lose the moniker âoeflyingâ. There is no evidence that these objects ( if they are objects at all - see the optical aberration theory ) are in flight.
In fact, by all measures these sightings are stationary. There is no direct measurement of their velocity. There is no registration data with radar. Even the videos in question show the exact same visual characteristics: no actual maneuvering. Always far enough away to be just a few pixels wide. Never closing on the observer, nor moving away.
Unidentified Thing on Imagery? Unidentified Blurry Spot?
Re: (Score:2)
The rotating saucer thing looks like some optical source causing excessive signal on the detector creating pixel saturation. The same thing happens with laser beam profilers when the beam is too intense for the detector. It seems oddly coincidental that it rotates in some manner relative to the aircraft own change.
Re: (Score:2)
Prime Directive non-interference is not a value. It was an idiotic creation for Star Trek to explain why nobody ever visited Earth even though the galaxy has been clogged with warp species for eons.
It is not a value.
You are ethically bound to bring your advanced medicine to all such societies.
If I lived in such a feral world, and saw people in that advanced society wringing their hands about keeping us pure (a form of racism treating tribes as quaint) I'd find such an alien arguing this and pee in their fa
Re: The "triangle" video was thoroughly debunked (Score:2)
You might want to read up more on what happened historically after European nations decided to âoebring the benefits of their civilizationâ to the natives they encountered. It helps explain why the makers of Star Trek, among others, viewed that ambition as a fraught idea.
Unintended consequences are a bitch at the best of times.
Re: (Score:2)
No that's not why.
And anyone who pats brown people on the head and declares them cute for National Geographic photos, but otherwise museum pieces, keep dying with starvation and no antibiotics and 5'4" adult males, is no friend to them.
Full war against this murderous attitude born of a Star Trek retcon hack.
Feral villages, or planets, are not museum performance art for you to feel quaint about. Get in there and help them.
God damn it.
Re: (Score:2)
And if you persist in this silly idea, adopt this concept: get in there and offer help. Whoever comes for it, gets it.
Whoever chooses to live the old ways, gets to.
I guarantee you only a handful of elders, who sit around as proto-governments, while others do the work, will be in favor of the old ways.
All the young kids come to get jobs and Pepsi T-shirts and cell phones and tricorder galactic internet units.
Re: The "triangle" video was thoroughly debunked (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The video evidence is making a media splash because to the general public "seeing is believing", but it's by far the weakest line of evidence. To me the "objects" in the famous videos mostly look like reflections in a multi-element lens system. Some could be objects with where an actual object *appears* to be moving at high speed against the background because of photogrammetric effects (tracking a relatively close object against a distant background at high magnification).
The event reported in the recent
Sigh. (Score:5, Insightful)
First, just stop the alien nonsense. Really. It's embarrassing.
Second, sure, they are unidentified. We don't KNOW what they are. But we can take some fairly reasonable stabs at what's plausible.
And I highly doubt that, in the modern era, e.g. the modern equivalent of when nobody knew what a stealth plane was because they'd never been spoken about, I don't think it at all infeasible that this is just a military vehicle.
It's not unreasonable to assume that it's some kind of drone. What would a drone be doing out in the middle of the ocean and sinking into the sea?
Maybe it's a surveillance drone for a submarine. Submarines do not want to surface or give away their exact position. But they need to see above the waterline (hey, remember periscopes?). And they are ideal for surveying huge swathes of ocean with a single vehicle in several media (e.g. water and air) without anyone knowing.
So they launch a drone, it circles for a few hours then - if it's safe and won't give away it's position - it ditches into the ocean where it's picked up (or not... if you're worried it was spotted, just let it sink and you'll be miles away before anyone even gets to the point it sank at), charged and reused.
Gosh, how impractical is that as an idea? A drone? We have them. Hell, you can buy them in the shops. A military drone? We have them, they are basically miniature automated warplanes nowadays, and those are just the ones we know about.
Ditching into the water? Not difficult and can probably be done with no risk of damage if it's designed for that. Capturing something that's been ditched into the water for a submarine? Yeah, and? Using said drone as an above-water periscope capable of identifying targets hundreds of miles away without giving away the sub position? Not at all unreasonable and extremely useful and also expendable.
Said drone disappearing back into the water once spotted by an enemy plane / ship? Literally the exact thing it would do. And you might never see anything else of it, because you likely couldn't recover it if it wanted to sink, and even if you did it'd just be a drone, and the sub that launched it could have had it lead you on a wild goose chase for hundreds of miles before ditching, while it disappeared silently in the opposite direction having never even been sighted.
Whenever someone talks about some movie to me, about modern warfare or similar, or some terrorist act, I can usually come up with someone far more realistic, practical, achievable and likely to be successful than the movie has just by considering things that Hollywood doesn't think of as a war vehicle because it's not very interesting or wouldn't make a good movie.
And defence against drones was high on my list 20 years ago. God knows what the latest military models are capable of, we won't find out for about 30 years most likely, but if they have anything approaching stealth-bomber-like advances in technology, budgets and capabilities, there's no way we're still just putting hundreds of millions of dollars of kit in the hands of a single human chosen from the 1%, that took decades to train and would be lost forever if the craft was lost to enemy action.
They're using drones, far, far, far more than you would ever see on the news. We were using drones in the Gulf, don't forget. That's 30 years ago! And a drone and a sub make an amazing pairing that can do everything from survey thousands of miles of ocean silently to track oceanic and air targets to actually have the sub remotely attack air, sea and land targets. Not to mention simple communications, acting as a local relay to satellite networks.
But, no, apparently it's fecking aliens.
Re: (Score:2)
P.S. It's 2021. We all have up to half-a-dozen 20-megapixel full colour CCDs sitting in our pocket in a consumer device that we use to Whatsapp.
Grey, horribly blocky and noisy, low res footage supposedly used to "identify targets" wasn't acceptable in 1990, let alone ftoday. That's how reporters carrying a camera get blown to pieces because people can't tell the difference between that and a guy with a rocket launcher, and those are just the ones we know about.
If I was such an agency, I'd be saying that i
Re:Sigh. (Score:5, Insightful)
The military have access to broad spectrum gigapixel cameras. They use b/w photos of a pinhole camera for plausible denial.
Re: (Score:2)
I watched the pilot say he saw the UFOs every day for years.
In all that time, nobody managed to get a high-res camera onto a plane so we could get some decent footage?
Obvious bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Literally, if they failed to do this, I would consider it an absolute disregard for national security of any nation.
Funny how nobody, not even the mavericks, the whistleblowers and the signed-off-with-madness guys have managed a shred of actual evidence of these things in all that time. Not one.
Hell, we know more about the sexual proclivities of certain presidents than we do from any of those whistleblowers. And at least she kept hold of the fecking dress.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably time to cut back on pilots' meth supply again.
Re: (Score:2)
But that's very different than taking a picture from a flying drone at 3,000m through the atmosphere.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, we have 20 mpx cameras in our phone that pick up every clogged pore on our face during a selfie.
I wish. Er, my buddy wishes. He's sick of lack of skin texture on pictures of cute Hollywood chicks, looking more like a cheap 3D cartoon surface than skin due to compression wiping out features less than 8x8 pixels.
Re: (Score:3)
First, just stop the alien nonsense. Really. It's embarrassing.
Probably just the Chinese doing their biannual check to confirm that most of the west is inhabited by blithering idiots.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The first article certainly explains the effect of being utterly uneducated in the history of Western religious imagery.
Re: (Score:2)
This. The meaning of the iconography is lost, and then reinterpreted by the cluless, or more accurately, the clue capable who cheesily rely on their even more clueless marks to misinterpret it buy my ufo book.
See also the Aztec guy on his back with a rocket engine firing underneath him, which is nothing of the sort.
Re:Sigh. (Score:4, Insightful)
As far as the drawings/paintings go, they are just drawings. The devil is commonly drawn as a fantastical creature, for example. It does not mean it's drawn from life. Consider that people draw depictions of the devil and demons all the time in modern times. They're not drawing from life either. Most of the other items are things like depictions of comets in the sky. That one where the comets seem to have human figures is based on belief that the comets are physical manifestations of saints/angels/whatever. Most of the rest are stylized depictions of rays of sunlight emanating from the sky, etc. One of them is a very badly misinterpretation of what appears to be some sort of food container. Then there are various stylized designs, etc. There is absolutely nothing there than needs to be interpreted as a first hand account of alien spacecraft.
Re: (Score:2)
Explanation: apophenia [wikipedia.org] and pareidolia [wikipedia.org].
Or do you think that tailed aliens actually have second faces on their rear ends?
Re: (Score:2)
Is there some reason you think that ancient people had no imaginations?
Re: (Score:2)
Explain what?
It's like saying "But people in biblical times MUST have had gold circles hovering around their heads, it's the only explanation!"
People draw things. The things people draw do not always reflect reality. There are no cherubims, but they appear in paintings. There are no dragons, but they appear in paintings. There is no cloaked figure of death, but it appears in paintings.
It's nonsense.
Official statements? I can find you sworn statements from a qualified Dr of science who will tell you the
Re: (Score:2)
Halos iirc started as iconography of the sun behind their head to show their blessed nature or approval from God. That's it, just a stylized sun shining down on them.
Now we know there are UFOs ... (Score:3)
Please?
Re: (Score:2)
What (Score:5, Funny)
Not everyone is convinced that these objects are being piloted by grey aliens
No, the vast majority of people, and the scientific consensus, and Occam's razor, all say that they are not being piloted by grey aliens. They are being piloted by blue aliens.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Blue Aliens Matter
Re: (Score:2)
Not everyone is convinced that these objects are being piloted by grey aliens
No, the vast majority of people, and the scientific consensus, and Occam's razor, all say that they are not being piloted by grey aliens. They are being piloted by blue aliens.
Oh, sure; Blame it on the Democrats.
Maybe you didn't get the memo ... (Score:5, Informative)
... but the era of super-grainy shaky video footage of supposed alien craft is officially over, now that most of the first worlds population has high-resolution still and video cameras on them at all times.
These reports are a throwback to early 80ies crackpot pseudo-science. Please stop. Thank you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Highly unlikely. (Score:2)
The obligatory (Score:2)
I'm still waiting (Score:2)
I'm still waiting for the first zany who posts a long article about these UFOs being evil and wanting to take over the Earth using COVID-19 as evidence.
I think we may have had the other zany I've been waiting decades for. This zany would blame global this-and-that on the UFO's malign intents.
{O,o}
God skipped a stone (Score:2)
It was just one long skip.
UAFA (unidentified apparently flying artifact)? (Score:2)
Misleading? (Score:4, Interesting)
The guy says "It splashed!"
CNN says it "disappeared into the water".
Slashdot goes with "sinking into the water".
All I saw was that it was there and then it wasn't. Has anybody watched the video slowed down to try and make out exactly what happened?
Re: (Score:3)
or it just gone behind the horizon, either because it got further away and/or decreased its altitude, or the thing that was recording lowered its altitude or atmospheric effects that changed condition and the blob was a sort of mirage.
Re: (Score:2)
"It splashed" or "it's splashed" as in "we shot it down?"
Can't be bothered to go watch the video.
Designation Change (Score:2)
I always thought that the F in UFO ... (Score:2)
stood for "Flying" not "Floating".
Re: (Score:2)
What is "floating" if not flying through the water?
blob (Score:3)
So a blob in a IR video goes behind the horizon, what is the likelihood that this is just a plane that no longer can be seen because the earth is spherical?
The navy should hire Mick West already, apparently their UFO (or UAP) analysts know next to nothing about cameras, lenses, parallax, etc.
visiting the horizon (Score:2)
The horizon is approximately 9 miles away from their vantage point. To step below the horizon as quickly as shown in the video, the flying object's position relative to the vantage point would need to be traveling away from the observer at tens of thousands of miles an hour. The scaling of this object would also change as it moves further away. The object also appears to rise back above the
Quality of US Navy media capture in 2019? (Score:2)
Why are these videos always ridiculously low quality?
If this was shot in 2019, FFS, even a camera on a mobile device is going to get a better video!
I'm pretty damn sure the US Navy have incredible media capture tech to hand, so what is the deal here?
This is just getting boring now.
These events are clearly not UFO's - isn't it funny, how with all the tech at their disposal, we've yet to see a high quality capture of a so called UFO?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Plus the military will (obviously) not allow adversaries to see the actual quality of their equipment and purposely degrades the published photo's and video's.
Secureteam10 (Score:2)
Glad you're back Tyler [youtube.com], I hope you stick around. - Stay Safe!!
So even the name is wrong (Score:2)
It's a USO, an Unidentified Sinking Object.
But... (Score:2)
Nomenclature problem. (Score:3)
Stop calling this shit UFOs. I know, they like to be cute and say "Well, uwu, it's a flying object that's unidentified! It's a UFO, what, what?! That's what UFO means!".
It's not cute. It's well known that UFO has such a strong connotation that it's "aliens" that using the term at all outside of an actual UFO (which these and nothing else that has been filmed is clearly not) is just verbal malpractice.
We need a better term, basically anything but UFOs. Shit, just call them unknown aircraft.
It's like "dark matter", another shitty name that conjures fanciful images that don't match the reality, now we have to hear about dark matter Wu from people and shitty scifi plots.
COVID fears are so 2020 (Score:2)
Gotta keep the plebes occupied with something else to be afraid of.
"Wild Bill : Wait, that's good, that's good, I like that. But it may not evacuate everybody. There's always some joker who thinks he's immune. What I need is something so scary it'll clear three hundred square miles of every living Christian soul."
UFO Alien Spacecraft (Score:2)
Without evil aliens, how do we explain... (Score:2)
If it is aliens... (Score:2)
If it really is aliens, perhaps we can trade them for their more advanced imaging technology?
Re: (Score:2)
No splash! It disapears behind the horizon. (Score:3)
This is obvious in the video. The object disappeared at the exact moment its center touched the horizon. He was hidden by Earth curvature like all distant objects. It looks big in the video because the intense heat (probably from a jet engine) causes glare in the infrared camera.
Re: (Score:3)
We have a culture that applauds fucking morons.
Re:Show me an object with at least 180x100px accur (Score:4, Funny)
Do you know how many bigfoot and ghost reality TV shows we have in the states?
The funniest part is that you call it "The History Channel"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you know how many bigfoot and ghost reality TV shows we have in the states?
Years ago my kid and I would watch the show "Finding Bigfoot". More like "Not Finding Bigfoot".
Re: (Score:2)
If there was truly et activity on earth that was being suppressed what would there be to stop them flying around over major cities with their space megaphone shouting "we're real"? Especially when all the 'footage' shows their c
Re: (Score:2)
ETs come in peace. The problem is, that we are hostile (just look at all the wars worldwide). Of course, they have the technology to protect themselves from us. But, there is no point in that - they can't force us to be friendly.
They will show up, when WE are ready.
Re: (Score:2)
And the drawings sim
Re: (Score:2)
Here are some drawings by Maurice Sendak https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]
Do you think he actually saw those things? Or did he just use his imagination? Do you think ancient people had no imaginations?
Re: (Score:2)
Then there's the possibility of unknown natural phenomena. I find it interesting that there are so many reports of glowing orbs in the vicinity of nuclear weapons and reactors. Some say this is because aliens are interested/worried about our use of nukes, but I can't help but consider the known fact that hard radiation makes things glow and