Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 48 of 48

Thread: US Nimitz UFO event

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    30,882
    I'm now resolved to teach the kids, as they get older (Irene will listen politely to this lesson and agree, but I wouldn't say she'd actually take it in), that the most important letter in "UFO" is the U. As in, "I don't know what I saw." Because I feel that leaves you more open to actually exploring options like "human craft" or "Venus" or "weird reflection."
    _____________________________________________
    Gillian

    "Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

    "You can't erase icing."

    "I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    17,856
    Quote Originally Posted by geonuc View Post
    I'm not sure I'd say flip-flopping. Those are two different circumstances. An on-duty operator aboard the USS Princeton tasked with monitoring local airspace and vectoring aircraft is unlikely to engage in any silliness. Whereas the pilot's off-duty comrades certainly are.
    In terms of human factors management, however, that particular bit of off-duty silliness works to undermine the pilot's willingness to report a visual anomaly during the investigation of a radar anomaly. To that extent it's a failure of critical thinking and the application of a double standard. A change in military culture towards giving positive support to pilots who report anomalous observations clearly and thoroughly can only be of benefit to all concerned, and will certainly not discourage critical thinking.

    Grant Hutchison

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Bend, Oregon
    Posts
    6,171
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    In terms of human factors management, however, that particular bit of off-duty silliness works to undermine the pilot's willingness to report a visual anomaly during the investigation of a radar anomaly. To that extent it's a failure of critical thinking and the application of a double standard. A change in military culture towards giving positive support to pilots who report anomalous observations clearly and thoroughly can only be of benefit to all concerned, and will certainly not discourage critical thinking.

    Grant Hutchison
    Perhaps, but I commented only on the your use of the term 'flip-flopping'.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    17,856
    Quote Originally Posted by geonuc View Post
    Perhaps, but I commented only on the your use of the term 'flip-flopping'.
    And I was attempting to explain why I think flip-flopping was a good choice of word.

    Grant Hutchison

  5. #35
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Posts
    1,974
    Below is a story that came out today regarding the authenticity of the videos, for what it's worth apparently the US Navy has confirmed that the objects which were filmed are real (all 3 encounters), but the question remains "real what?".


    https://www.popularmechanics.com/mil...o-videos-real/

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    17,856
    Quote Originally Posted by Spacedude View Post
    Below is a story that came out today regarding the authenticity of the videos, for what it's worth apparently the US Navy has confirmed that the objects which were filmed are real (all 3 encounters), but the question remains "real what?".
    According to the article, they've said that the videos are genuine, rather than that they depict real objects - "unexplained aerial phenomena" covers a lot of possibilities, only some of which are "objects".

    Grant Hutchison

  7. #37
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Posts
    1,974
    The article does go on to state that :

    Navy "designates the objects contained in these videos as unidentified aerial phenomena."
    That terminology is important. "Unidentified Aerial Phenomena" provides "the basic descriptor for the sightings/observations of unauthorized/unidentified aircraft/objects that have been observed entering/operating in the airspace of various military-controlled training ranges,"

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    17,856
    Quote Originally Posted by Spacedude View Post
    The article does go on to state that :

    Navy "designates the objects contained in these videos as unidentified aerial phenomena."
    That terminology is important. "Unidentified Aerial Phenomena" provides "the basic descriptor for the sightings/observations of unauthorized/unidentified aircraft/objects that have been observed entering/operating in the airspace of various military-controlled training ranges,"
    Yes, it's an interesting statement, but it makes little sense - "unauthorized" is not implicit in the word "unindentified", and "object" is something of a minority subset of "phenomenon". Indeed, the concept of a UAP was specifically adopted in order to get away from the idea that "objects" and "flying" were necessarily involved.

    Grant Hutchison
    Last edited by grant hutchison; 2019-Sep-18 at 02:52 PM. Reason: link

  9. #39
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Posts
    1,974
    Well, I'm only going by the statements in the article which refer to the UAP as "objects' such as in this excerpt below :

    In each case, the objects in the videos undertook aerial maneuvers that aren't possible with current aviation technology. In the 2004 incident, according to The New York Times, the objects "appeared suddenly at 80,000 feet, and then hurtled toward the sea, eventually stopping at 20,000 feet and hovering. Then they either dropped out of radar range or shot straight back up."

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    17,856
    Quote Originally Posted by Spacedude View Post
    Well, I'm only going by the statements in the article which refer to the UAP as "objects' such as in this excerpt below :

    In each case, the objects in the videos undertook aerial maneuvers that aren't possible with current aviation technology. In the 2004 incident, according to The New York Times, the objects "appeared suddenly at 80,000 feet, and then hurtled toward the sea, eventually stopping at 20,000 feet and hovering. Then they either dropped out of radar range or shot straight back up."
    Yeah, I noticed that too. it's annoying when people misuse or misrepresent terms of art, but what can you do? I've given up trying to police "allergy", "chronic" and "acute", too.

    Grant Hutchison

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    12,860
    Quote Originally Posted by Spacedude View Post
    Well, I'm only going by the statements in the article which refer to the UAP as "objects' such as in this excerpt below :

    In each case, the objects in the videos undertook aerial maneuvers that aren't possible with current aviation technology. In the 2004 incident, according to The New York Times, the objects "appeared suddenly at 80,000 feet, and then hurtled toward the sea, eventually stopping at 20,000 feet and hovering. Then they either dropped out of radar range or shot straight back up."
    But wouldn't "apparent objects" be more accurate? If they were, somehow, confirmed material objects, falsifying any chance it was an optical effect, wouldn't that make a better headline, rather than just the videos are real? I'm curious how they know those altitudes, or was this addressed earlier?
    We know time flies, we just can't see its wings.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    8,619
    From my reading of these videos, all three seem to have been 'objects' of some sort;
    the Nimitz clip seems to show an unknown and unidentified aircraft in the distance,
    the GoFast clip seems to show a small object moving relatively slowly (halfway between the sea and the plane's altitude)(possibly a seabird or a balloon of unknown provenance)
    and the Gimbal clip shows another unknown and unidentified aircraft in the distance.

    Note that none of these possibilities rule out some sort of extraterrestrial involvement, but since we are on Earth surrounded by terrestrial planes, birds and balloons, it seems more likely that these sightings have terrestrial explanations.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    8,619
    Note that I am only really interested in discussing the actual clips, not the supposed radar contacts that initiated the encounter. We don't have any recordings of those contacts, so it is possible that they are being misremembered or distorted in some way (particularly after the passage of time).

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,364

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    17,856
    Gradisher said the Navy's transparency about unidentified aerial phenomena, or UAP, is largely done to encourage trainees to report "incursions" they spot in the airfield, which threaten pilots' safety.
    "This is all about frequent incursions into our training ranges by UAPs," he said. "Those incursions present a safety hazard to the safe flight of our aviators and the security of our operations."
    So now at least we have a partial explanation of Gradisher's strange version of what a UAP is.

    Grant Hutchison

  16. #46
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    17,856
    Quote Originally Posted by eburacum45 View Post
    From my reading of these videos, all three seem to have been 'objects' of some sort;
    Yes, I think they're "objects" in the same way a mirage of a camel is an "object". But the inverted camel hanging in the air is interesting not because it's a camel but because of its remarkable apparent location and behaviour - it's the phenomenon of atmospheric refraction that's the key component, not the camel, though both are necessary. Likewise, I think, while the FLIR1, GoFast and Gimbal videos all depict objects, they've become interesting because of the camera processing that has rendered them apparently exotic.

    Grant Hutchison

  17. #47
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    8,619
    Hmm; the 'illusion' in this case appears to have been caused by the fact that the FLIR instrument rotates independently of the direction of movement of the plane. This allows the sensor to maintain a directional lock on the object concerned, but the counter-rotation of the instrument is counter-intuitive, and may have caused some disorientation on the part of the person operating the camera.

    Strangely enough I've just been reading an essay by Arthur C. Clarke about a similar instrument, which he intended to be used inside a rotating space habitat. In order to counteract the rotation of such a structure, he proposed the use of a 'coelostat' - a system of counter-rotating mirrors that kept the Earth outside in view. Indeed he built one, and it apparently worked. Astronomers will of course be familiar with the concept.

    The counter-rotation of the FLIR gimbal acts a bit like Arthur Clarke's coelostat - it keeps the target in constant view, but everything else continues to move at an alarming rate, and seems to produce an illusion of rapid movement in a target which is actually relatively motionless.

  18. #48
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    11,573
    Thank you for that bit of information.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •