13.2M views · May 17, 2021 · 13:48 · 2 HN recommenders · 11 mentions · discussed 2021–2023
A 60 Minutes segment in which Navy pilots describe encounters with unidentified aerial phenomena, ahead of a report due to Congress.
Why Hacker News points people here: HN commenters point to it as eyewitness testimony and multi-radar evidence in UFO threads, though some dispute it.
“At least watch this 60 Minutes short piece about this phenomenon”HN comment, 2023
“I suggest you familiarize yourself with some of that eyewitness testimony”
Eyewitness testimony from Navy pilots.
I suggest you familiarize yourself with some of that eyewitness testimony because everything you wrote simply does not apply: this video If you have more to say that you'd also want me to address, it better be directly relevant to the events described in this video.
“seen this shortish 60 Minutes piece yet. You should.”
Short piece that counters skeptical theories.
It's clear from your comment that you haven't seen this shortish 60 Minutes piece yet. You should. It would fairly quickly dissuade you of this theory. this video
“At least watch this 60 Minutes short piece about this phenomenon”
Interviews with Navy pilots about unexplained phenomena.
> I wonder how much some of these unidentified phenomena might be checked for some similar effects. come on, man. at some point, after enough of these reports, toeing the line you're toeing starts to look ludicrous. these are trained observers, pilots who know what to expect in the sky. and do not take lightly that there is still a certain amount of embarrassment (a social cost) to even coming forward, so to even make this claim is still a brave act at this point. At least watch this 60 Minutes short piece about this phenomenon with interviews with real Navy pilots before you assert things like this: this video
“The USG has already admitted these things are real but have an unknown source.”
Short broadcast on pilots seeing unknown objects on radar daily.
It's an irrelevant example. The question in THIS case is not whether "the wings fell off before or after hitting the water, if at all", but whether "there was a plane hitting the water at all" (also a plane that was caught on multiple radars). It's simply not a good comparison. The Navy pilots say they see bogies on radar (not just visually) every day . Watch the "60 Minutes" broadcast I linked elsewhere (which is only 13 minutes long: this video ). The USG has already admitted these things are real but have an unknown source. To continue to maintain extreme skepticism at this point is to bury one's head in the sand.
Trained military observers describe regular encounters.
How is the idea of UFOs even a "conspiracy theory" anymore? UFOs or UAPs are now a verified phenomenon that seem to be observed fairly regularly by trained military, "every day for a couple of years" this video
“the relevant part”
Pilot describes how long the object was watched.
i can't tell precisely but according to one of the pilots on CBS 60 minutes; there were four peoples "watching it for five minutes". the relevant part: this video
“multiple different radar signals tracking the same objects”
Shows multiple radars tracking the same objects.
The information from multiple different radar signals tracking the same objects would seem to rule such things out: this video
“Is this sufficiently extraordinary?”
Offered as extraordinary evidence for UAPs.
Is this sufficiently extraordinary? this video Also, it's already conceptually possible to get around the spacetime problem: link (This doesn't imply such a thing would be easy to build; but at least it's theoretically possible, maybe)
“a 60 Minutes piece discussing it”
Report on multi-sensor confirmation of the Navy encounter.
Here's a 60 Minutes piece discussing it: this video Here's a 4 hour interview with the pilot, David Fravor, on Lex Fridman's show where he goes into much more detail than you'll probably read elsewhere: link This wasn't just a single radar. It was an AEGIS system compromised of multiple ships with state of the art radars, multiple plane radars, and visual confirmation by several pilots. They were tracking it for multiple days.
“He lists some pretty amazing capabilities around 2:10.”
Head of Pentagon UAP task force lists capabilities.
This is the guy who headed up the AATIP (UAP) task force for the Pentagon. this video He lists some pretty amazing capabilities around 2:10.
>Is this sufficiently extraordinary? this video I have no idea. I'm not going to watch some random video. Where is the associated published, peer-reviewed paper? In the absence of hard data to support whatever the above purports to show, it's just as believable as this[0]. >Also, it's already conceptually possible to get around the spacetime problem: link (This doesn't imply such a thing would be easy to build; but at least it's theoretically possible, maybe) Is it? AIUI, the Alcubierre "drive" (it's not a propulsion system per se, but rather a mechanism for manipulating space-time, but that's something of a quibble) requires "negative mass/energy." From the Wikipedia article you linked: ...a spacecraft could achieve apparent faster- than-light travel if a configurable energy- density field lower than that of vacuum (that is, negative mass) could be created. While the math of General Relativity allows for the creation of such a "warp" field, there isn't any (known) mechanism (or the means for generating the energy concentration required) for creating them. Creating an Alcubierre drive isn't just a matter of engineering . There's science that needs to be done to confirm that it's possible to create such a mechanism. The fields required for an Alcubierre drive is (at least for the moment) just as speculative as "white holes" or Einstein-Rosen bridges, which can also be described in the context of General Relativity. Given the ubiquity of the materials for life (Water, complex or
