Radar data confirms: USS Omaha was surrounded by swarm of UFOs(mysterywire.com)
mysterywire.com
Radar data confirms: USS Omaha was surrounded by swarm of UFOs
https://www.mysterywire.com/ufo/ufos-swarm-uss-omaha/
331 comments
This Warzone story is also interesting, because it contains actual logs and emails released under FOIA. Those are much less sensationalist than the OP story:
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/39913/multiple-destroy...
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/39913/multiple-destroy...
One of the counterintuitive drawbacks of advancing technology is that it will become harder and harder to demonstrate that an ET UFO is actually ET and not some advanced classified gov't object.
Will it, though? I'd have thought advancing technology would advance both sides (creating odd new flying objects, and identifying the same)? These days everyone's carrying a high rez high frame rate camera in their pocket, back in the 50s we relied on eyewitness accounts.
Edit: Whoops, sorry for the necro. I have to watch out better for old tabs...
Edit: Whoops, sorry for the necro. I have to watch out better for old tabs...
That's not a real drawback, except in the minds of people who are projecting their ET fantasies onto the real world.
Is that less sensationalist? It seems they're reporting exactly the same things just using different types of recorded data. Neither article attempts to speculate on what kind of object might be capable of causing such data, nor who might control it.
That article completely ignores the eyewitness testimony from the navy pilots of the Tic Tac incident where they visually identify that the Tic Tac:
1) can hover a few meters above the ocean without generating rotor downwash
2) can accelerate away at 100+g
Both of those rule out any known drone or helicopter. David Fravor, one of the pilots, explains this in an interview here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aB8zcAttP1E
1) can hover a few meters above the ocean without generating rotor downwash
2) can accelerate away at 100+g
Both of those rule out any known drone or helicopter. David Fravor, one of the pilots, explains this in an interview here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aB8zcAttP1E
The us navy pilots were using imaging sensors to track those UFOs, so it’s possible that what they saw on their displays wasn’t UFOs.
No, the pilots saw the tictac with their own eyes. I recommend you watch the interview.
If reports like that accurate and it's a human adversary, we might as well shut down our military, it won't do any good anyway.
Wrong - the enemy might not have enough of them and we haven’t tried shooting them yet AFAICT.
So there are really two options here. Either the instruments used to detect #1 and #2 are reporting inaccurate data, OR technology far beyond what the public knows about exists and has only been seen under circumstances where no one had a high resolution camera to get a detailed picture. #2 seems unlikely because the availably of high resolution cameras has gone up a ton in the past 10 years ( cell phones / satelites ), but a clear picture of a UFO has not shown up.
Or the US military is fabricating this.
Not saying they aren't, but what possible reason could they have for doing so?
Additional funding to fight this “new threat”?
Assuming the American military industrial complex doesn't already have a blank check and actually needs to justify spending anything to anyone, why would they concoct a threat as implausible as "aliens" when something more mundane, like "foreign drones" would be more likely to work?
Yes, this can't be dismissed. (It's also plausible the military could be intentionally deceiving some of its own personnel, for some purpose. So a military pilot recounting a story may not necessarily be lying.)
Obviously such a claim would need evidence and a plausible motive and shouldn't be suspected without evidence; but, also obviously, it's one of many hypotheses that would have a much higher probability of being true than extraterrestrially-originated visitation.
Obviously such a claim would need evidence and a plausible motive and shouldn't be suspected without evidence; but, also obviously, it's one of many hypotheses that would have a much higher probability of being true than extraterrestrially-originated visitation.
I find it far more likely that the different interpretations of UFO lead to divergent and self-reenforcing stories. What I mean by that is that UFO means unidentified flying object, which all flying objects, or even just those for which there is only a single report are classified as exactly that unidentified … opposed to identified … flying … objects.
On the flip side, the public that has both a less formal and generally lower understanding of this and other things, also led on by various forms of popular culture, have a wholly fantastical minds image when they hear "UFO".
On the flip side, the public that has both a less formal and generally lower understanding of this and other things, also led on by various forms of popular culture, have a wholly fantastical minds image when they hear "UFO".
Seems unlikely that they're participating in a large scale fabrication like this but it's possible. I think it's more likely that there is some black project that uses novel propulsion systems and they're covertly testing it against our own military to evaluate how effective it could be. Or it could be another nation that made a break through in propulsion. And of course, the extraterrestrial possibility.
One thing that will be interesting is to see if any other nations have had encounters like this and can supply video and sensor data evidence.
One thing that will be interesting is to see if any other nations have had encounters like this and can supply video and sensor data evidence.
> Seems unlikely that they're participating in a large scale fabrication like this but it's possible
There is no major military that hasn't participated in large scale fabrications as a concealment technique for their own operations or technological developments. The US military certainly has on multiple occasions.
There is no major military that hasn't participated in large scale fabrications as a concealment technique for their own operations or technological developments. The US military certainly has on multiple occasions.
That's the main thing I found funny.
Back in the day of only a handful of newspapers and of 1 camera per 1 million people (at least on the average day, the average person wouldn't lug their camera around with them), we had sightings of Yeti, Bigfoot, Nessie, El Chupacabra, etc.
Now we have the internet, an unstoppable torrent of crappy news and the mother of all tabloids, everyone has a high resolution camera in their pockets at all times, and cryptoids are all but gone.
I would have expected 16k HDR resolution photos of Yeti by now.
I feel betrayed! :-p
Back in the day of only a handful of newspapers and of 1 camera per 1 million people (at least on the average day, the average person wouldn't lug their camera around with them), we had sightings of Yeti, Bigfoot, Nessie, El Chupacabra, etc.
Now we have the internet, an unstoppable torrent of crappy news and the mother of all tabloids, everyone has a high resolution camera in their pockets at all times, and cryptoids are all but gone.
I would have expected 16k HDR resolution photos of Yeti by now.
I feel betrayed! :-p
https://xkcd.com/1235/
To be fair, a warship at sea probably doesn't allow their sailors to carry their phone around for opsec reasons.
To be fair, a warship at sea probably doesn't allow their sailors to carry their phone around for opsec reasons.
> To be fair, a warship at sea probably doesn't allow their sailors to carry their phone around for opsec reasons.
Thus why it's the only remaining gap in the "ufo of the gaps" theory!
Thus why it's the only remaining gap in the "ufo of the gaps" theory!
Pilots and crew on aircraft certainly carry cameras - part of standard procedure on intercepting an aircraft includes photography for intelligence collection purposes.
> To be fair, a warship at sea probably doesn't allow their sailors to carry their phone around for opsec reasons.
I recall reading a few weeks ago that not only the sailors have consumer grade equipment but that there are procedures in cases like this for sailors to use that equipment so there is more footage to analyze later
I recall reading a few weeks ago that not only the sailors have consumer grade equipment but that there are procedures in cases like this for sailors to use that equipment so there is more footage to analyze later
And the warship itself in 2020 doesn't have any onboard cameras… ?
We are asked to believe the military is intelligent, but if that's the case then I have my doubts.
We are asked to believe the military is intelligent, but if that's the case then I have my doubts.
my kids ask me if I believe and I tell them I used to. However, given the HDR phone in everyones pocket for a decade+ and no photos of a ghost, alien, saucer, cryptid ????? I am now a non believer.
Hey it did turn out the giant squids were totally real though! So that’s pretty neat. When I was born less than 40 years ago it wasn’t known if they were an actual species.
> Hey it did turn out the giant squids were totally real though!
So I guess the correlation is: cryptids can't coexist with smartphones. Makes sense. I get a feeling that cryptids aren't the social media type.
So I guess the correlation is: cryptids can't coexist with smartphones. Makes sense. I get a feeling that cryptids aren't the social media type.
I think you might be confused; giant squid were known to be a real species as far back as the 1800s based on specimens that washed ashore. But it was only within the last couple decades that they were imaged alive in their natural environment.
Cryptoids down, police violence up!
Like they explain in "close encounters of the third kind", no one has a high definition photograph of a car accident as it happens either (of course, now that we have dash cams..)
That might have been true when "Close Encounters" was made, but there are 100s of videos of car accidents on Youtube.
There are plenty of clear pictures of UFOs circulating in the Internet, but you won't believe it.
Also if there are aliens monitoring humans, obviously they'll adjust their operations as our devices change.
Also if there are aliens monitoring humans, obviously they'll adjust their operations as our devices change.
Statements of the form "there is X on the Internet" are typically more convincing when accompanied by links.
>Also if there are aliens monitoring humans, obviously they'll adjust their operations as our devices change.
I doubt highly intelligent beings from another world would give a damn what our devices were capable of.
I doubt highly intelligent beings from another world would give a damn what our devices were capable of.
Furthermore, how would they have a clue what our devices are, or are capable of if they are not already here at the ground level?
The most reasonable explanation is psyop. This follows Occam’s razor
I always think that as well.
Except, there is a large air show that takes place up the road from me; and I get a ticket some years.
The aircraft are literally displaying themselves.
Getting a decent picture of them whizzing past is far from easy.
While I do agree with you and find it odd that no high quality photos ever surface and things are typically just hearsay, I also understand that even these newer iPhones and Android cameras take pretty crappy night photos and especially if you were trying to snap a picture quickly of a moving object in very low lighting.
The “instruments” are direct visual sighting by several pilots.
It’s unclear how you’ve reached the conclusion that #2 is unlikely without knowing how widespread the use of this technology is, and in what circumstances/locations it’s being used.
Classified military technology exists and is being tested all the time, without any high-res pictures leaking.
It’s unclear how you’ve reached the conclusion that #2 is unlikely without knowing how widespread the use of this technology is, and in what circumstances/locations it’s being used.
Classified military technology exists and is being tested all the time, without any high-res pictures leaking.
If the average persons ability to capture a photo of bigfoot or a ghost or a UFO goes up 100x I would expect the number of photos during these sightings to go up some amount. Why would bigfoot go extinct at the exact time that everyone has cameras?
I guess another theory is that aliens are pranking these people. "Hey Blart, lets go to Earth and let one guy without a camera see part of our spaceship from a distance. Everyone will think he is crazy. HAHAHA"
I guess another theory is that aliens are pranking these people. "Hey Blart, lets go to Earth and let one guy without a camera see part of our spaceship from a distance. Everyone will think he is crazy. HAHAHA"
There is also the possibility that there was some rotor downwash but conditions were such that it was hard to see for the witnesses. Or even that it was clearly visible but none of the sailors paid attention to it. Then somebody mentioned not seeing it and a group mentality kicked in where everyone now agreed clearly not seeing it.
Have you tried taking a cell phone photo of a moving object far in the distance and with less than ideal lighting? You won’t get a good result if you can even capture it.
Photographing something like this would probably require a DSLR type camera with a great zoom/telephoto lens. I would expect they have that equipment on military ships, but I don’t think the ubiquity of cell phone cameras has significantly changed the ability to photograph this kind of phenomenon.
Photographing something like this would probably require a DSLR type camera with a great zoom/telephoto lens. I would expect they have that equipment on military ships, but I don’t think the ubiquity of cell phone cameras has significantly changed the ability to photograph this kind of phenomenon.
> but a clear picture of a UFO has not shown up.
Obviously the aliens have some anti surveillance tech that renders our cameras less useful!
Obviously the aliens have some anti surveillance tech that renders our cameras less useful!
I don't get what the motivation is for these news stories and the upcoming "report" that everyone is talking about.
So far, all we got is grainy video and verbal accounts from military pilots using jargon-laden language that sounds authoritative released to the general public.
The thing is, these pilots have instruments, jobs, and mindsets that are intended to handle known things. They are neither impartial nor critical observers. The key thing is we don't know yet what they saw, nor do they. We don't even know if these are "objects" or sensor/sensory "artifacts".
Occam's Razor is intended to apply in EXACTLY situations like this.
The good news is that if these phenomena are as common as people say, it should be possible to devise procedures, measurements, and analysis to start to rule out what these are not.
So far, all we got is grainy video and verbal accounts from military pilots using jargon-laden language that sounds authoritative released to the general public.
The thing is, these pilots have instruments, jobs, and mindsets that are intended to handle known things. They are neither impartial nor critical observers. The key thing is we don't know yet what they saw, nor do they. We don't even know if these are "objects" or sensor/sensory "artifacts".
Occam's Razor is intended to apply in EXACTLY situations like this.
The good news is that if these phenomena are as common as people say, it should be possible to devise procedures, measurements, and analysis to start to rule out what these are not.
The motivation is that this is a viral story, so it's guaranteed to get views.
Bear in mind, every new story doesn't indicate a new sighting - these stories are mostly retreads of the same few incidents and a vague pins-and-twine narrative connecting other stories like the Pais patents to get some extra mileage out of it.
Bear in mind, every new story doesn't indicate a new sighting - these stories are mostly retreads of the same few incidents and a vague pins-and-twine narrative connecting other stories like the Pais patents to get some extra mileage out of it.
Yeah, there's been a lot of re-hashing and people are conflating the several different videos together along with the verbal descriptions by pilots and piecing together entirely made-up narratives.
In particular, the Alizondo character keeps popping up as some kind of head of a government research project. He's been trotting this stuff around for years, but according to a 2019 story in The Intercept, the dude's employment story doesn't check out: https://theintercept.com/2019/06/01/ufo-unidentified-history...
I suppose the news outlets are hungry for clicks now that Stable Genius isn't around to send them a zinger everyday.
In particular, the Alizondo character keeps popping up as some kind of head of a government research project. He's been trotting this stuff around for years, but according to a 2019 story in The Intercept, the dude's employment story doesn't check out: https://theintercept.com/2019/06/01/ufo-unidentified-history...
I suppose the news outlets are hungry for clicks now that Stable Genius isn't around to send them a zinger everyday.
Occam's razor breaks down precisely in the long tail.
> The thing is, these pilots have instruments, jobs, and mindsets that are intended to handle known things. They are neither impartial nor critical observers. The key thing is we don't know yet what they saw, nor do they. We don't even know if these are "objects" or sensor/sensory "artifacts".
There's a lot to unpack here.
Yes, they are intended to handle known things. Drones, weather balloons, cloud formations, jet plumes. These are all known, and our observations do not match them.
Impartial nor critical? I would suggest you watch the interviews with the pilots from the USS Nimitz incident. It's mentioned a major reason we don't hear a lot of these accounts is because of the stigma of reporting UFOs, which is why his copilots have been silent on the matter until now.
Lastly they are real objects. Multiple eye witness accounts with multiple radar signatures, from carriers and jets.
> The thing is, these pilots have instruments, jobs, and mindsets that are intended to handle known things. They are neither impartial nor critical observers. The key thing is we don't know yet what they saw, nor do they. We don't even know if these are "objects" or sensor/sensory "artifacts".
There's a lot to unpack here.
Yes, they are intended to handle known things. Drones, weather balloons, cloud formations, jet plumes. These are all known, and our observations do not match them.
Impartial nor critical? I would suggest you watch the interviews with the pilots from the USS Nimitz incident. It's mentioned a major reason we don't hear a lot of these accounts is because of the stigma of reporting UFOs, which is why his copilots have been silent on the matter until now.
Lastly they are real objects. Multiple eye witness accounts with multiple radar signatures, from carriers and jets.
> ...suggest you watch the interviews with the pilots from the USS Nimitz incident.
I did and I am not convinced their observations reveal much about these phenomena. Military pilots are very capable people with good eyes, but they're trained and focused strictly on their very demanding job. They are not in the air to conduct general-purpose scientific observations, nor do they necessarily have the tools at their disposal to truly evaluate what they're seeing.
> Drones, weather balloons, cloud formations, jet plumes. These are all known, and our observations do not match them.
Do not match any? Or some? or one? There's multiple videos out there, very different from each other and each could have a different explanation.
It really does come down to Occam's Razor.
I did and I am not convinced their observations reveal much about these phenomena. Military pilots are very capable people with good eyes, but they're trained and focused strictly on their very demanding job. They are not in the air to conduct general-purpose scientific observations, nor do they necessarily have the tools at their disposal to truly evaluate what they're seeing.
> Drones, weather balloons, cloud formations, jet plumes. These are all known, and our observations do not match them.
Do not match any? Or some? or one? There's multiple videos out there, very different from each other and each could have a different explanation.
It really does come down to Occam's Razor.
> There's multiple videos out there, very different from each other and each could have a different explanation.
In isolation yes, the videos are not remarkable. But it's not in isolation, as you seem to be discounting the context they're taken and ignoring the relevance of the eye witness accounts and their flight behaviour on radar (descending from space, disappearing and reappearing a hundred miles away, etc).
Unless you think they're all in on something or lying, which is fair enough, but from how the situation is unfolding with demands from congress, experiences of all the service members, and civilian pilots, I'm partial there is something of a phenomena here.
> It really does come down to Occam's Razor
Heuristics apply in the general case but definitionally may not when there is enough evidence the event is an outlier.
In isolation yes, the videos are not remarkable. But it's not in isolation, as you seem to be discounting the context they're taken and ignoring the relevance of the eye witness accounts and their flight behaviour on radar (descending from space, disappearing and reappearing a hundred miles away, etc).
Unless you think they're all in on something or lying, which is fair enough, but from how the situation is unfolding with demands from congress, experiences of all the service members, and civilian pilots, I'm partial there is something of a phenomena here.
> It really does come down to Occam's Razor
Heuristics apply in the general case but definitionally may not when there is enough evidence the event is an outlier.
Every time a person refuses comments made by another person in bullet points, I find it hard to believe they are in fact looking for the truth and are not biased.
The person who commented on your comment clearly provided information about what you said, but you're just disagreeing with him.
The person who commented on your comment clearly provided information about what you said, but you're just disagreeing with him.
What “bullet points” ?
In any case, I am addressing all his assertions respectfully.
So I saw a UFO a few years back (2017)- it was a circular object that stayed largely stationary. My in laws saw it to, so I wasn’t imagining it. Obviously I took a picture, but it was so small and far away that the photo is just a white dot in the distance.
Now I figure it was just a rogue cloud, weather balloon or weird atmospheric effect, but there are still phenomena that are hard to capture on camera.
Now I figure it was just a rogue cloud, weather balloon or weird atmospheric effect, but there are still phenomena that are hard to capture on camera.
While I don't disagree with your point, whenever this point comes up I do feel the need to point out that getting a clear, high resolution photo of a (relatively) small moving object in the sky is actually a really hard problem for photography, especially at night.
If you've ever tried taking a photo of a particularly pretty moon with your phone, you'll know what I'm talking about. The striking orange harvest moon that seems to dominate the night sky suddenly becomes a little smear of light when you look at the photo on your phone.
Most phones or other cameras that people casually carry around have a relatively wide angle lens and accompanying FOV. That means anything at a distance will end up looking even further in the distance (ie, smaller) once you take the shot.
So to get a nice, clear picture of a distant object in the sky you're going to need a telephoto lens. That's fine, and there are plenty of people out there casually carrying around a telephoto. Except now you have a new problem: you need to track the moving object through your telephoto. Not impossible, of course, but not easy for typical person who happens to see a strange object in the sky while they have their camera with them.
Also, if the object is moving, you'll need a fast shutter speed. And if you increase your shutter speed you're going to have to increase your ISO as well. If you're seeing this strange object at night, that means you're likely pushing your ISO into a range where your photo starts to get pretty grainy.
All of these aren't insurmountable problems, people that shoot flying birds and planes do it all the time. But it takes a combination of equipment and photography skills that aren't exactly common. So now we're looking at a venn diagram of "people who see something strange in the sky" and "people who have the equipment and skills to get a good photo" to calculate our odds of having a really great photo of a UFO by now.
All that said, the point is still valid ("why don't we have more photos now?"). But at the same time, it's not as easy of a problem as many seem to think.
If you've ever tried taking a photo of a particularly pretty moon with your phone, you'll know what I'm talking about. The striking orange harvest moon that seems to dominate the night sky suddenly becomes a little smear of light when you look at the photo on your phone.
Most phones or other cameras that people casually carry around have a relatively wide angle lens and accompanying FOV. That means anything at a distance will end up looking even further in the distance (ie, smaller) once you take the shot.
So to get a nice, clear picture of a distant object in the sky you're going to need a telephoto lens. That's fine, and there are plenty of people out there casually carrying around a telephoto. Except now you have a new problem: you need to track the moving object through your telephoto. Not impossible, of course, but not easy for typical person who happens to see a strange object in the sky while they have their camera with them.
Also, if the object is moving, you'll need a fast shutter speed. And if you increase your shutter speed you're going to have to increase your ISO as well. If you're seeing this strange object at night, that means you're likely pushing your ISO into a range where your photo starts to get pretty grainy.
All of these aren't insurmountable problems, people that shoot flying birds and planes do it all the time. But it takes a combination of equipment and photography skills that aren't exactly common. So now we're looking at a venn diagram of "people who see something strange in the sky" and "people who have the equipment and skills to get a good photo" to calculate our odds of having a really great photo of a UFO by now.
All that said, the point is still valid ("why don't we have more photos now?"). But at the same time, it's not as easy of a problem as many seem to think.
Thanks for mentioning these points. Another explanation could be that _if_ these UFO's are in fact extraterrestrials with a technology advanced enough to travel to our planet, then it's plausible to assume that they also adapt their techniques based on our technological capabilities. In other words, if they are real and they know we have more advanced cameras compared to 100 years ago, chances are they are not going to reveal themselves to us as much as before, or they do that in situations where environment noise does not provide a high-res picture of them (like in the sea).
[Edit: I realize you may have been talking about 2020. Or maybe just talking about photography in general. Since both incidents are being talked about in the larger thread, and the idea of photography applies to both of them I wrote something riffing off photography that addresses the previous (2014, tic tac) incident… hope that doesn't bug you too much ;-)].
So, my comment here is about 2014 and the tic tac incident, not the swarm-of-drones incident from last year.
If they really did have reports for the two days leading up to the tic tac incident I have to think they would have tasked an aircraft with top notch (beyond any handheld camera) photographic capabilities to investigating such an alarming intrusion.
Or, they are really stupid.
Or, the radar hits in the preceding two days were just phantom hits and possibly assessed as such at the time, with jets sent up to look just as a "why not" kind of thing since they were already in the area for training.
My bet is with the last possibility, because I find it hard to think so badly of the Navy people. And the hits were just phantom / ghost hits in a new system. Which means: not alien / Russian / etc. craft.
And the actual object actually seen by the pilots was some chunks of ice falling from outer space, some of which made whitecaps and another of which was seen flitting erratically and thus moving in ways that no known aircraft is capable of. It "came up to meet" Dave Fraver AS HE WAS GOING DOWN yeah no surprise there, and, as the sonic boom from his jet slammed into the snowy ice, it, again no surprise, disintegrated and disappeared, because sonic boom, which disintegration he interpreted as out-of-this-world acceleration. OK, maybe the other Navy people are with it, but Dave may have been experiencing some effects of the G forces or something. He seems like a nice guy.
The other pilot who spoke about this described the movement of the object in a way that exactly matches what I said, a falling slab of snowy ice. Her words: "Like when you drop your cell phone in the kitchen and it bounces around."
Again this entire comment is talking about the tic tac incident, from 2014, not the summer of 2020 incident.
So, my comment here is about 2014 and the tic tac incident, not the swarm-of-drones incident from last year.
If they really did have reports for the two days leading up to the tic tac incident I have to think they would have tasked an aircraft with top notch (beyond any handheld camera) photographic capabilities to investigating such an alarming intrusion.
Or, they are really stupid.
Or, the radar hits in the preceding two days were just phantom hits and possibly assessed as such at the time, with jets sent up to look just as a "why not" kind of thing since they were already in the area for training.
My bet is with the last possibility, because I find it hard to think so badly of the Navy people. And the hits were just phantom / ghost hits in a new system. Which means: not alien / Russian / etc. craft.
And the actual object actually seen by the pilots was some chunks of ice falling from outer space, some of which made whitecaps and another of which was seen flitting erratically and thus moving in ways that no known aircraft is capable of. It "came up to meet" Dave Fraver AS HE WAS GOING DOWN yeah no surprise there, and, as the sonic boom from his jet slammed into the snowy ice, it, again no surprise, disintegrated and disappeared, because sonic boom, which disintegration he interpreted as out-of-this-world acceleration. OK, maybe the other Navy people are with it, but Dave may have been experiencing some effects of the G forces or something. He seems like a nice guy.
The other pilot who spoke about this described the movement of the object in a way that exactly matches what I said, a falling slab of snowy ice. Her words: "Like when you drop your cell phone in the kitchen and it bounces around."
Again this entire comment is talking about the tic tac incident, from 2014, not the summer of 2020 incident.
Samsung phones now have a specialized camera mode for taking pictures of the moon.
https://www.gsmarena.com/myth_debunked_samsungs_100x_zoom_do...
https://www.gsmarena.com/myth_debunked_samsungs_100x_zoom_do...
Or #3 a hunk of ice was falling from outer space and Dave, a self described class clown who happens to be best buddies with one of the people who works on the FLIR system and who went to his wedding, has polished up some of the details to better match what he thinks.
We don't know their weight, so we don't know how much downforce they have to generate. The water's not exactly still, either.
Also, if they were radar-spy drones, they don't have to go home -- they've likely transmitted everything they need (overhead satellite or a nearby sub?). They're going away far enough to sink to the bottom of the ocean with little chance of recovery/identification.
So, I can imagine drone that carries some basic RF sensors, a basic quadcopter (or equiv) propulsion system, then a one-time-use escape system. Perhaps a short-range turbine or simple chemical rocket.
Also, if they were radar-spy drones, they don't have to go home -- they've likely transmitted everything they need (overhead satellite or a nearby sub?). They're going away far enough to sink to the bottom of the ocean with little chance of recovery/identification.
So, I can imagine drone that carries some basic RF sensors, a basic quadcopter (or equiv) propulsion system, then a one-time-use escape system. Perhaps a short-range turbine or simple chemical rocket.
> We don't know their weight, so we don't know how much downforce they have to generate
But we can make an educated guess.
> Also, if they were radar-spy drones, they don't have to go home -- they've likely transmitted everything they need (overhead satellite or a nearby sub?). They're going away far enough to sink to the bottom of the ocean with little chance of recovery/identification.
IIRC submarines have looked for them, following that theory. Nothing was found.
> So, I can imagine drone that carries some basic RF sensors, a basic quadcopter (or equiv) propulsion system, then a one-time-use escape system. Perhaps a short-range turbine or simple chemical rocket.
The drone theory makes a lot of sense when you ignore the fact that they are flying for over 10 hours non stop, and going faster than 160kt. Oh, and that they are also moving really fast once they are submerged.
But we can make an educated guess.
> Also, if they were radar-spy drones, they don't have to go home -- they've likely transmitted everything they need (overhead satellite or a nearby sub?). They're going away far enough to sink to the bottom of the ocean with little chance of recovery/identification.
IIRC submarines have looked for them, following that theory. Nothing was found.
> So, I can imagine drone that carries some basic RF sensors, a basic quadcopter (or equiv) propulsion system, then a one-time-use escape system. Perhaps a short-range turbine or simple chemical rocket.
The drone theory makes a lot of sense when you ignore the fact that they are flying for over 10 hours non stop, and going faster than 160kt. Oh, and that they are also moving really fast once they are submerged.
Do you have a link to the analysis?
1) rotor downwash may not be visible enough from an F16 cockpit a mile away, if the drone is small enough.
2) 100g is likely within our capability today.
Old, 400g tech: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprint_(missile)#Engines_and_p...
2) 100g is likely within our capability today.
Old, 400g tech: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprint_(missile)#Engines_and_p...
The David Fravor interview linked describes an event in 2004 seen by fighters from the USS Nimitz and captured by the USS Princeton. This is a separate event, and perhaps with very different vehicles or phenomena, than the 2019 event near the USS Omaha that is described above.
100g is an acceleration of 1000m/s/s, so after 1s the thing would be 1km away. Yet this was infer by eye. These fantastic values are made up on the spot and not instrument-based measurements.
Also, these stories always assume radar have no failure mode, no false indications, no possibilities of fooling. IOW, enthusiasts ignores and never consider failures but adopt never seen, never encounters aliens with impossible tech that always happens in isolated area with no other capabilities to monitor.
And all that does not even start to account for the impossibly large inter-stellar distances.
I'll take weird failure over hugely fantastical theories.
Also, these stories always assume radar have no failure mode, no false indications, no possibilities of fooling. IOW, enthusiasts ignores and never consider failures but adopt never seen, never encounters aliens with impossible tech that always happens in isolated area with no other capabilities to monitor.
And all that does not even start to account for the impossibly large inter-stellar distances.
I'll take weird failure over hugely fantastical theories.
Along these lines, I wish people would be extremely specific about what their eyes actually saw versus what they inferred. As you say, what Fraver saw seems to have been a reflective object that seemed to be close to the water’s surface, which vanished, and then later possibly another reflective object some distance away. If I wanted to do a magic trick along these lines, I would have two silver balloons a distance apart, pop one and then draw attention to the other. This would make it seem like the first had flown impossibly fast. I’m not saying this is what happened, but this sort of thing has to be considered when the only other explanation being offered is completely outlandish.
At 1km/s^2 after one second you would be 0.5 km away. (Average speed over that second is half the final speed, or just memorize s = 0.5at^2, whichever is preferred.)
[deleted]
> 100g is an acceleration of 1000m/s/s, so after 1s the thing would be 1km away. Yet this was infer by eye. These fantastic values are made up on the spot and not instrument-based measurements.
These values are deducted by an estimation of the space traveled and an estimation of the time it took. And these estimations are consistent with the ones that come from the radar operators.
Also keep in mind that 100 G is a very conservative middle value. They said "hey, what if our estimations are really, really off", and provided a lower and upper boundaries for the g-forces, that are 40 G and 521,770 G, respectively.
> I'll take weird failure over hugely fantastical theories.
I'll take decades of constant and consistent reports over "skeptical" conclusions deducted from wrong a priori probabilities.
These values are deducted by an estimation of the space traveled and an estimation of the time it took. And these estimations are consistent with the ones that come from the radar operators.
Also keep in mind that 100 G is a very conservative middle value. They said "hey, what if our estimations are really, really off", and provided a lower and upper boundaries for the g-forces, that are 40 G and 521,770 G, respectively.
> I'll take weird failure over hugely fantastical theories.
I'll take decades of constant and consistent reports over "skeptical" conclusions deducted from wrong a priori probabilities.
Does anyone know if it's possible for these objects to be suspended by wires from a less-radar-visible drone higher up?
Suspended objects will behave like a pendulum as they change their speed and/or direction. I suspect they're going to look very different from the trajectory of a self-propelled object.
Even a Navy pilot has no actual basis or experience on which they can justify a claim to "visually identify" a 100+g acceleration. The downwash, sure (though it's just as likely they simply didn't see it, it was obscured, or had the craft been a few inches lower you'd see it).
Except they are probably the best people to at least take a guess of the distances covered in air and the amount of G's such maneuvers would be subject to, since they're the ones flying around at high speeds, covering great distances and dealing with high G's.
Plus, isn't that part of what the whole dog-fighting thing?
Plus, isn't that part of what the whole dog-fighting thing?
I found this Tyler Rogoway article quite compelling: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/28640/could-some-of-th...
The fact is that when pilots say 'there's no way a balloon could do that' or 'that doesn't look like any drone I ever saw'... pilots aren't necessarily best placed to assess the realistic flight possibilities or appearances for a drone or a balloon, because they're imaginign balloons and drones they've seen before, and aren't considering the range of possibilities for what could be created.
The fact is that when pilots say 'there's no way a balloon could do that' or 'that doesn't look like any drone I ever saw'... pilots aren't necessarily best placed to assess the realistic flight possibilities or appearances for a drone or a balloon, because they're imaginign balloons and drones they've seen before, and aren't considering the range of possibilities for what could be created.
>pilots aren't necessarily best placed to assess the realistic flight possibilities or appearances for a drone or a balloon
Who are best placed to identify things flying around if not pilots with hundreds (or thousands) of hours flying?
That's why they say they've never seen anything like it, and they don't know any tech that could do what those 4 pilots observed.
Who are best placed to identify things flying around if not pilots with hundreds (or thousands) of hours flying?
That's why they say they've never seen anything like it, and they don't know any tech that could do what those 4 pilots observed.
When you see a magician do a card trick, and a professional poker player says ‘I’ve never seen a deck of cards do that before’, does her thousands of hours of poker playing bear on whether or not the magician is actually a wizard?
I don't get that analogy, poker players aren't trained to use cards, or to do movements with their hands. Hell, a friend of mine is semi-pro poker player and sucks at shuffling.
And you'll say: you're just nitpicking the idea is that pros aren't pros at everything.
I'm not, I'll even fix that analogy for you: a croupier gets impressed by card trick.
Now the problem is, pilots are trained observers, and they get to see a lot of things from their jets. Cars, trucks, houses, rivers, trees, ships, helicopters, drones, different types of planes - not only because they do recon, they also have to target some of those things, and they train a lot for it. Distances, sizes, cost of maneuvers, etc.
With that said: what other type of people are best trained to take a guess at what things are from up above? Drone operators? Balloon operators? Weather balloon folks? Aerospace engineers?
Can they be fooled still? Probably - but if you can fool 4 pilots at the same time, their tens of million of dollars jets with sensors, and the most advanced radar systems, all at the same time, then you're not a magician - you simply have tech way superior to what those guys have.
That's the thing, it doesn't even need to be an actual craft. If it's something that can create optical illusions on jet pilots and jam radars, how are they supposed to do anything if their senses and systems fail?
And you'll say: you're just nitpicking the idea is that pros aren't pros at everything.
I'm not, I'll even fix that analogy for you: a croupier gets impressed by card trick.
Now the problem is, pilots are trained observers, and they get to see a lot of things from their jets. Cars, trucks, houses, rivers, trees, ships, helicopters, drones, different types of planes - not only because they do recon, they also have to target some of those things, and they train a lot for it. Distances, sizes, cost of maneuvers, etc.
With that said: what other type of people are best trained to take a guess at what things are from up above? Drone operators? Balloon operators? Weather balloon folks? Aerospace engineers?
Can they be fooled still? Probably - but if you can fool 4 pilots at the same time, their tens of million of dollars jets with sensors, and the most advanced radar systems, all at the same time, then you're not a magician - you simply have tech way superior to what those guys have.
That's the thing, it doesn't even need to be an actual craft. If it's something that can create optical illusions on jet pilots and jam radars, how are they supposed to do anything if their senses and systems fail?
Never underestimate magicians.
I think that if I wanted to solve this at all costs, one of tve things I'd do (in addition to working with radar engineers and scientists of course) is to hire a number of magicians to get them to try to recreate the experience of the pilots.
Because those pilots are good and highly skilled, but so are Penn and Teller and they still get fooled from time to time so it is not impossible.
I.e. I disagree with everyone: those that underestimate pilots and say we don't have good photos and also those who think pilots are infallible.
I think that if I wanted to solve this at all costs, one of tve things I'd do (in addition to working with radar engineers and scientists of course) is to hire a number of magicians to get them to try to recreate the experience of the pilots.
Because those pilots are good and highly skilled, but so are Penn and Teller and they still get fooled from time to time so it is not impossible.
I.e. I disagree with everyone: those that underestimate pilots and say we don't have good photos and also those who think pilots are infallible.
I don't think you're quite understanding the endeavor at hand (which is my point): let's say they could replicate it, and now they have to deploy it in a live scenario.
So now they have to go off to the coast of the USA in a restricted area used for navy drills and testing, probably coming from the Pacific side. Let's say Penn and Teller get access to a brand new submarine from China that's has stealthy as they can be, enough to set up the experiment.
Then they had to stay there for days teasing both the ships radars and navy pilots by make things pop up on their radars and make them move large distances in short periods of time (seconds), and get them to chase radar blips.
Now comes the day that a squadron of jets are asked to check something nearby their location (which mean they have to tap into Navy communications systems), launch the illusion, make it react to the pilots unexpected behavior (one dove the other remained above), and then make it desapear (and then proceed to jam radars, to eventually exit out).
(This is roughly the story of the Fravor incident.)
I think just the first point, of entering USA waters, more specifically restricted waters and air space actively controlled by the Navy - which was doing drills - already shows technology superiority.
Which was my point.
They have to know what the radars and sensors are and how they work (hackers, compromised top level people), how to jam them (superior tech), how to be stealthy (superior tech), how to create illusions for jet pilots while fooling jet sensors (superior tech).
I'm not saying these are aliens, but surely looks like tech superiority or the whole defense system collapsing all together even the pilots.
If this was done by a couple of guys, with too much free time on a shoe string budget, that can fool the most advanced navy, well that's not good either.
So now they have to go off to the coast of the USA in a restricted area used for navy drills and testing, probably coming from the Pacific side. Let's say Penn and Teller get access to a brand new submarine from China that's has stealthy as they can be, enough to set up the experiment.
Then they had to stay there for days teasing both the ships radars and navy pilots by make things pop up on their radars and make them move large distances in short periods of time (seconds), and get them to chase radar blips.
Now comes the day that a squadron of jets are asked to check something nearby their location (which mean they have to tap into Navy communications systems), launch the illusion, make it react to the pilots unexpected behavior (one dove the other remained above), and then make it desapear (and then proceed to jam radars, to eventually exit out).
(This is roughly the story of the Fravor incident.)
I think just the first point, of entering USA waters, more specifically restricted waters and air space actively controlled by the Navy - which was doing drills - already shows technology superiority.
Which was my point.
They have to know what the radars and sensors are and how they work (hackers, compromised top level people), how to jam them (superior tech), how to be stealthy (superior tech), how to create illusions for jet pilots while fooling jet sensors (superior tech).
I'm not saying these are aliens, but surely looks like tech superiority or the whole defense system collapsing all together even the pilots.
If this was done by a couple of guys, with too much free time on a shoe string budget, that can fool the most advanced navy, well that's not good either.
What they describe from their vantage point of many thousands of feet up is not hovering, it's more like flitting back and forth with no discernible trajectory.
Like a large flake of ice falling.
The other pilot said the motion was like if you dropped your cell phone in the kitchen and it was bouncing around before settling down.
Exactly like a falling massive but flat flake of snowy ice that fell off of an object that had entered the atmosphere from outer space and fallen to the water, where the early chunks remained causing whitecaps.
Not hovering. Erratic motion.
Like a large flake of ice falling.
The other pilot said the motion was like if you dropped your cell phone in the kitchen and it was bouncing around before settling down.
Exactly like a falling massive but flat flake of snowy ice that fell off of an object that had entered the atmosphere from outer space and fallen to the water, where the early chunks remained causing whitecaps.
Not hovering. Erratic motion.
The radio operator reported one moving at 138 knots which is approx 160mph. The DRL RacerX has recorded speeds over 163.5 mp getting a guiness world record, although this was indoors.
That's an indoor speed record for a quadcopter. If you're designing a drone system for maritime operation it would make far more sense to be fixed wing (maybe with some sort of VTOL or STOL capability) - the efficiencies are just so much higher.
Once you go to fixed wing, 138 knots is pretty simple. Just look at the list of unmanned aerial vehicles - it's big and dominated by fixed wing aircraft. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unmanned_aerial_vehicl...
Once you go to fixed wing, 138 knots is pretty simple. Just look at the list of unmanned aerial vehicles - it's big and dominated by fixed wing aircraft. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unmanned_aerial_vehicl...
[deleted]
The military has been using drones since before quad copters. Anything long range is not going to be a quad, but something like a small plane. I'd imagine 'drone' in military lingo still mostly refers to fixed wing craft.
It seems pretty crazy that the Pentagon would be completely befuddled and would have absolutely no clue that these are just foreign drones, though, no? That's what the article seems to be arguing.
To me it would seem much more likely that the top brass know or strongly suspect they're indeed drones invading our airspace but are acting like they're unexplained phenomena as part of some sort of psyop/deception/intelligence/adversary-signaling stratagem. I'm not sure what the motive would be, there, but that sounds more plausible than random speculators online having more inference ability than the entire US military. Even if you assume the height of institutional incompetence, surely someone among the most powerful military in history would propose such a theory.
To me it would seem much more likely that the top brass know or strongly suspect they're indeed drones invading our airspace but are acting like they're unexplained phenomena as part of some sort of psyop/deception/intelligence/adversary-signaling stratagem. I'm not sure what the motive would be, there, but that sounds more plausible than random speculators online having more inference ability than the entire US military. Even if you assume the height of institutional incompetence, surely someone among the most powerful military in history would propose such a theory.
Why can't it be OUR military testing classified tech against OUR very best systems? If our best can't tell what it is, nobody can.
It seems unlikely in that situation that the Pentagon would declassify any of the instrument videos. Then again, it's weird that they've done that in any scenario.
True, but maybe they feel the need to posture?
But the objects are able to fly 11,000 miles-per-hour, able to turn instantly, with no wings, no propulsion and no exhaust, disappear instantly and go into the ocean.
What kind of "cheap drone" can do that?
What kind of "cheap drone" can do that?
Or the drones are a simple way of messing up all targeting systems. If you ever made a Carrier fleet in Starcraft 1 (where massing units was a thing), the swarm of carrier drones would force the enemy units to target those little thing instead of the main units.
Where is the drone ship? Does a submarine emerge and launch these things in the middle of the ocean?
Edit:
Listen, the US Defense department knows what these are. They are just soft letting China and Russia know that this was cute.
Edit:
Listen, the US Defense department knows what these are. They are just soft letting China and Russia know that this was cute.
Cargo, fishing ships or submarines.
There've been multiple reports of pilots reporting that they saw some sort of movement and frothing beneath the surface of the ocean - as if there were some sort of vehicle there, they specified. They then reported seeing whatever was under the water seemingly suddenly shoot up at high velocity.
I wonder if those reports could potentially be consistent with a submersible craft launching drones. Maybe such a craft could even be... "catapulting"?... or otherwise giving the drones an initial boost, too, combined with self-propulsion, which could perhaps make them fly from the surface faster than they could with self-propulsion alone.
(Obviously this is all pure uninformed speculation on my part and could be total nonsense. And one would think one of these hypothetical submersible crafts would've likely been detected at least once, given the US Navy was operating in the vicinity on multiple occasions.)
I wonder if those reports could potentially be consistent with a submersible craft launching drones. Maybe such a craft could even be... "catapulting"?... or otherwise giving the drones an initial boost, too, combined with self-propulsion, which could perhaps make them fly from the surface faster than they could with self-propulsion alone.
(Obviously this is all pure uninformed speculation on my part and could be total nonsense. And one would think one of these hypothetical submersible crafts would've likely been detected at least once, given the US Navy was operating in the vicinity on multiple occasions.)
Finding stuff in the sea isn’t very easy. You need to be surprisingly close.
Is this also true with sonar and whatever other SIGINT capabilities the modern Navy would have? I could certainly buy it going undetected - in Commander Fravor's case, the tic tac incident occurred a pretty far distance away from their training area, I believe.
But I would also think the Navy would the best available technology and techniques to detect what would probably have to be a foreign submersible in their waters, and that if this were routinely happening they'd likely end up detecting it eventually through some means. Or if it were one of their own skunkworks crafts, they'd probably figure that out afterwards. (I know very little about this field, though.)
Or even if they did fail to ever detect it beyond a few eye witness reports from pilots, I'd think this would be at/near the top of their list of plausible theories.
If this is indeed an explanation for some of the incidents, I could believe that they have in fact identified it and are doing some kind of psyop/deception operation, perhaps to confuse or signal to a foreign power.
But I would also think the Navy would the best available technology and techniques to detect what would probably have to be a foreign submersible in their waters, and that if this were routinely happening they'd likely end up detecting it eventually through some means. Or if it were one of their own skunkworks crafts, they'd probably figure that out afterwards. (I know very little about this field, though.)
Or even if they did fail to ever detect it beyond a few eye witness reports from pilots, I'd think this would be at/near the top of their list of plausible theories.
If this is indeed an explanation for some of the incidents, I could believe that they have in fact identified it and are doing some kind of psyop/deception operation, perhaps to confuse or signal to a foreign power.
Captain Nemo had this technology over 100 years ago, with similar reports by observers.
Thanks to Mr. Wells.
I would be surprised if every player wasn't fielding unmanned submarines, themselves fitted with drone tech, powered by a plutonium battery that can loiter for months, surface, release the drones, and phone home with via satellite. Doing recon with them against an enemy is the surprising thing. This could just as well be a screw up between different branches of the US military[1] as it is a peekaboo between rivals.
[1]The Navy can't seem to avoid collisions at sea! And sea-faring navigation tech is hundreds of years old.
[1]The Navy can't seem to avoid collisions at sea! And sea-faring navigation tech is hundreds of years old.
Given that this site contains such stories as "Crop circle season underway in the UK" and "Marilyn Monroe’s diary of secrets may have led to her death," I'm going to question if it's a reliable source.
The video is from CBS News
Thanks! Here's also a 8 News NOW Las Vegas video covering it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPrYVmYkL5w
Interesting, George Knapp reporting, film acquired/leaked by Jeremy Corbell. Two familiar names. George at least has a lot of credibility as a "real" journalist. Jeremy manages to stay relativeley objective, but still comes off as pushing an agenda, imo.
I agree. Jeremy definitely has his stance that bleeds through, as much as he tries to say he's undecided, but that's ok. Everyone can have their beliefs and we can respect that. I think Jeremy is also pretty combative and painting himself as "everyone always wants me to be wrong, everyone always attacking me". I haven't yet looked at him being him on his Instagram, so maybe it's true, but I don't think he needs to run that attitude in every interview. Like, George is not attacking him. It's like Jeremy's responding to the "haters in his head," in much of what he says. Which unfortunately I think twists what he says. But hey, everyone has their story, is different and has their past. I think JC is a very cool guy. A dedicated martial artist for a long time, then had an accident/health issue and focused on making films, and then got into this. I think he's a useful guy that people in the programs can use to push out some information, but he won't have legs to be part of the messaging in the long term if he keeps running his mouth the way he does. That's what I think :p ;) xx
John Oliver recently showed how easy it was to get stories on local news. I wouldn’t trust a story simply because it’s on the local news. That said, I completely agree that what they saw on radar scope was UFOs. I’m not convinced they were from another planet considering the proximity to CA from the Channel Islands (National Park).
I'm with you on not just trusting something because it's on the news. Totally. But everyone has their different values. I added that link because someone was commenting that they valued it more than a parent comment judged it, as it was on a news channel. So I posted another news channel because I cared about that's how they and other people felt about it and that they appreciated that kind of thing ;p :)xx
Yup. God help us all if they prove to be real. We aren’t ready as a species to comprehend it.
[deleted]
"Crop circle season" ... surely that's just late-spring into summer ?
It's a project of KLAS/Las Vegas. It's a CBS affiliate that has worked with Senator Harry Reid to declassify a lot of government secrets over the decades.
“Senator Harry Reid” otherwise known as someone with a big financial interest in pushing UFO conspiracies
Can't we just assess the information based on it's own merits?
No, because this is noisy, incomplete data. We don't know how much other data wasn't released that would help us draw other conclusions.
Not if the suspicion is that interested parties have falsified the data.
The source is one of the merits. If you are getting the material from a source that is well known for fabricating "evidence" then it must be treated as suspect.
“Senator Harry Reid”
Why do you put his name and title in scare quotes?
He was a member of the U.S. Senate for 30 years, many of those years as the leader of the Democrats. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Reid
His legacy is respected enough that they're trying to rename the airport in Las Vegas after him.
Why do you put his name and title in scare quotes?
He was a member of the U.S. Senate for 30 years, many of those years as the leader of the Democrats. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Reid
His legacy is respected enough that they're trying to rename the airport in Las Vegas after him.
If you pre-emptively have contempt for something by association rather than investigating it on its merits, it seems you risk missing out on any information you have there.
Maybe I disagree with your view on this, so I reflexively reject the rest of the comments you make on HN, even if one of them was insightful and could really help me. That might be a little dumb, so I would try not to do that, personally. I get if you would do differently tho, seems like you might from what you say here. ;p;) xx
I posted a couple different sources on this, but I'm glad this post is the one that got upvoted to front page, because it's a good compilation of the various resources about this newly released footage: explanatory discussion with George Knapp, actual footage, Twitter thread where announced, transcript of footage.
Maybe I disagree with your view on this, so I reflexively reject the rest of the comments you make on HN, even if one of them was insightful and could really help me. That might be a little dumb, so I would try not to do that, personally. I get if you would do differently tho, seems like you might from what you say here. ;p;) xx
I posted a couple different sources on this, but I'm glad this post is the one that got upvoted to front page, because it's a good compilation of the various resources about this newly released footage: explanatory discussion with George Knapp, actual footage, Twitter thread where announced, transcript of footage.
So you completely ignore the reputation of whoever is trying to convince you of something?
And you completely ignore the content and judge everything based on reputation? Well I've got a great reputation, why don't you trust me!? :p ;) xx You must be so gullible. But I don't think so, I think you just take it to the extreme. i don't discount reputation. i treat it separately. there's reputation here, and information here. and i examine each separately. what i try to do anyway. can be tricky tho ;p ;) xx
I skip all the middle-men and assume everyone is wrong, regardless of reputation OR content.
Right next to the Wuhan lab leak...
Conspiracy nuts are like broken clocks, and sometimes they're really the first people to put together stories before the Amazon Washington Post will report it
Conspiracy nuts are like broken clocks, and sometimes they're really the first people to put together stories before the Amazon Washington Post will report it
But throwing everything imaginable at the wall and seeing that a few things stick doesn't mean you have a special insight regarding sticking things to walls.
A conspiracy theory is an argument from first principles (rather than evidence, it is a claim based on capability and incentives). That is very hard to do right, and most conspiracy theorists have more misses than hits.
That being said, it doesn't invalidate the conspiracy theorists. They fill a useful role - public discourse has three unwritten rules. Assume everyone is speaking in good faith, assume consequences of their actions that they didn't advocate for are accidental and assume that they are only working with information in the public sphere.
All three of these assumptions are unsound, so public discourse is always slightly divorced from reality. We can't have discourse without those rules, but the crazies provide a helpful chorus of "but what if we assume bad faith/indirect action/private knowledge". These ideas need to be in the conversation, even if only peripherally. It is pretty obvious that there is a lot of that negative stuff going on, even if we don't know which specific cases are coincidence vs intent.
That being said, it doesn't invalidate the conspiracy theorists. They fill a useful role - public discourse has three unwritten rules. Assume everyone is speaking in good faith, assume consequences of their actions that they didn't advocate for are accidental and assume that they are only working with information in the public sphere.
All three of these assumptions are unsound, so public discourse is always slightly divorced from reality. We can't have discourse without those rules, but the crazies provide a helpful chorus of "but what if we assume bad faith/indirect action/private knowledge". These ideas need to be in the conversation, even if only peripherally. It is pretty obvious that there is a lot of that negative stuff going on, even if we don't know which specific cases are coincidence vs intent.
> public discourse has three unwritten rules. Assume everyone is speaking in good faith, assume consequences of their actions that they didn't advocate for are accidental and assume that they are only working with information in the public sphere.
What?
What?
> slightly divorced from reality
It's often extremely divorced from reality. For instance the Israel / Palestine conflict.
It's often extremely divorced from reality. For instance the Israel / Palestine conflict.
I agree with your sentiment, but using your own anaolgy, someone who put the time into throwing everything at the wall likely is your best source for what sticks. Because, you know, they tried... everything.
You're right, the analogy is wrong because the conspiracy theorist is actually just yelling "this will stick" at every object they pass, and then doing strange analyses of their favourite objects to try to justify it, but never actually testing the results.
Yep! But there's also the chance that yelling conspiracy theory becomes kind of a social norm to address any issue that is uncomfortable to think about which I think is pretty lazy and probably hurts us long term, too.
Some people refused to believe, for example, that big tech firms work with the gov. The idea seems quaint now but some didnt even believe Snowden!
In the end, a balance is needed.
Some people refused to believe, for example, that big tech firms work with the gov. The idea seems quaint now but some didnt even believe Snowden!
In the end, a balance is needed.
The question really is did the preceding theories help when Snowden came out? Like you said, some didn't believe him, but he brought his reputation and experience and evidence to eventually convince people. I'm not convinced that the decades of conspiracy theories in any way helped the process, and in fact may have invalidated his claims in the eyes of some.
"conspiracy", "nuts" -- perfect use of language to shut any discourse down, playing right into the hand of whatever someone with enough power wants you to think.
“Wuhan lab leak” is a far more realistic & plausible story than “animal market is actual source that sits next to a gain of function lab doing unknown research on corona virus”
Many academics have been a proponent of the leak theory, whats shocking is not the press picking it up now, rather how quickly it was discarded before.
Many academics have been a proponent of the leak theory, whats shocking is not the press picking it up now, rather how quickly it was discarded before.
Please don't add fire to the FUD. The lab research is neither unknown nor secret. Not only are there published research papers from their work but the WHO have also been there and seen the work and research they do. It might or might not be the source -I won't comment on that- but unknown it is not.
> “Wuhan lab leak” is a far more realistic
It absolutely is _now_ but try saying that between Mar 2020 and Mar 2021 you got downvoted into oblivion.
It absolutely is _now_ but try saying that between Mar 2020 and Mar 2021 you got downvoted into oblivion.
Did your comments back then add anything interesting that everyone else didn't already know or did you just fling mud at the wall? I absolutely did and still do down vote posts that try to point fingers without proof, no matter if it is for or against.
You and I both know that certain ideas just could not be entertained in any way shape or form. It had little to do with proof. And what would this proof look like exactly? We are all reading the same internet bs for the last year. All anyone could do was speculate, and certain speculations were off the table for political reasons. Discussion was shut down and now it's already been shown to backfire. You are trying to retroactively justify your agreement to silence certain opinions, which is wrong, dangerous, and you should be ashamed.
I'm not ashamed to not take part in the conspiracy theories and racism that is a part of all of these lab leak discussions and behind many of the comments. I see the situation the direct opposite than you: I have added proof to discussions about the virus and every single time it has been heavily downvoted if it wasn't anti-china or pro lab-leak. Only when adding sources that prove I'm right do HN stop downvoting (but of course by then most have moved on which is why it ends up in one-use account discussions). The ideas that couldn't and still can't be discussed is truth that doesn't agree with what most Americans believe and that haven't changed at all.
As it is now we have a huge majority in these discussions that believe that because we haven't found where the virus came from it must be from a lab for the simple reason that almost everyone "know" that we found the source in a few months last time (SARS-CoV) while in reality we have still not found the source after 15 years of hard work.
On top of that these discussions are political in nature when it becomes anti-china or pro-US or whatever and by then should be downvoted.
As it is now we have a huge majority in these discussions that believe that because we haven't found where the virus came from it must be from a lab for the simple reason that almost everyone "know" that we found the source in a few months last time (SARS-CoV) while in reality we have still not found the source after 15 years of hard work.
On top of that these discussions are political in nature when it becomes anti-china or pro-US or whatever and by then should be downvoted.
It is obvious to anyone that is truly objective that _anything_ to make Trump look bad was going to be pushed hard by the media during that time. He, like it or not, brought the lab leak to the forefront of mind and was summarily dismissed because the media couldn't stand him.
It's all up for debate now, but the wildlife hypothesis gains its plausibility from the similarity of SARS-CoV2's similarity to coronaviruses in pangolins sold in China's wildlife trade. The wild animal/bushmeat trade is considered responsible for the 2003 SARS outbreak as well as HIV, so it's certainly plausible it spread through wet markets (although probably not the specific Wuhan wet market it was initially discovered in).
TBH, the lab leak hypothesis should seem less damaging to the Chinese government's reputation than the wet market hypothesis. On one hand, you have an isolated failure of lab safety protocols, on the other, you have decades of government support of wild animal trade despite mountains of evidence for its risk of zoonotic disease outbreak, not to mention environmental costs.
TBH, the lab leak hypothesis should seem less damaging to the Chinese government's reputation than the wet market hypothesis. On one hand, you have an isolated failure of lab safety protocols, on the other, you have decades of government support of wild animal trade despite mountains of evidence for its risk of zoonotic disease outbreak, not to mention environmental costs.
There is a combat flight sim called DCS where individuals repeatedly attempt different methods of killing carrier groups.
The general take away is that anti-aircraft/missile systems are good enough that the only solution is to saturate the air defense and exhaust the 500-1500 million dollar missiles the carrier group has on hand to deploy (assuming you got past the air wing).
A swarm of ultra-cheap drones each with 50-100kg of explosive changes the cost dynamics of defending a ship/carrier group.
The general take away is that anti-aircraft/missile systems are good enough that the only solution is to saturate the air defense and exhaust the 500-1500 million dollar missiles the carrier group has on hand to deploy (assuming you got past the air wing).
A swarm of ultra-cheap drones each with 50-100kg of explosive changes the cost dynamics of defending a ship/carrier group.
Two problems with drones, their range isn't enough and they would need to navigate visually towards the boat because all radio including GPS would be jammed if you tried this.
For the range, I think the typical outer perimeter of a carrier group is 100 to 200 nautical miles as patrolled by the air wing. Then at 20 nautical miles you would run into ships, and that's still too far away to launch a big swarm of ultra cheap drones because they wouldn't make it to the carrier.
For the range, I think the typical outer perimeter of a carrier group is 100 to 200 nautical miles as patrolled by the air wing. Then at 20 nautical miles you would run into ships, and that's still too far away to launch a big swarm of ultra cheap drones because they wouldn't make it to the carrier.
- Drop the drones from a larger aircraft (e.g. Xi'an Y-20).
- Computer vision is incredibly cheap and small in 2021 (particularly "hit this giant thing that looks like a warship").
Western military thinking is obsessed with ever advancing technological solutions (with high associated costs/limited numbers). But "massing," be it small boats or small aircraft/drones defeats it consistently. Good enough is often good enough.
No matter how good your technological advantage is, it can never be in two/four/six places at once and that $1M smart defensive missile can only shoot down so many incoming targets.
That's why the US's nuclear defense was ultimately MAD, because Russia simply built tons of dumb/cheap nukes that overwhelmed anything the US could shoot down even assuming the perfect defensive platform. If the defense is 10x or 100x the cost/space/complexity, you'll win the mass war every time.
We need more Embraer Super Tucanos and less F-35s, because an F-35 can never be in eight places at once no matter how advanced it is, same logic with cheap & small Vs. expensive & large warships. Warships need more computer controlled guns that shoot big bullets and less smart missiles that take up 100x the space, 100x the cost, and thus you get 100x less supply.
A drone is an Embraer Super Tucano on steroids, because now you've reduced the pilot cost/limitation. The fact that the US doesn't already have offensive/defensive drone swarms means they're asleep at the wheel.
- Computer vision is incredibly cheap and small in 2021 (particularly "hit this giant thing that looks like a warship").
Western military thinking is obsessed with ever advancing technological solutions (with high associated costs/limited numbers). But "massing," be it small boats or small aircraft/drones defeats it consistently. Good enough is often good enough.
No matter how good your technological advantage is, it can never be in two/four/six places at once and that $1M smart defensive missile can only shoot down so many incoming targets.
That's why the US's nuclear defense was ultimately MAD, because Russia simply built tons of dumb/cheap nukes that overwhelmed anything the US could shoot down even assuming the perfect defensive platform. If the defense is 10x or 100x the cost/space/complexity, you'll win the mass war every time.
We need more Embraer Super Tucanos and less F-35s, because an F-35 can never be in eight places at once no matter how advanced it is, same logic with cheap & small Vs. expensive & large warships. Warships need more computer controlled guns that shoot big bullets and less smart missiles that take up 100x the space, 100x the cost, and thus you get 100x less supply.
A drone is an Embraer Super Tucano on steroids, because now you've reduced the pilot cost/limitation. The fact that the US doesn't already have offensive/defensive drone swarms means they're asleep at the wheel.
larger aircraft would be downed before it would get in range
Or, you could just shoot lots of autonomous supersonic missiles at the ship from the aircraft.
Drones seem to have a lot of disadvantages to previous generations of rocket technology.
Drones seem to have a lot of disadvantages to previous generations of rocket technology.
Dude we don’t need Tucanos, we need stuff like F15X
Maybe both, depends on the theater. Over water, I agree the F15X is the better option.
Naval guns are awful compared to missiles. Even with computer control a big long range gun will often run out of bullets before sinking an opposing ship as accuracy decreases quadratically with range.
Any modern air defenses/fighters will both outrange and destroy aircraft such as the Super Tucano which won't be able to mount sufficient radar to observe even non-stealth F-15s. A Super Tucano retails for 11 million dollars as a base cost and 30 million dollars typical expense.
The drone swarm concept only really works when you get radically below the marginal cost of AA missiles making it impractical to shoot down the adversary force. A propeller plane can typically win a dogfight against a modern jet in a guns battle.
Any modern air defenses/fighters will both outrange and destroy aircraft such as the Super Tucano which won't be able to mount sufficient radar to observe even non-stealth F-15s. A Super Tucano retails for 11 million dollars as a base cost and 30 million dollars typical expense.
The drone swarm concept only really works when you get radically below the marginal cost of AA missiles making it impractical to shoot down the adversary force. A propeller plane can typically win a dogfight against a modern jet in a guns battle.
> Even with computer control a big long range gun will often run out of bullets before sinking an opposing ship as accuracy decreases quadratically with range.
We're talking about defensive missiles and guns, nobody is using a defensive gun to try and sink an enemy warship.
> Any modern air defenses/fighters will both outrange and destroy aircraft such as the Super Tucano which won't be able to mount sufficient radar to observe even non-stealth F-15s.
Of course, that's a built-in assumption. Another built in assumption is that it is a 1:4 or 1:8 F-35:Super Tucano ratio, since it is a "mass" strategy. A lot of cheap "good enough" assets instead of fewer incredible ones.
Even if the F-35 has air superiority where it is, it doesn't where it isn't, that's both obvious but also the trap the US has walked into by reducing the number and increasing the technological superiority.
Drone swarms are the ultimate anti F-35, because they're cheap, mass in numbers, and "good enough." The F-35 literally doesn't have the munitions onboard to kill more than half a dozen.
We're talking about defensive missiles and guns, nobody is using a defensive gun to try and sink an enemy warship.
> Any modern air defenses/fighters will both outrange and destroy aircraft such as the Super Tucano which won't be able to mount sufficient radar to observe even non-stealth F-15s.
Of course, that's a built-in assumption. Another built in assumption is that it is a 1:4 or 1:8 F-35:Super Tucano ratio, since it is a "mass" strategy. A lot of cheap "good enough" assets instead of fewer incredible ones.
Even if the F-35 has air superiority where it is, it doesn't where it isn't, that's both obvious but also the trap the US has walked into by reducing the number and increasing the technological superiority.
Drone swarms are the ultimate anti F-35, because they're cheap, mass in numbers, and "good enough." The F-35 literally doesn't have the munitions onboard to kill more than half a dozen.
> Of course, that's a built-in assumption. Another built in assumption is that it is a 1:4 or 1:8 F-35:Super Tucano ratio, since it is a "mass" strategy. A lot of cheap "good enough" assets instead of fewer incredible ones.
Considering that an F-35 currently goes 20:1 with F-15's the ratio with a Tucano could easily be 1:100 or even 1:1000. Given the speed and range differences F-35's could likely return to base, reload and return to fighting the approaching Tucanos for a 30:1+ ratio on the Tucano's for a given wave.
The salient datapoint would be when it is cost ineffective to shoot A2A missiles at the Tucano/Drone and the F-35s simply wouldn't be able to reload again.
Considering that an F-35 currently goes 20:1 with F-15's the ratio with a Tucano could easily be 1:100 or even 1:1000. Given the speed and range differences F-35's could likely return to base, reload and return to fighting the approaching Tucanos for a 30:1+ ratio on the Tucano's for a given wave.
The salient datapoint would be when it is cost ineffective to shoot A2A missiles at the Tucano/Drone and the F-35s simply wouldn't be able to reload again.
And as soon as the F-35 has the ability to teleport and unlimited ordinance that will be a legitimate problem. But in the meantime...
> The fact that the US doesn't already have offensive/defensive drone swarms means they're asleep at the wheel.
How sure are you that the US doesn't have drone swarms? They haven't announced that they have them. So far as I have seen, it hasn't leaked that they have them. But I suspect that the US military has several capabilities that are not generally known.
How sure are you that the US doesn't have drone swarms? They haven't announced that they have them. So far as I have seen, it hasn't leaked that they have them. But I suspect that the US military has several capabilities that are not generally known.
If you're trying to drop these "cheap" drones from a Y-20, you need to get the Y-20 within range of the carrier. Good luck with that...
With standard electric motor quads, the range is very definitely an issue.
But you could create a long-range gas powered plane, with Ardupilot and a GPS receiver, and get pretty long range with that. Here is one that crossed the Atlantic on less than 3 quarts of gas.
https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/model-plane-f...
You could easily design a slightly larger model, stick a Nvidia Jetson nano on the front with a camera, and have a go at it. With economies of scale, you could do the whole thing for less than $1000 USD per unit. Cheap.
Individually, the planes are dumb, stupid and slow. But launch enough of them, and some might get through.
But you could create a long-range gas powered plane, with Ardupilot and a GPS receiver, and get pretty long range with that. Here is one that crossed the Atlantic on less than 3 quarts of gas.
https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/model-plane-f...
You could easily design a slightly larger model, stick a Nvidia Jetson nano on the front with a camera, and have a go at it. With economies of scale, you could do the whole thing for less than $1000 USD per unit. Cheap.
Individually, the planes are dumb, stupid and slow. But launch enough of them, and some might get through.
The platform the drones launch from is the weakness.
If the drones have less range than the combat radius of the fleets air power, they just need to locate and destroy the launch platform.
If the drones have less range than the combat radius of the fleets air power, they just need to locate and destroy the launch platform.
For a 10 to 15kg gas-powered model aircraft, a simple 4m launch rail is sufficient. For launch assist, that could be a spring or catapult system, or a small solid rocket motor. Can easily be mounted on a truck or small boat.
Something like this should be sufficient (peak thrust 131N):
https://www.rocketryworks.com/h100w-14a-dms-high-power-singl...
Larger motors are available for not much more money.
---------------------
No one is going to try to take out a carrier in the middle of the ocean, but there isn't much need to do that either.
Carriers are primarly used to attack land-based targets these days. So either they have to stay waaaay off-shore and rely on tankers to refuel planes for combat sorties (which reduces the cadence) or they will get within (for example) 500NM of land. Low and slow gas-powered drones can achieve this now.
Something like this should be sufficient (peak thrust 131N):
https://www.rocketryworks.com/h100w-14a-dms-high-power-singl...
Larger motors are available for not much more money.
---------------------
No one is going to try to take out a carrier in the middle of the ocean, but there isn't much need to do that either.
Carriers are primarly used to attack land-based targets these days. So either they have to stay waaaay off-shore and rely on tankers to refuel planes for combat sorties (which reduces the cadence) or they will get within (for example) 500NM of land. Low and slow gas-powered drones can achieve this now.
So the ISR drones will see the launch site or platform and it will get hit by missiles
> So the ISR drones will see the launch site or platform and it will get hit by missiles
The "launch site" is any spot of land near the coast accessible by a truck.
The ISR satellites pick up launches by ballistic missiles that rise up high in the atmosphere, which have a very large IR signature. The sats are not going to pick up a gas-powered small aircraft, even if you use a small solid rocket for launch assist.
Also, you're going to want to re-think the economics of this, if you're using a $100K USD missile to destroy a $10K pickup truck on a regular basis. Nevermind the cost (like the aircraft hours) needed to get the missile on-target. Nevermind that the enemy can field 10 times the number of trucks that you have aircraft, at 100 times less cost.
The "launch site" is any spot of land near the coast accessible by a truck.
The ISR satellites pick up launches by ballistic missiles that rise up high in the atmosphere, which have a very large IR signature. The sats are not going to pick up a gas-powered small aircraft, even if you use a small solid rocket for launch assist.
Also, you're going to want to re-think the economics of this, if you're using a $100K USD missile to destroy a $10K pickup truck on a regular basis. Nevermind the cost (like the aircraft hours) needed to get the missile on-target. Nevermind that the enemy can field 10 times the number of trucks that you have aircraft, at 100 times less cost.
Yes I understand it’s a hard problem but swarms of drones that threaten the USA, will be fought with swarms of American drones right? You can launch drones from the carriers searching for potential launch points etc.
Commercial satellite picked up an f15 banking in Gaza recently, so the ability to imagine and scan in near real-time the land and sea around carrier strike groups and other valuable assets and locations seems likely.
Other way to think about the costs are a 1 million dollar missile that takes out a $5000 rocket that’s being used to threaten billions of dollars of ships, thousands of lives, a potential ecological disaster if one sinks, and the ships are defending or “liberating” billions or trillions of dollars in resources and shipping.
Commercial satellite picked up an f15 banking in Gaza recently, so the ability to imagine and scan in near real-time the land and sea around carrier strike groups and other valuable assets and locations seems likely.
Other way to think about the costs are a 1 million dollar missile that takes out a $5000 rocket that’s being used to threaten billions of dollars of ships, thousands of lives, a potential ecological disaster if one sinks, and the ships are defending or “liberating” billions or trillions of dollars in resources and shipping.
A quick glance shows that gliders can manage a glide ratio of 15:1 meaning that a set of glide drones dropped at 60k feet could at least hypothetically reach 170 miles. ( The practical calculation for this is much much more complex ).
There is no reason the drones couldn't wait to start their engines until they are at the ~40 mile line after being dropped at the edge of the CAP patrol.
EDIT: it looks like a good glide ratio is 60:1 meaning that the above scenario could play out outside the effective radar range of the carrier group, and hundreds of miles away from the CAP patrol.
There is no reason the drones couldn't wait to start their engines until they are at the ~40 mile line after being dropped at the edge of the CAP patrol.
EDIT: it looks like a good glide ratio is 60:1 meaning that the above scenario could play out outside the effective radar range of the carrier group, and hundreds of miles away from the CAP patrol.
Unfortunately to maximise glide ratio you are going to want to maximise wing surface area which isn't really optimal for both having the ability to deploy mass drones and for radar cross section.
You maximize surface area if you want to minimize sink rate. Glide ratio is a different beast, where you want long and thin wings. Glide ratio is fairly independent of speed up to Mach 0.5 or so, so you’d want to maximize wing loading to go fast.
Carrier group will be operating with an AWACS or similar expanding radar range. A large plane or a swarm of smaller things would light up modern radars from a distance easily. Nuclear tipped missiles will be the response.
>Carrier group will be operating with an AWACS or similar expanding radar range
e.g. the E-2 Hawkeye, which is carrier-embarked, launches from the catapult, and (in modern variants) includes a surveillance radar that will detects threats out to 300 nautical miles and beyond.
e.g. the E-2 Hawkeye, which is carrier-embarked, launches from the catapult, and (in modern variants) includes a surveillance radar that will detects threats out to 300 nautical miles and beyond.
In order to weaponize it you’ll probably need to add a high explosive payload, and ships are pretty big targets so you probably want at least a couple hundred pounds of it. Probably need some smarts onboard to keep it gliding autonomously all that way, too. Of course, if you’re aiming at ships, then those will move while you glide there so maybe add some sensors so it can do terminal guidance when it reaches the target area. It would be expensive and take a lot of battery power for every glider to have sensors that can reach 100’s of miles to track the target, and they’d always be blown up at the end of the trip (which seems wasteful), so maybe we can network the weapons and broadcast course corrections to them along the way. We’d hate for the targets to see it coming too early and shoot back, so low observability would also be nice. Of course, all this is starting to sound expensive…and if we’re gonna buy something like that, then maybe it should have a long shelf-life and we should be able to periodically inspect and maintain it so that when we finally use it after 30 years on the shelf, it works exactly as intended.
It doesn’t really sound much like a drone anymore though, more like some kind of “glide bomb”. Hey! Look at that: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-154_Joint_Standoff_Weapo...
(FWIW, I mean this in jest, not condescendingly.)
It doesn’t really sound much like a drone anymore though, more like some kind of “glide bomb”. Hey! Look at that: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-154_Joint_Standoff_Weapo...
(FWIW, I mean this in jest, not condescendingly.)
Looks like the Naval variant costs around 720k, with more baseline variants running ~340k. Considering the weapon was designed in the 90s I'd be curious if a modern version could be done for less money with off the shelf components. Given that China's military costs roughly half the US's for the same gear this also puts this glide bomb in the cost range where anti-missile missiles start to look expensive.
That looks like all up round cost. The per-unit production cost of a weapon is typically much lower, and never really the dominant factor in overall program cost. (Overall costs are dominated by operations & maintenance, followed by R&D.) For example, the FYDP budget request for USN JSOW production shows a flyaway cost of past variants as $225k/unit, and the production cost for C-1 (and maybe -ER, which adds a rocket motor) variants decreasing from $613k to $466k by 2024. (Source: https://www.dacis.com/budget/budget_pdf/FY20/PROC/N/2230_6.p...)
Most weapons use off the shelf components from the time they were designed, and moving to more modern components doesn’t save enough in production cost to justify the cost of redesign, testing and certification processes. If a 90’s chip was “good enough” to meet spec in the 90’s then it’s still good enough in 2021. (Assuming we’re even still building the 90’s variant and not just maintaining existing inventory.)
Most weapons use off the shelf components from the time they were designed, and moving to more modern components doesn’t save enough in production cost to justify the cost of redesign, testing and certification processes. If a 90’s chip was “good enough” to meet spec in the 90’s then it’s still good enough in 2021. (Assuming we’re even still building the 90’s variant and not just maintaining existing inventory.)
First of all, I suggest you go take a look at the dimensions of a modern, high performance sailplane - this is what you're talking about when you describe an aircraft that's capable of a glide ratio of >50:1. They're not heavy, but they are large, and they are cumbersome.
For example, a Jonker JS-1 Revelation is a fairly state-of-the-art design manufactured with high-tech materials (including carbon-fibre and Kevlay). It is over 7 meters long and has an 18 meter wingspan, in order to carry a total payload of ~300 kg, which is roughly about where you start for bombs expected to have serious effects on blue-water combat ships.
How exactly are you delivering a swarm of these from 60,000 feet?
For example, a Jonker JS-1 Revelation is a fairly state-of-the-art design manufactured with high-tech materials (including carbon-fibre and Kevlay). It is over 7 meters long and has an 18 meter wingspan, in order to carry a total payload of ~300 kg, which is roughly about where you start for bombs expected to have serious effects on blue-water combat ships.
How exactly are you delivering a swarm of these from 60,000 feet?
Could the drones be programmed with enough stand-alone smarts to target a giant ship surrounded by nothing but ocean? I know nothing about image analysis but it kind of sounds like the big boy version of detecting a black square on a white background.
Turkey's drones are already autonomous and function in the absence of radio communication by optical sensors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayraktar_Tactical_UAS
https://www.thedefensepost.com/2021/05/05/turkey-converts-si...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayraktar_Tactical_UAS
https://www.thedefensepost.com/2021/05/05/turkey-converts-si...
There are many kinds of drones, not only energy-hungry quadcopters. What if they glide and use energy mainly for steering? Or autonomous sailboats?
Release them from an autonomous submarine?
How about put them all in a missile, launch it to pass at above the target ship at, I dunno perhaps few kilometers, and then free fall up to several hundred meters where their motors will come online. After that they'd have enough power to start acquiring targets and destroy that billions aircraft carrier. Do this 2 or 3 times and it would be Afghanistan all over again where $80k missile was destroying millions $ soviet aircraft. Exhaust the expensive platforms using cheap drones. Global war won in a week.
[deleted]
A carrier group is not going to let an incoming missile pass a few kilometers above the carrier.
Yeah, good luck with that when you're dealing with latest tech in that regards. Talking about hyperspeed ones, like 20 Mach. At that speed interception is a chance game, as outlined by recent tests.
But if you can do that, why not just use the hypersonic missile to hit the carrier? Why add the extra step of dropping drones?
And deploying drones at Mach 20 might be rather hard on the drones...
And deploying drones at Mach 20 might be rather hard on the drones...
My entire point is economics. One hit might damage one ship, but 200 drones hitting on precise points, that's an entire different story. Also, let's assume the carrier does indeed posses great interception capability. There are other methods to deploy drones near it, be it underwater (submarine, human divers, submarine drone etc) or high above (missile, satellite). Speaking of satellites, if you manage to put those in orbit then the tech to also have drones inside a hypermissile already exists.
Air superiority was always the first phase of winning the war. Boots on the ground was and always be the final phase. And the first phase was, throughout history, archers, ballistae, cannons, airplane and currently aircraft carrier. But these last ones are way too expensive and too juicy of a target. So the future of air superiority are drones. If anything the past 20 years of using Predator drones in Afghanistan already proves my point, but the HN crowd likes to downvote without actually thinking, but that's OK. Have at it.
Air superiority was always the first phase of winning the war. Boots on the ground was and always be the final phase. And the first phase was, throughout history, archers, ballistae, cannons, airplane and currently aircraft carrier. But these last ones are way too expensive and too juicy of a target. So the future of air superiority are drones. If anything the past 20 years of using Predator drones in Afghanistan already proves my point, but the HN crowd likes to downvote without actually thinking, but that's OK. Have at it.
Initially I thought the Phalanx would be able to defend against drones
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS
Lots of comments about why it could be overwhelmed. The ammo is still expensive and limited
https://www.quora.com/Why-cant-we-rely-on-the-Phalanx-CIWS-t...
It looks like like Raytheon is still pushing the Phalanx though
https://www.flightglobal.com/civil-uavs/raytheon-offers-phal...
Northrop wants to use lasers
https://warriormaven.com/land/army-c-ram-base-defense-will-d...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS
Lots of comments about why it could be overwhelmed. The ammo is still expensive and limited
https://www.quora.com/Why-cant-we-rely-on-the-Phalanx-CIWS-t...
It looks like like Raytheon is still pushing the Phalanx though
https://www.flightglobal.com/civil-uavs/raytheon-offers-phal...
Northrop wants to use lasers
https://warriormaven.com/land/army-c-ram-base-defense-will-d...
Alternatively, use a single Swedish submarine ;)
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/hit-and-sunk-swedis...
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/hit-and-sunk-swedis...
or use a cargo ship with sheep - https://www.romania-insider.com/cargo-ship-carrying-sheep-ro...
Ultra-cheap drones are small. Small means very short range, so the launch platform for the drones becomes the target (kill the archer, not the arrows). This is no different than when we were concerned with Backfire regiments attacking the CSG with Kingfish etc.
"Fire and forget" drones exist.
They're called cruise missiles.
There's been a lot of talk about "kamikaze drones" lately, but aren't these basically slow cruise missiles that have the option to loiter and come home?
A ramming drone can be a fatal weapon. Thinking on that, the difference seems to be a drone is cheaper with more precision compared to a guided missile.
Also can fit in a backpack or purse.
Also can fit in a backpack or purse.
Doing a very, very, rough Google search, doesn't seem like that's always the case though.
I see some articles where 10-15 IAI Harpy drones have been purchased by countries like the US and India for $100 million.
Versus a late model Tomahawk missile being ~$1.5 million each?
I see some articles where 10-15 IAI Harpy drones have been purchased by countries like the US and India for $100 million.
Versus a late model Tomahawk missile being ~$1.5 million each?
A cruise missile could close to within ~20-40 miles and then deploy multiple drones. Effectively making it a multi targeting missile.
They're called "loitering munitions" in professional sources, so yes. (e.g. Israel's first drones were anti-SAM loitering munitions that would just go up and fly in circles for hours, listening for a lit search radar)
I'd assume building a drone capable of carrying enough ordnance to sink a ship over that much distance would be higher than the equivalent cost for a cruise missile?
There are anti-missile technologies. They'd be about the same things you'd use your ammunition from if you engaged these things as hostile. If they are drones, they're possibly designed as cannon fodder. They might just be testing the radar and FLIR capabilities. They might even just be testing the ability to track and target a large vessel. They may even be something classified from the US to surround its own ships and in the future help intercept inbounds. They may actually be probes from somewhere other than Earth, as highly unlikely as that is.
If there wasn't FLIR and radar corroborating one another, I'd think they might be an experiment specifically in creating false images on sensors. I'm not sure how one would go about faking both FLIR and radar in the same shape and same place with rapid motion of the images. If someone managed, the likely shapes might be a sphere or an amorphous blob.
When we talk about the distance of drones, should we be assuming these weren't launched from nearby from under the water, from above the radar's ceiling, or from that civilian craft in the video?Might they be lighter-than-air for hovering but with powerful propulsion for changing direction? I think it'd be premature given we don't know what they are to speculate on their launch point or maximum range.
If there wasn't FLIR and radar corroborating one another, I'd think they might be an experiment specifically in creating false images on sensors. I'm not sure how one would go about faking both FLIR and radar in the same shape and same place with rapid motion of the images. If someone managed, the likely shapes might be a sphere or an amorphous blob.
When we talk about the distance of drones, should we be assuming these weren't launched from nearby from under the water, from above the radar's ceiling, or from that civilian craft in the video?Might they be lighter-than-air for hovering but with powerful propulsion for changing direction? I think it'd be premature given we don't know what they are to speculate on their launch point or maximum range.
That threat's not exactly new and it's undoubtedly one of the reason that the US Navy is investing in directed energy weapons research - people mostly think of lasers, but the hugely powerful AESA radars on modern combat ships are also candidates.
EDIT: I couldn't easily find data on the AN/SPY-6 AESA radar that's going into the newest generation of ships, but the AN/SPY-1 PESA system from the prior generation has 6 MW peak power output.
EDIT: I couldn't easily find data on the AN/SPY-6 AESA radar that's going into the newest generation of ships, but the AN/SPY-1 PESA system from the prior generation has 6 MW peak power output.
ultra cheap drones aren't fast enough to need to expend a missile, and the 20mm gatling bullets required to down one are far cheaper
Apparently Phalanx CIWS ammo costs $15-30 per round (numbers all over the place depending on ammo type and age of information).
On the other hand engaging a target typically uses 100+ rounds or ~$1500-3000 per target.
Definitely cheaper than a good drone (~$5000-20000?), but maybe not far cheaper.
On the other hand engaging a target typically uses 100+ rounds or ~$1500-3000 per target.
Definitely cheaper than a good drone (~$5000-20000?), but maybe not far cheaper.
we're not at war tho, so you don't have economy of scale in place, those will benefit especially low tech ammunition - i.e. solid bullets as opposed to guided munition/drones - I expect the former to came down in price a fair bit once the big order gets put in, while drones chip production will always be tied to silicon yields economies and will benefit a little from scaling, but not as much.
> There is a combat flight sim called DCS where individuals repeatedly attempt different methods of killing carrier groups.
Do you happen to have any pointers to more details (e.g. forum threads)? I love reading about that kind of optimization in games.
Do you happen to have any pointers to more details (e.g. forum threads)? I love reading about that kind of optimization in games.
Youtube has a great set of videos on the topic. Depending on your interests you can also find fighter pilots demonstrating proper techniques for dogfighting etc. in DCS.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=US+Carrier+grou...
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=US+Carrier+grou...
DCS is brilliant, best to chat on the ED forums for that kind of thing I'd assume.
Does it sim any of the really modern anti-ship stuff like a DF-21D or an Iskander?
Just curious how carrier battle group defenses supposedly fair against a nuclear ASBM with evasive terminal maneuvers.
Just curious how carrier battle group defenses supposedly fair against a nuclear ASBM with evasive terminal maneuvers.
I have my doubts about a 50kg bomb being effective against an armored flight deck. Bombs for anti-ship work tend to be more in the 1,000kg range.
[deleted]
Doesn't CIWS solve that?
CWIS was developped as a solution to the threat of sea skimming cruise missiles after the USS Stark was hit by a couple of Exocet. It's not really geared towards fighting a swarm of light and slow adversaries.
A small-caliber gun with a good fire-control system or a couple of marksmen should be a better answer. Asymmetric threats have been a major concern for modern armies at least since the first Gulf War. The threat used to be swarm of small boats. Now it's also swarm of UAV. Answers exist to both.
Regarding the most likely origin of a UAV swarm targetting a US carrier close to the shore of the USA, I will go with the US army. It's good way to test both your offensive and defensive capabilities at the same time.
A small-caliber gun with a good fire-control system or a couple of marksmen should be a better answer. Asymmetric threats have been a major concern for modern armies at least since the first Gulf War. The threat used to be swarm of small boats. Now it's also swarm of UAV. Answers exist to both.
Regarding the most likely origin of a UAV swarm targetting a US carrier close to the shore of the USA, I will go with the US army. It's good way to test both your offensive and defensive capabilities at the same time.
Until it runs out of ammo. But the laser type weapons they've been trying to develop solve this to some extent.
CIWS have a limited amount of rounds, and and are designed to stop a few large projectiles (think a cruise missile) sent sequentially. I'm not sure how they'd handle many drones, especially ones that could change course.
Throwing "wave after wave" of anything eventually overwhelms a defender.
Throwing "wave after wave" of anything eventually overwhelms a defender.
CIWS has very finite ammunition.
sure, but there aren't finite drones. not sure you've ever seen CIWS in action, but it would put down the drones with dispatch.
AFAIK these are always firing 100+ rounds at every single target and only have ~1500 rounds in them, so that's not exactly a lot of targets.
And then there is the matter that a CIWS/C-RAM would need at least some kind of upgrade to be able to engage (small, slow) drones: https://www.quora.com/Why-cant-we-rely-on-the-Phalanx-CIWS-t...
(I have no experience at all with these besides seeing some probably-fake Youtube videos supposed to show these shoot down mortar sheels)
And then there is the matter that a CIWS/C-RAM would need at least some kind of upgrade to be able to engage (small, slow) drones: https://www.quora.com/Why-cant-we-rely-on-the-Phalanx-CIWS-t...
(I have no experience at all with these besides seeing some probably-fake Youtube videos supposed to show these shoot down mortar sheels)
Likely but than there's nothing left for the next wave. Cheap drones could quickly use up all the rounds. You wouldn't even have to use advanced drones with weapons. CIWS have to kill every drone just in case. Add a few missiles and or better drones in wave two and you got a very effective mix.
A copy for EU readers:
https://web.archive.org/web/20210528131648/https://www.myste...
Debunking by Thunderf00t:
https://youtu.be/Th4VlqQyVr4
https://web.archive.org/web/20210528131648/https://www.myste...
Debunking by Thunderf00t:
https://youtu.be/Th4VlqQyVr4
I'd take any "debunking" video from that creator with a small foothill of salt. I feel like a long time ago he made genuinely insightful journalism into scams/ falsities but it seems a few years ago it just turned into a pessimists reaction video channel.
Even just looking at that video now, you can see it has been "debunked" by this latest release of info and 5 seconds of looking through the comments and you can see people pointing out falsehoods stated in the video.
Even just looking at that video now, you can see it has been "debunked" by this latest release of info and 5 seconds of looking through the comments and you can see people pointing out falsehoods stated in the video.
Of course people point out things they think are falsehoods in his debunking. It's YOUTUBE. And the guy has (in a very rational and sensible way) angered a lot of Muskrats over the years – no wonder he attracts such comments.
Would you care to actually point out what parts of Thunderf00t's debunking you object to?
I also cannot fathom how a real scientist debunking wishful thinking gets labeled a "pessimist" by the science fans (I'm not calling you a science fan, I'm talking about the horde of Muskrats that are very angry with Mason).
That being said: I do believe the stuff this article is about is different from what Mason debunks in his video (his video predates this release), so I don't think we should consider the two together at all.
Would you care to actually point out what parts of Thunderf00t's debunking you object to?
I also cannot fathom how a real scientist debunking wishful thinking gets labeled a "pessimist" by the science fans (I'm not calling you a science fan, I'm talking about the horde of Muskrats that are very angry with Mason).
That being said: I do believe the stuff this article is about is different from what Mason debunks in his video (his video predates this release), so I don't think we should consider the two together at all.
The video in that debunk is obviously a plane and also has literally zero to do with the more interesting disclosures from the military.
Your "debunking" video has already been debunked: your video released on May 9, the radar data you are pretending to debunk was released on May 27. Your linked video does not address the footage released today! :p ;) xx
Original story would be https://www.extraordinarybeliefs.com/news4/navy-ufo-radar-da...
> This site is currently unavailable to visitors from the European Economic Area while we work to ensure your data is protected in accordance with applicable EU laws.
Alright then.
Alright then.
“Our European visitors are important to us.”
Yeah that felt kinda sarcastic
The UFOs?
Those would be our Europan visitors :)
Explains why they care more about the sea as well.
[deleted]
It's accessible here: https://archive.is/7jOHG
It has only been 5 years since GDPR was signed... give them some time to figure it out ;-)
You would almost think it's really about the shady ad-tech they have on their site not being legal in Europe.
You would almost think it's really about the shady ad-tech they have on their site not being legal in Europe.
Now now. Let's not be too hasty in our assuming that they are lying about their pure intentions.
/s
/s
I think their reasons are simpler.
They have a pretty invasive tracking which wouldn't pass the GDPR standards and make them some money.
Most of their users are from the US.
Why would they remove all that tracking which costs money, then lose income only to allow a tiny percent of users read their news? There's nothing for them to figure out.
They have a pretty invasive tracking which wouldn't pass the GDPR standards and make them some money.
Most of their users are from the US.
Why would they remove all that tracking which costs money, then lose income only to allow a tiny percent of users read their news? There's nothing for them to figure out.
This “radar data” is video of FLIR visuals captured on the screen of a FLIR system in the San Diego area. In other words, grainy video of grainy video. From a film maker with an agenda that is, by contrast, extremely clear.
If they want to talk about radar data, that would be something different from video of video. An assertion about the data is also not the data, it is just a mere assertion about the data.
FLIR is the same system that showed the tic tac objects in another incident.
Also in the San Diego area.
The pilot in the tic tac incident, Dave Fravor, said that he is a class clown type.
He also said that the programmer of the FLIR system is one of his best buddies and was at his wedding.
He said there were three other people with him on that day (2 fighter craft, 2 people in each one) so he says it’s not just him, he has others who back him up. But, notice, that is just his assertion. The other three people have gone dark and don’t want to talk. An assertion about having backup is not backup. It is just a mere assertion.
All we have for tic tac is Dave and the FLIR video.
Imagine you are a Top Gun trained fighter pilot and get to experience the immersive 3D way of being that others don’t have any inkling of. You might feel pretty special.
And then when you get back to earth, you’re just another ordinary Dave.
What if you could juice things up a little bit, so that when you’re back on the ground, people would still know how special you are? What if your buddy who works on the FLIR system could be in on it?
Again, all we have for tic tac is Dave and the FLIR video.
Kinda similar with this new incident, since everyone on board apparently was unable to locate or forgot they had their smartphones.
I would bet dollars to donuts that self described class clown Dave Fravor and his FLIR programmer buddy are still best buddies and still live in the San Diego area.
Doesn’t prove anything, but food for thought.
If they want to talk about radar data, that would be something different from video of video. An assertion about the data is also not the data, it is just a mere assertion about the data.
FLIR is the same system that showed the tic tac objects in another incident.
Also in the San Diego area.
The pilot in the tic tac incident, Dave Fravor, said that he is a class clown type.
He also said that the programmer of the FLIR system is one of his best buddies and was at his wedding.
He said there were three other people with him on that day (2 fighter craft, 2 people in each one) so he says it’s not just him, he has others who back him up. But, notice, that is just his assertion. The other three people have gone dark and don’t want to talk. An assertion about having backup is not backup. It is just a mere assertion.
All we have for tic tac is Dave and the FLIR video.
Imagine you are a Top Gun trained fighter pilot and get to experience the immersive 3D way of being that others don’t have any inkling of. You might feel pretty special.
And then when you get back to earth, you’re just another ordinary Dave.
What if you could juice things up a little bit, so that when you’re back on the ground, people would still know how special you are? What if your buddy who works on the FLIR system could be in on it?
Again, all we have for tic tac is Dave and the FLIR video.
Kinda similar with this new incident, since everyone on board apparently was unable to locate or forgot they had their smartphones.
I would bet dollars to donuts that self described class clown Dave Fravor and his FLIR programmer buddy are still best buddies and still live in the San Diego area.
Doesn’t prove anything, but food for thought.
Lt. Cmdr. Alex Dietrich was with Fravor and also saw the tic tac: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygB4EZ7ggig
Also would be surprised if military pilots were allowed to carry their cell phones with them, nor would it likely be advisable to take a phone video while you're piloting a fighter jet.
Also would be surprised if military pilots were allowed to carry their cell phones with them, nor would it likely be advisable to take a phone video while you're piloting a fighter jet.
Is Dietrich still talking now?
For the cell phones it would have been safe for you to assume I was referring to the people who were on the ships at the time of the more recent supposed incident.
For the cell phones it would have been safe for you to assume I was referring to the people who were on the ships at the time of the more recent supposed incident.
>Is Dietrich still talking now?
It's precisely the opposite, she avoided talking until now. She asked Fravor to remain anonymous, and she came forward in a 60 Minutes interview if I recall correctly.
Just to add up, 4 pilots were eye witnesses (2 pilots on 2 planes).
It's precisely the opposite, she avoided talking until now. She asked Fravor to remain anonymous, and she came forward in a 60 Minutes interview if I recall correctly.
Just to add up, 4 pilots were eye witnesses (2 pilots on 2 planes).
Just watched it.
From what they say it sounds like they were seeing large panels of ice or snow that flaked off of a large snowball core, something that must have been big enough to survive reentry.
She described the motion as bouncing around with no discernible trajectory, something you would expect from a falling flat-ish object.
He says it “came up to meet him” (and then disappeared btw) but that kind of wording is often heard from fighter pilots, often even referring to the ground “coming up” so I don’t take it as confirming that the thing was actually going upward.
The FLIR shows another similar item seemingly flitting off suddenly (“accelerating”) but that kind of visual can come from the system suddenly losing its lock on the object.
From what they say it sounds like they were seeing large panels of ice or snow that flaked off of a large snowball core, something that must have been big enough to survive reentry.
She described the motion as bouncing around with no discernible trajectory, something you would expect from a falling flat-ish object.
He says it “came up to meet him” (and then disappeared btw) but that kind of wording is often heard from fighter pilots, often even referring to the ground “coming up” so I don’t take it as confirming that the thing was actually going upward.
The FLIR shows another similar item seemingly flitting off suddenly (“accelerating”) but that kind of visual can come from the system suddenly losing its lock on the object.
So it was snowing large panels of ice or snow for days, on clear sky days (said by Fravor), large enough to pop on radars and sensors of both ships and jets?
Because that was the context of the event: they didn't happen to come across it.
It was being recorded in radars for days, and the squadron were asked to check it, by a radar operator, because they were doing an exercise near by.
Oh, and remember: one of the jets remained above while the other dove. 2 different types of observations - he was on the plane that dove down, she remained up above.
That's what makes the event bizarre: it wasn't a single random phenomena, it was happening for days and then observed by 4 witnesses at different angles/altitudes.
It would be easier to wrap this up into a lie, hoax, propaganda to get funding, then to recurring meteorological rare phenomena never observed by radars or pilots.
Because that was the context of the event: they didn't happen to come across it.
It was being recorded in radars for days, and the squadron were asked to check it, by a radar operator, because they were doing an exercise near by.
Oh, and remember: one of the jets remained above while the other dove. 2 different types of observations - he was on the plane that dove down, she remained up above.
That's what makes the event bizarre: it wasn't a single random phenomena, it was happening for days and then observed by 4 witnesses at different angles/altitudes.
It would be easier to wrap this up into a lie, hoax, propaganda to get funding, then to recurring meteorological rare phenomena never observed by radars or pilots.
Sorry this is sort of a grab bag of topics but I think I address all your points and add a few more.
Not snowing. The objects came in from space, on a ballistic trajectory. Something like a large ice ball, like a micro comet. Not a snow storm. Nothing to do with weather.
An ice ball from space could easily go undetected and enter the Earth's atmosphere and land in the ocean. If it was big enough, some parts of it could survive all the way down. It would probably break up as it fell, or possibly even before entering the atmosphere.
I'm envisioning a long chain of these large ice balls / snowballs, origin unknown, hurtling through space on a trajectory that places them on earth in roughly the same area over the course of a couple / few hours. Not an everyday event, but more plausible than the mystery aircraft theory.
If a large body of ice hit the water, the impact site of the body that hit the water first could have whitecaps. The ice object could even float back toward the surface and stay just under the surface, also causing whitecaps. The size of a 737 would be not out of the realm of possibility for such an object.
Meantime, at least one smaller (still large) "flake" was still falling, tumbling in the air due to its shape. Listen to Alex's description on 60 Minutes of how it moved. A large flake of ice falling through the air fits the description perfectly. The color also fits. It also explains why the object could just disappear: the sonic boom from a nearby jet encounter could shatter the snowy ice object and make it dissipate in a matter of seconds.
By lucky coincidence, out of all the millions of flights of fighter aircraft over water over the last few decades, in this one single instance, a pilot, several pilots together in fact, happened to be there to notice the falling ice. A remarkable sighting, but not unbelievable by any stretch.
If… IF… it's true that it lasted for days, that's would be a problem for my explanation. Thing is, we don't know for sure that that is the case here.
First of all, the source of the radar data? A system that was programmed by Fravor's buddy.
Second of all, another poster said that the radar system was new at the time and bugs were still being worked out, and that ghost contacts are common at such a time.
BTW the acceleration seen on the FLIR video is explained perfectly by the system losing the lock on the object. (Which, assuming it's undoctored footage and the accounts are accurate, would have to be a different flake of ice which was falling somewhat later than the first flake, because it was a different sortie by a different pilot).
The assertion about two viewpoints is carefully emphasized by Fravor (I saw him with Lex Fridman) but notice that we never hear from the second viewpoint the details that he adds.
Alex sat there in the chair on 60 Minutes giving a brief overview and refraining from contradicting anything Dave said but also leaving some details to him alone (possibly because, having a different perspective much higher up, she wasn't able to confirm everything he said). For example, notice that she did not confirm that the object flew upward. He alone said "it came up to meet him" as he was going down.
So we have one person's word for that part of this, and many of the other details. His word alone. He would then reply "oh but three other people saw it" but I say, listen to what they say: silence. We are going on his word alone.
Not snowing. The objects came in from space, on a ballistic trajectory. Something like a large ice ball, like a micro comet. Not a snow storm. Nothing to do with weather.
An ice ball from space could easily go undetected and enter the Earth's atmosphere and land in the ocean. If it was big enough, some parts of it could survive all the way down. It would probably break up as it fell, or possibly even before entering the atmosphere.
I'm envisioning a long chain of these large ice balls / snowballs, origin unknown, hurtling through space on a trajectory that places them on earth in roughly the same area over the course of a couple / few hours. Not an everyday event, but more plausible than the mystery aircraft theory.
If a large body of ice hit the water, the impact site of the body that hit the water first could have whitecaps. The ice object could even float back toward the surface and stay just under the surface, also causing whitecaps. The size of a 737 would be not out of the realm of possibility for such an object.
Meantime, at least one smaller (still large) "flake" was still falling, tumbling in the air due to its shape. Listen to Alex's description on 60 Minutes of how it moved. A large flake of ice falling through the air fits the description perfectly. The color also fits. It also explains why the object could just disappear: the sonic boom from a nearby jet encounter could shatter the snowy ice object and make it dissipate in a matter of seconds.
By lucky coincidence, out of all the millions of flights of fighter aircraft over water over the last few decades, in this one single instance, a pilot, several pilots together in fact, happened to be there to notice the falling ice. A remarkable sighting, but not unbelievable by any stretch.
If… IF… it's true that it lasted for days, that's would be a problem for my explanation. Thing is, we don't know for sure that that is the case here.
First of all, the source of the radar data? A system that was programmed by Fravor's buddy.
Second of all, another poster said that the radar system was new at the time and bugs were still being worked out, and that ghost contacts are common at such a time.
BTW the acceleration seen on the FLIR video is explained perfectly by the system losing the lock on the object. (Which, assuming it's undoctored footage and the accounts are accurate, would have to be a different flake of ice which was falling somewhat later than the first flake, because it was a different sortie by a different pilot).
The assertion about two viewpoints is carefully emphasized by Fravor (I saw him with Lex Fridman) but notice that we never hear from the second viewpoint the details that he adds.
Alex sat there in the chair on 60 Minutes giving a brief overview and refraining from contradicting anything Dave said but also leaving some details to him alone (possibly because, having a different perspective much higher up, she wasn't able to confirm everything he said). For example, notice that she did not confirm that the object flew upward. He alone said "it came up to meet him" as he was going down.
So we have one person's word for that part of this, and many of the other details. His word alone. He would then reply "oh but three other people saw it" but I say, listen to what they say: silence. We are going on his word alone.
Oh, I didn't realize you were talking about space ice, my bad.
Never heard of such a theory and I'm glad you shared it, it was out of my realm of possibilities since it never occurred to me.
But like you said, this doesn't explain the recurrent event, or the radar information.
>We are going on his word alone.
There. This is where I'm split, and where a lot of people tend to handle carefully because of the respect people have for US Navy, specially pilots, and no one seems to dare to say:
- What if Fravor was wrong and led everyone who trusted him into the wrong conclusions?
Could he have seen something ordinary and blew it out of proportions due to his - clearly massive - ego, just because he couldn't identify what ever it was, even with all of his experience and being one of the main guys in the ship?
Everyone could have seen something and not identify it, and relied on Fravors approach to try to figure out what it was, and the frame of reference for the squadron was based on his information.
Could they have missed what ever it was if it wasn't mentioned by a radar operator dealing with bugs/glitches? Probably. Yet they were looking for something in the area, and something they found. Was just a coincidence that they came across something that was in one of the areas pinned by the radar? It's a large ocean.
On the other hand, only they know what they saw, and they're experienced bunch. Plus it had to be an odd, and rare, chain of events (forgot to mention that other squadrons flew after them and got another video that leaked). Yet again, they were all trying hard to look for something - things that could have gone unnoticed if they weren't looking for something (like a commercial plane at a distance they aren't used to see on their sensors data).
Never heard of such a theory and I'm glad you shared it, it was out of my realm of possibilities since it never occurred to me.
But like you said, this doesn't explain the recurrent event, or the radar information.
>We are going on his word alone.
There. This is where I'm split, and where a lot of people tend to handle carefully because of the respect people have for US Navy, specially pilots, and no one seems to dare to say:
- What if Fravor was wrong and led everyone who trusted him into the wrong conclusions?
Could he have seen something ordinary and blew it out of proportions due to his - clearly massive - ego, just because he couldn't identify what ever it was, even with all of his experience and being one of the main guys in the ship?
Everyone could have seen something and not identify it, and relied on Fravors approach to try to figure out what it was, and the frame of reference for the squadron was based on his information.
Could they have missed what ever it was if it wasn't mentioned by a radar operator dealing with bugs/glitches? Probably. Yet they were looking for something in the area, and something they found. Was just a coincidence that they came across something that was in one of the areas pinned by the radar? It's a large ocean.
On the other hand, only they know what they saw, and they're experienced bunch. Plus it had to be an odd, and rare, chain of events (forgot to mention that other squadrons flew after them and got another video that leaked). Yet again, they were all trying hard to look for something - things that could have gone unnoticed if they weren't looking for something (like a commercial plane at a distance they aren't used to see on their sensors data).
>they're [an] experienced bunch.
Yep but nobody is experienced with this stuff I guess. But I get what you mean and agree.
Thanks for being a reasonable person and replying thoughtfully, that’s a breath of fresh air on the internet sometimes. :)
Yep but nobody is experienced with this stuff I guess. But I get what you mean and agree.
Thanks for being a reasonable person and replying thoughtfully, that’s a breath of fresh air on the internet sometimes. :)
It's amazing how viewing alien tech in focus is always just beyond the limit of current human tech. Even with 64 megapixel phones.
It’s a top secret agreement between the US military and the lizard people: In order for a navy ship to be eligible for an alien visit, all the crew members have to ditch their smartphones, and, if they do take any video on a flip phone, they agree to shake their arms while filming.
Also according to the breathless film maker Jeremy Corbell, FLIR data can only be released to the public as grainy hand shaking video of FLIR screens shot over someone’s shoulder, I guess because the data is in a “special” format and programmers who are able to figure out how to parse special data formats do not actually exist. /s
Also according to the breathless film maker Jeremy Corbell, FLIR data can only be released to the public as grainy hand shaking video of FLIR screens shot over someone’s shoulder, I guess because the data is in a “special” format and programmers who are able to figure out how to parse special data formats do not actually exist. /s
> This site is currently unavailable to visitors from the European Economic Area while we work to ensure your data is protected in accordance with applicable EU laws.
This says much more than it actually says
This says much more than it actually says
It says the aliens have surreptitiously captured the EU and are using seemingly benign regulations to censor information that threatens their plans to enslave humanity.
A lot of confusion over what a cell phone camera can capture.
Average cell camera lens is around 24mm. If you were to photograph an air show with that you, you would be getting nothing usable. Even at 500mm you will need to crop out the majority the frame.
Then comes lens shake mathematics. If you were photographing a baseball game you’d have to be shooting at 1/1000 of a second to stop the motion of the ball.
To capture the motions of objects such as these you’d need a professional camera maxed out shutter speed 1/8000 of a second and a 500mm lens with an extender. Run the numbers on that budget...
Then think of the ISO factor. Image sensors sensitivity at night is still developing. Good luck capturing an object moving 10gs at ISO 12,000...
Getting a picture of an object in motion with a cell phone is not gonna turn out great. Especially at great distances. You need thousands of dollars worth of equipment and a firm grasp of photo science. It’s not for amateurs.
Brass tacts. You need an amazing camera, amazing lens, and the technical prowess to know how to stop motion through photography.
Average cell camera lens is around 24mm. If you were to photograph an air show with that you, you would be getting nothing usable. Even at 500mm you will need to crop out the majority the frame.
Then comes lens shake mathematics. If you were photographing a baseball game you’d have to be shooting at 1/1000 of a second to stop the motion of the ball.
To capture the motions of objects such as these you’d need a professional camera maxed out shutter speed 1/8000 of a second and a 500mm lens with an extender. Run the numbers on that budget...
Then think of the ISO factor. Image sensors sensitivity at night is still developing. Good luck capturing an object moving 10gs at ISO 12,000...
Getting a picture of an object in motion with a cell phone is not gonna turn out great. Especially at great distances. You need thousands of dollars worth of equipment and a firm grasp of photo science. It’s not for amateurs.
Brass tacts. You need an amazing camera, amazing lens, and the technical prowess to know how to stop motion through photography.
A lot of confusion over what a cell phone camera can capture.
Average cell camera lens is around 24mm. If you were to photograph an air show with that you, you would be getting nothing usable. Even at 500mm you will need to crop out the majority the frame.
Then comes lens shake mathematics. If you were photographing a baseball game you’d have to be shooting at 1/1000 of a second to stop the motion of the ball.
To capture the motions of objects such as these you’d need a professional camera maxed out shutter speed 1/8000 of a second and a 500mm lens with an extender. Run the numbers on that budget...
Then think of the ISO factor. Image sensors sensitivity at night is still developing. Good luck capturing an object moving 10gs at ISO 12,000...
Getting a picture of an object in motion with a cell phone is not gonna turn out great. Especially at great distances. You need thousands of dollars worth of equipment and a firm grasp of photo science. It’s not for amateurs.
Brass tacts. You need an amazing camera, amazing lens, and the technical prowess to know how to stop motion through photography.
Average cell camera lens is around 24mm. If you were to photograph an air show with that you, you would be getting nothing usable. Even at 500mm you will need to crop out the majority the frame.
Then comes lens shake mathematics. If you were photographing a baseball game you’d have to be shooting at 1/1000 of a second to stop the motion of the ball.
To capture the motions of objects such as these you’d need a professional camera maxed out shutter speed 1/8000 of a second and a 500mm lens with an extender. Run the numbers on that budget...
Then think of the ISO factor. Image sensors sensitivity at night is still developing. Good luck capturing an object moving 10gs at ISO 12,000...
Getting a picture of an object in motion with a cell phone is not gonna turn out great. Especially at great distances. You need thousands of dollars worth of equipment and a firm grasp of photo science. It’s not for amateurs.
Brass tacts. You need an amazing camera, amazing lens, and the technical prowess to know how to stop motion through photography.
Article/videos are on google cache for those geoblocked https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:IbhdqX...
I think that at this point, whenever someone tells us that we, or something we value, is important to them, we can safely consider it an insult, they are just giving the middle finger to us.
Our European visitors are important to us.
This site is currently unavailable to visitors from the European Economic Area while we work to ensure your data is protected in accordance with applicable EU laws.
Our European visitors are important to us.
This site is currently unavailable to visitors from the European Economic Area while we work to ensure your data is protected in accordance with applicable EU laws.
My favourite example of how making a statement intended to seem to soften the message ends up coming across as an insult are the automated "we're sorry for the inconvenience" messages at UK train stations when there's a delay. Every time I hear one, my immediate inner monologue is "no you're not - if you were actually sorry someone would deliver the message manually, and sound a bit embarrassed".
If you've gone to the trouble of automating an apology, I'll instantly assume they don't care, and be insulted that they think we're dumb enough to fall for it.
If you've gone to the trouble of automating an apology, I'll instantly assume they don't care, and be insulted that they think we're dumb enough to fall for it.
The thing I have never really understood; is why countries outside of the EU; pay the slightest bit of attention to these EU directives.
Cached version for EU readers https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:rDam45...
100% of the UFO sightings are captured with blurry, or grainy cameras. That’s more than a coincidence
Isn't that just part of why it's unidentified? I would expect almost all UFOs to be poorly captured with a camera because otherwise they wouldn't be UFOs.
It’s near impossible to get a smartphone to focus on a tiny, distant moving target. Next time you hear a plane overhead, snap some photos and see for yourself
That is about to change, thanks to GAN.
In this context UFOs means some kind of drones.
“Some critics think they are simply drones or balloons, but the Navy and the Task Force list them as unknowns.”
https://archive.is/2aMo0
https://archive.is/2aMo0
"UFO" means precisely what it always means: A motte-and-bailey term which denotes any unidentified flying object up until someone wants to be flashy, at which point it's aliens in cutting-edge military technology spying for Them. Are they space aliens? Well, will space aliens get you to click the damn link?
It's tiresome. It's a massive game of "I don't know, therefore my theory is correct" being played by, or on, people who don't quite get that ignorance isn't evidence in favor of their pet theory.
It's tiresome. It's a massive game of "I don't know, therefore my theory is correct" being played by, or on, people who don't quite get that ignorance isn't evidence in favor of their pet theory.
I feel the exact same way every single time this comes up but for the first time this one is actually interesting. Has there ever been any incident like this before? Even if it is just a bunch of drones, it is interesting to see that they're flying without any kind of wings and for there to be this many of them swarming a navy ship is at the very least militarily significant even if it isn't aliens
The most interesting aspects to some but not all of these reports are the dynamics which imply novel propulsion tech (in terms of energy expenditure or non-thrusting mechanisms) and are confirmed on radar. The other stuff is noise (and as seen elsewhere in this thread effectively serves as chum for people who presume themselves smart skeptics.)
My understanding is that a number of earlier UFO reports were skunkworks projects using then-unknown technologies. The difference this time is how much reputable footage has been released and how available it is, I think.
[deleted]
I am always amazed by the fact that most people tend to jump to conclusions so quickly with so little intel or expertise.
I don't like the way this story is unfolding.
I don't like the way this story is unfolding.
You mean like yourself?
Consider that there is a large corpus of military and civilian accounts of truly unexplained phenomena.
Consider that there is a large corpus of military and civilian accounts of truly unexplained phenomena.
Am I concluding anything?
Interesting to me how the mainstream media is running with this now. Why? There are tons of UFO reports from military eye witnesses going back to WWII. Why are we now getting this wave of, ok it’s reasonable to elevate this topic to nightly news and congressional inquiry?
Because we wanted to get ahead of it since our adversaries now have this technology too and it’s not that secret anymore?
I think the biggest driver, besides the whole "it's aliens!?" thing, is the fact that one of the most advanced - if not the most advanced - navy/military are completely clueless of some phenomena and can't come up with proper justifications for such events.
You have pilots reports, supposedly the best trained observers, that:
- saw some tech they've never seen before that impressed beyond belief;
- or after all the best squadrons can be easily fooled/deceived/ by something, or even on their own with optical illusions and group pressure.
- or that are willing to lie about some event to have some fame and spotlight.
Then you have the best radar systems, jets, and overall military tech that:
- are properly tracking unidentified tech;
- have flaws and glitches, way more then we would have expected - even arrays of systems are failing/glitching all together;
- are not properly tested and fail to filter stuff that shouldn't appear;
- can be manipulated by foreign entities;
- are operated by individuals who are not properly trained to operate and interpret the information output.
What ever the scenario is, it's not good.
You have pilots reports, supposedly the best trained observers, that:
- saw some tech they've never seen before that impressed beyond belief;
- or after all the best squadrons can be easily fooled/deceived/ by something, or even on their own with optical illusions and group pressure.
- or that are willing to lie about some event to have some fame and spotlight.
Then you have the best radar systems, jets, and overall military tech that:
- are properly tracking unidentified tech;
- have flaws and glitches, way more then we would have expected - even arrays of systems are failing/glitching all together;
- are not properly tested and fail to filter stuff that shouldn't appear;
- can be manipulated by foreign entities;
- are operated by individuals who are not properly trained to operate and interpret the information output.
What ever the scenario is, it's not good.
The most interesting thing about all of this is the US Navy's apparent pathetic inability to acquire, identify, or even image with any fidelity, numerous potentially threatening objects moving freely within the vicinity of its state of the art vessels.
Joy "This site is currently unavailable to visitors from the European Economic Area while we work to ensure your data is protected in accordance with applicable EU laws"
As somebody in the UK, that kinda seems messed up.
As somebody in the UK, that kinda seems messed up.
For me, that sounds perfectly acceptable. I'm dreading the day when the UK gets access to something but the EU doesn't.
We will be getting tasty Kangaroo steaks soon from Australia.
Be jealous.
If anything, this looks like the US has some new technology they are testing.
Are there any sources more credible than the US military reporting these phenomena? Until there are, I’m assuming this is just a ploy to get funding for some new asinine weapons system.
The US military gets increases whether it likes it or not, no stunts required.
Sure, but stunts could be the difference between a $50 billion increase and a $60 billion dollar increase.
Example?
History is full of trumped up threats to justify a military budget increase. Star Wars was my first thought for an example, but it has some differences.
History is certainly full of trumped up threats. Japanese internment camps come to mind. I'm not sure Soviet ICBMs were trumped up, but the ability to target and intercept them with 1980s technology would certainly seem to be.
It's forty years later, we still have no great missile defense system, yet how many ICBMs have the USSR launched at us?
Both sides came closer to bomber and missile strikes each against the other than any sane person is comfortable with. MAD is one of the main reasons it never happened, and that itself is a discomforting thought.
>MAD is one of the main reasons
Yet the entire point of Star Wars was to end MAD. They used fear of an attack to justify spending money to try and end our best defensive tool.
Yet the entire point of Star Wars was to end MAD. They used fear of an attack to justify spending money to try and end our best defensive tool.
I thought the point of SDI was to placate Reagan's ego. But yes, MAD was working such as it was and even if SDI could have intercepted a few missiles - which it didn't - it never would have stopped an all-out attack. I agree the funding was secured disingenuously. But then how big a lie do the warhawks need, and do they really need to believe it?
Psychological operations (PSYOP) are operations to convey selected information and indicators to audiences to influence their emotions, motives, and objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of governments, organizations, groups, and individuals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_operations_(Unit...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_operations_(Unit...
As this becomes a bigger topic, I always wonder if there isn't an interesting technological solution to be had. Will there be a time in the future where we have satellite coverage of the globe, that has high-res real-time imagery? Could we attach cameras to Starlink satellites as an example? It seems like there would be a huge market for a service like this from governments and the like.
The most obvious answer to me is PsyOp. Don’t need any advanced tech to produce pixels and compelling testimony.
Why would any military allow something as top secret as such evidence and then confirm its veracity to the point of allowing pilots to go on 60 mins to talk about it? This reeks of fabrication. To what end? Who knows but I’m sure there will be money flowing to address this new “threat”.
Why would any military allow something as top secret as such evidence and then confirm its veracity to the point of allowing pilots to go on 60 mins to talk about it? This reeks of fabrication. To what end? Who knows but I’m sure there will be money flowing to address this new “threat”.
Pilot friend of mine says they do occasionally get alerts from ATC for unidentified primary radar targets near their aircraft while in flight. Usually this turns out to be a flock of birds, bunch of Mylar party baloons and such but in light of all these reports “We’ll be looking a bit more closely for flying tic-tacs now!” ;-)
[deleted]
So far there's been nothing but low-quality video, service member reports, and now apparently radar.
All well and good, but where are the artifacts? Objects or material of unexplainable origin.
The evidence being reported is easy to fake. The military has lied to the public for many years when it suits their interests. The default position should be that the sightings are either:
1. part of a disinformation campaign for an as-yet unknown operation
2. a weapon system developed by one of the world's many militaries
The bar for extraterrestrial classification is high because the claim is so extraordinary. Not one iota of physical evidence explainable only by extraterrestrial visitation has ever been publicly presented.
Since 2010 or so, almost every human has carried a device capable of taking photos and yet even the photographic evidence for extraterrestrial craft is still underwhelming.
All well and good, but where are the artifacts? Objects or material of unexplainable origin.
The evidence being reported is easy to fake. The military has lied to the public for many years when it suits their interests. The default position should be that the sightings are either:
1. part of a disinformation campaign for an as-yet unknown operation
2. a weapon system developed by one of the world's many militaries
The bar for extraterrestrial classification is high because the claim is so extraordinary. Not one iota of physical evidence explainable only by extraterrestrial visitation has ever been publicly presented.
Since 2010 or so, almost every human has carried a device capable of taking photos and yet even the photographic evidence for extraterrestrial craft is still underwhelming.
Weird that this was the top post and now it's no where to be found on the front page 1, 2, or 3 of the site.
Despite being the most trigger happy nation in the world, no one thought to shoot one of the UFOs down?
Right ... alien tech that's able to travel accross the universe and looks like cheap drones.
Any speculation as to what these are?
A foreign military doing recon?
A DARPA project being tested on our own military?
A foreign military doing recon?
A DARPA project being tested on our own military?
My bets would be that this is some classify project to test supersonic drones against US detection capabilities. Maybe some kind of hypersonic glide vehicle (HGV) like the Russia Avangard [1] missile. Hopefully this is the US themself and not Russia/China testing their HGV.
Edit: DARPA tesed HGV in 2010 with the Falcon HTV-2 [2], so 11 years ago, imagine what they are up to now. If you look to this launching footage [3] in infrared, when the gliding vehicle is released, it looks like a ball. The UFO video may have inverted infrared. Also, the fact that those gliding vehicles don't need propulsion and are highly maneuverable (compared to conventional aircraft) and that it ends with a crash in the water make it very likely that this is a HGV.
Edit 2: The DARPA hypersonic program is still in progress in 2021, they even double the spending [4]. And there is some info for 2020 with a program called "HSW-ab" which is highly classified [5].
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avangard_(hypersonic_glide_veh...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypersonic_Technology_Vehicle_...
[3]: https://youtu.be/BMnMaS2t57Y?t=40
[4]: https://breakingdefense.com/2020/04/exclusive-dod-asks-2-9b-...
[5]: https://breakingdefense.com/2020/02/lockheed-martin-air-forc...
Edit: DARPA tesed HGV in 2010 with the Falcon HTV-2 [2], so 11 years ago, imagine what they are up to now. If you look to this launching footage [3] in infrared, when the gliding vehicle is released, it looks like a ball. The UFO video may have inverted infrared. Also, the fact that those gliding vehicles don't need propulsion and are highly maneuverable (compared to conventional aircraft) and that it ends with a crash in the water make it very likely that this is a HGV.
Edit 2: The DARPA hypersonic program is still in progress in 2021, they even double the spending [4]. And there is some info for 2020 with a program called "HSW-ab" which is highly classified [5].
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avangard_(hypersonic_glide_veh...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypersonic_Technology_Vehicle_...
[3]: https://youtu.be/BMnMaS2t57Y?t=40
[4]: https://breakingdefense.com/2020/04/exclusive-dod-asks-2-9b-...
[5]: https://breakingdefense.com/2020/02/lockheed-martin-air-forc...
Very likely foreign or domestic drones. They’re UFOs in the technical sense, but I think using a different word here to be less sensational is likely warranted. The path of movement and speed looks exactly like drones to me.
> a different word here to be less sensational
The people raving about the UFOs being aliens don't want to miss out on the clicks though! As well as them trying to push the narrative that the government is hiding things (like aliens!) from you, and you can't trust it. "Next up, after these ads about gold and these diet supplements, the truth about the so called Coronavirus 'pandemic'!"
The people raving about the UFOs being aliens don't want to miss out on the clicks though! As well as them trying to push the narrative that the government is hiding things (like aliens!) from you, and you can't trust it. "Next up, after these ads about gold and these diet supplements, the truth about the so called Coronavirus 'pandemic'!"
Aliens! jk it's never aliens. It's a fun rabbit hole to go down though that leaves you feeling exhausted and gaslit. I recommend it if you have been missing those feelings since January 2020.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sq658Okvao
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAU9ofjcx-Y&list=PLsPUh22kYm...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sq658Okvao
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAU9ofjcx-Y&list=PLsPUh22kYm...
If it were aliens, though, first contact would probably look like an incidental encounter with a Von Neumann probe. It would look exactly like this.
I have a hard time constructing a scenario where the US a) operates these objects, b) uses them to surveil the US Navy and c) releases that information. Surveiling the Navy would be testing, like you said, why would they allow that information out?
The US state is not a single person, so maybe there's some part of the state that is removed enough from everything else that they can't/won't stop the Navy here. But that hasn't been how things have operated with previous advanced projects, so I'm skeptical of that.
The US state is not a single person, so maybe there's some part of the state that is removed enough from everything else that they can't/won't stop the Navy here. But that hasn't been how things have operated with previous advanced projects, so I'm skeptical of that.
Could be time-traveling humans from the future.
They're nuclear-powered ionocraft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion-propelled_aircraft
It disappears in the water. The technology is completely out of this world.
"Swarmed for hours" but no images/videos available?
I have a theory that the US govt will eventually push for 'Space Force' claiming a threat from UFO's
I was EU-zoned :°(
coretx(2)
alex3305(2)
I have seen much more relevant stuff get flagged on HN.
I like to imagine those are USOs like in Terror from the Deep: https://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php/Alien_Submarines :)
They don't even have to be all that high-tech; the US was doing similar things in the 1960s.