
The US Navy just confirmed these UFO videos are the real deal - hellofunk
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/18/politics/navy-confirms-ufo-videos-trnd/index.html
======
methodover
Gofast is just a weather balloon.

[https://youtu.be/PLyEO0jNt6M](https://youtu.be/PLyEO0jNt6M)

Gimbal is a jet. The perceived rotation is an artifact of the camera rotating
on a gimbal.

[https://youtu.be/4X1PRDbtiF0](https://youtu.be/4X1PRDbtiF0)

Nimitz is also a jet. It’s far away, and blurry.

[https://youtu.be/s1oTg0kxzDs](https://youtu.be/s1oTg0kxzDs)

It would be really cool if these were alien spaceships. They’re likely not.

~~~
hellofunk
It's interesting to see you speak matter-of-factly about what they are,
despite the Navy saying they are indeed unidentified.

~~~
derefr
For a military, "identifying" a craft is less about saying _what_ something
is, and more about saying _who_ something is. If you know that something _is a
jet_ , but you can't recognize the make of it well-enough to know whose
embassy to complain to for it being in your airspace, then it's still
"unidentified."

It's sort of like a criminal investigation. If you know that "a tall,
Caucasian male" is responsible for the crime, that's not worth issuing a
formal finding about, because you still haven't _identified a suspect_ to
pursue. You have some details, but not enough to "go on."

(Also, many things that aren't jets try to pretend to be jets in various ways,
many jets try to pretend to _not_ be jets in various ways, and many jets try
to pretend to be _other_ jets in various ways. If you just _see_ "a jet", you
can't be sure which of these cases is in play. Identification involves finding
a non-repudiable _signature_ —a tell that indicates a particular make of
device, that cannot be faked by any _other_ currently-known device. Sort of
like a (well-made) virus signature.)

~~~
hellofunk
> For a military, "identifying" a craft is less about saying what something
> is, and more about saying who something is.

Except that the article says:

> And while officials said they don't know what the objects are

------
johnchristopher
So, anyone on HN knows what it's likely to really be ?

~~~
opwieurposiu
My pet theory is that they are mylar balloons launched by russian submarines.
The subs launch the balloons as radar targets to elicit a response from the
navy. Then the subs gather intel on our radars, response time, order of
battle, etc.

~~~
aalleavitch
This isn't the most unreasonable idea, are their movements really consistent
with balloons, though?

~~~
tomatotomato37
The upper atmosphere is a mess of violent winds, so it wouldn't be out of the
ordinary. Don't forget a weightless balloon is a lot more sensitive to
turbulence than a multi-ton computer-stabilized fighter jet, and those winds
can already drop a multi-hundred-ton 747 by tens of feet.

~~~
aalleavitch
But they’ve been seen traveling against the wind at high speeds

------
ipunchghosts
What is with all these links to "To the Stars Academy." I just don't get what
that organization is trying to do.

~~~
logjammin
It's bizarre. What's with the name? The bits don't fit together. Sounds like a
low-rent acting school. If it's an an academy, can I take classes?

And it's ... The Blink-182 guy?

~~~
cududa
They’ve always been huge alien conspiracy theorists. They have multiple songs
on the topic and joke about it at their shows

------
7532yahoogmail
Wouldn't another plausible explanation be someone has hacked the radar?
Because then implausible movement and speed would be explainable.

~~~
klatuu
That hypothesis and also video/optical/signal "lens flares" and other such
technical glitch theories have been discussed widely.

The reason none of that holds up is because of the way advanced "sensor
fusion" and direct observers with the naked eye have all agreed and converged
on highly detailed accounts from multiple angles.

You might imagine that "sensor fusion" involves some centralized control plane
that collects and controls the redistributed captures at a focal choke point,
where maybe the NSA (or a foreign APT implant, or some such high tech evil-
doer) could sneak in and spoof some deep fake concoction into the mix, but
these are fault tolerant systems, including direct observations from boots on
the ground in visual contact with the objects. You have personnel with
ordinary binoculars. You have vehicles with weapons systems that expect
jamming and hostile environments. Sensor fusion is one tool, and not the only
tool in the kit.

They have ships with eyes in multiple spectrum bands, especially radio,
microwave, IR and broad daylight. People looking at unfused radar, sending
planes to a radar return, and then seeing and following the object by visual
flight rules.

This isn't a situation where a single point of failure introduces doubt. In
fact, it is the very opposite: multiple independent sources of high integrity,
at least if you trust The U.S. Navy.

~~~
admax88q
To some degree the sensor fusion actually helps the case for sensor
malfunction. It would explain why it was detected by multiple "independent"
systems if in fact those systems are not independent.

------
anewguy9000
ugh, these videos are as old as time but every few months since 2015 a new
article comes out with a clickbait headline referencing the same thing. there
are a few sources that have reported on this objectively (nbc sandiego isnt
one), if you look.

