Hacker News Reader

Comment by tailspin2019 | Hacker News Reader

tailspin2019

Direct link to the PDF report: https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Prelima...

> "Most of the UAP reported probably do represent physical objects given that a majority of UAP were registered across multiple sensors, to include radar, infrared, electro-optical, weapon seekers, and visual observation."

> "Some UAP appeared to remain stationary in winds aloft, move against the wind, maneuver abruptly, or move at considerable speed, without discernable means of propulsion. In a small number of cases, military aircraft systems processed radio frequency (RF) energy associated with UAP sightings."

View on HN

80 encounters with multiple sensors. 143 reliable encounters with one sensor (144 minus 1 balloon). RF emission in a few encounters.

They could conceive of no explanation for any of them..

They have a lot of data and cannot explain much.

The "multiple sensors" part is important. Anything that has video or radar returns from multiple points is much more interesting than a single-point view. Most illusions break down when observed from multiple widely separated points, like several warships operating together.

So little hard data is being released.

Does multiple sensors mean multiple sensors on a single plane/ship or sensors on multiple planes/ships?

After looking at the document, I took this to mean the former (multiple on same plane/ship)

This is the reminder after they explained millions of identified objects or sensor artifacts. In theory a non trivial fraction of these may be sensor errors for example, but so far they haven’t been identified as such. Ditto for clouds, balloons, drones, aircraft, missiles, falling space debris, etc etc.

Only 18 exhibited unusual behavior that exceeded the capabilities of known technology.

For the rest, I imagine they can conceive of explanations, but they lack sufficient data to explain with certainty.

> reliable encounters with one sensor

There's no such thing. An anomaly that doesn't appear on multiple sensors is a defect with your sensor.

That doesn't make sense. If I can see something that I can't smell, that doesn't imply that my eyes are defective.

Of course. But if you see something that none of the people around you see, then you might want to question your own sensor or signal processor.

but then you look at one of the examples like the pyramid one and YT analysis that took couple of days to pinpoint the direct cause https://olhardigital.com.br/en/2021/04/27/colunistas/suposto... NVD with 3 blade iris

Wtf is NVD? An acronym database lists many explanations like Natural Vaginal Delivery.

IIRC its Night Vision Device. Essentially night vision cameras have triangle shaped iris which causes triangle shaped lens flare - hence the triangles in the footage.

No, they said that in most cases crucial data was lacking.

Yes, they probably have a lot more data, but they won't release it to the general public for "security reasons".

> they won't release it to the general public for "security reasons"

This is pretty clearly non-scare quotey security reasons territory. We are unsure if what’s on the scope is an adversary’s. Publishing a detailed quantification of how little we know and in what form would be a self goal.

Yep. And other countries may very well be having the same issues trying to indentify US-originated UFOs.

They didn’t release any details on specific incidents, right? This pdf is all there is?

Yep, it doesn't look like there's anything else that has been published.

Yeah, this "RF energy" statement is too vague.

Ok, you detected what exactly? At which frequencies? Power? BW? Does it look like something (unmodulated signal? Modulated? How?)? Do you have a recording of it?

Considering that they were not directly in contact with the object, it is 100% necessarily true, so the statement is entirely meaningless without specifics like the ones you request.

The RF emissions acknowledged here are something I'd never heard of before. Stating the obvious; even though this report is completely vague on that front (and all others), the fact that this was mentioned means that there was likely an RF abnormality in a few event reports. It's not really logical to assume they are talking about something trivial that a plastic bag would 'produce'. But yea - agreed, this is missing so much info.

Think SIGINT, MASINT, and EW platforms. That's what RF means to me.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com