Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by bufferoverflow | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

bufferoverflow

There are other options, if you're talking about the latest UFO video:

3) equipment failure

4) mass delusion

5) error in judgement

6) the creator of the matrix messing / debugging

7) government or private company testing a new type of propulsion

Now look at all these options rationally, which ones are more likely?

The problem with the UFO evidence is, it's shitty every single time. With 4K cameras in cheap smartphones, 50x optical zoom cheap consumer cameras, cheap telescopes widely available, our UFO videos haven't gotten any better.

View on HN

> The problem with the UFO evidence is, it's shitty every single time.

Of course it is. The greater the clarity of the footage, the lower the probability that the filmed object will remain unidentified (as in Unidentified Flying Object).

If you’re on the look for unidentified things, how could anything but unclear evidence be useful?

Even when people do get clear video, people just accuse it of being a drone or CGI. Video evidence means shit in 2017.

That's not entirely true. Cameras are starting to introduce video signing. At least there's a chance to prove the source was filmed with camera X, if its public key is known. It would be cool if camera manufacturers had a public API for that too.

Example:

http://www.urbanalarm.com/knowledge-base/2016/digital-chain-...

What a great idea.

> At least there's a chance to prove the source was filmed with camera X, if its public key is known.

To be fair, the only thing that can be proven is that it was either filmed with that camera, or someone has extracted the private key from the device (or just tricked the signing chip to sign a custom data packet).

> The problem with the UFO evidence is, it's shitty every single time. With 4K cameras in cheap smartphones, 50x optical zoom cheap consumer cameras, cheap telescopes widely available, our UFO videos haven't gotten any better.

Ding ding ding.

In fairness military FLIR pods are better/more credible than cheap smartphone cameras.

Try taking a picture of a plane at a height > 3000ft with equipment available at hand (during the night) see how it looks like

So UFOs only fly at night? Cause during the day people with consumer cameras have zero problems recording planes at much higher than 3000ft:

https://youtube.com/results?search_query=zoom+airplane&q=zoo...

Most sightings are at night

I zoomed in on a commercial airliner flying above my house once with a 40x camera, it was really cool.

I think there’s an 8th possibility that is plausible - the government testing stealth technology that can spoof sensing equipment.

FYI the Nimitz FLIR1 video was taken at a distance of around 30 miles. pretty good video for that distance.

Also this is the only declassified video, I would assume better video exist but this will help ease us into acceptance.

Acceptance of what?

> The problem with the UFO evidence is, it's shitty every single time.

Maybe, like Bigfoot, UFOs are actually intrinsically fuzzy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com