Those UFOs were lens flares.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsEjV8DdSbs
Turns out we like to spend gobs of money even when we're just chasing our shadow.
Those UFOs were lens flares.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsEjV8DdSbs
Turns out we like to spend gobs of money even when we're just chasing our shadow.
That video helps explain one property one of the UFO videos (the rotation) but doesn't explain the rest. Doesn't explain the Tic Tac videos. It does not explain why these were observed on radar as well.
While some of the videos have explanation, I would kindly encourage you to look at this with more curiosity.
> Doesn't explain the Tic Tac videos
He covers the "Tic-Tac" and "Go Fast" videos too, just not in that specific video. Like in this one, where he explains how the "Go Fast" video isn't actually even a fast object zipping just above the water, but rather an object flying at roughly wind-speed at about 12000 feet.
https://youtu.be/PLyEO0jNt6M
> It does not explain why these were observed on radar as well.
The lens flare was caused by the camera looking at the ass end of another jet. The radar saw the other jet.
For even one of these videos to have a mundane explanation that should have been obvious to the Navy upon investigation, I think that discredits the lot. Either the Navy couldn't figure it out themselves (which seems highly improbable), or for some reason the Navy is deliberately misleading the public, or at the very least allowing some of their personnel to mislead the public and playing coy about it. I think this is what's happening.
> or for some reason the Navy is deliberately misleading the public, or at the very least allowing some of their personnel to mislead the public and playing coy about it
But why?
Maybe they think it's funny. Maybe it's to confuse their adversaries, or a ploy for more funding from Congress. Maybe they're allowing some pranksters to have their fun because they want to encourage an environment of open reporting where pilots aren't afraid to report strange things.
The last one never came to my mind but is the most likely explanation I now have. I truly thank you for the insight.
The Navy was directed by the Executive branch to release the videos. They released the videos and a non-statement about what the videos were.
My guess is that there's an internal report describing the FLIR system and how the FLIR system works and how the internal workings of the FLIR system caused the visual phenomena. But that's all classified.
So they did the absolute minimum the Executive branch required them to do and left it up to the White House Press Secretary to explain it to the American public.
To me it reeks of the brass not wanting to have any more of their time wasted. There's a great scene in The Wire where the metro police, the harbor police, the state police, and the county sheriff arguing that a string of murders don't fall under their jurisdiction; it's your problem you deal with it etc, subverting the trope of the local cops fighting with the federal/state police (usually the FBI) that "this is my jurisdiction" or whatever. I think this is the same. The Executive branch (I'm 80% sure it was Trump, coulda been Obama, too lazy to look it up) demanded that they do a thing they didn't want to do, and then they dragged their feet and did the bare minimum, and in the process made a mess that now the Office of the White House now needs to clean up. (which they didn't, because they don't want to explain a classified sensor system in a public briefing either)
I could be wrong, but this doesn’t seem accurate. The videos were leaked some time ago, and in 2020 the DOD confirmed that they were legitimate videos from the Navy (https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/216571...).
As for the other reports/hearings, it seems like it’s driven more by Congress. For example: https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Prelima...
> This preliminary report is provided by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) in response to the provision in Senate Report 116-233, accompanying the Intelligence Authorization Act (IAA) for Fiscal Year 2021, that the DNI, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense (SECDEF), is to submit an intelligence assessment of the threat posed by unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) and the progress the Department of Defense Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force (UAPTF) has made in understanding this threat.
The tic tac looks exactly like any number of inflight videos of other inflight objects. The apparent speed is a function of the unusual perspectives created when two objects fly at different altitudes. Watch tactical footage from fighters on a regular basis and it won't even look odd.
I wouldn't trust anything that originated on TikTok
why does every debunking focus on the footage and ignore the fact the objects were also confirmed on radar? Do they just assume the Navy is filled with morons who decided to report this through the chain of command based on nothing but footage and didn't consider a lens flare?
The Navy has a patent on creating fake UFOs that appear on radar and other sensors so that seems like a perfectly logical explanation. It would also explain why the Navy disproportionately sees the UFOs when compared to the Air Force.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambling/2020/05/11/us-nav...
We haven't been provided proof that anything was confirmed on radar, nor what "confirmation" means. This is the same military that has a history of using alien/UFO conspiracy theories to obfuscate sightings of classified aircraft. It's not a case of the Navy being morons, but whether or not the military is being truthful.
My assumption is that sensationalized UAPs are illusions, but the reason the military keeps putting out press releases about them is not because they're aliens. The first reason is that there are unidentified aircraft entering US airspace. They're likely cheap attempts at both intelligence collecting and psychological warfare on behalf of US adversaries. Drones are easily mass produced and a nation flying a handful of drones in US airspace can easily send hundreds/thousands/millions because of how cheap and easy they are to make and deploy.
Since drones can vary in size and be flown in a ton of different conditions/patterns/scenarios/etc, they might be hard to detect. The mainstreaming of the "UAP mystery" narrative encourages civilians to look for, record and massively platform adversarial drones should they be seen by people, but go undetected by systems that are looking for them. The narrative also neuters whatever attempt at intimidation or psyops adversaries are waging against the public/military/etc. "Our militaries can send whatever we want into your airspace and there's nothing you can do about it" can be a powerful message that was effectively neutered with "maybe they're aliens lol".
Isn’t it better to let people underestimate us? Especially any potential adversary.
Regardless, liminal warfare will continue to give rise to this kind of scenario so we should try not to outsmart ourselves in a desperate bid to be right
> Isn’t it better to let people underestimate us? Especially any potential adversary.
Depends on the domain. Underestimation could lead to perceptions of weakness and opportunity for attack. Even if you are prepared for attack, not getting attacked in the first place is better than getting attacked at all.
Same goes for positioning in negotiation.
Mick West's videos are so good, specifically because the analysis are based on what's actually shown in the interface in the videos. There's no big "like, comment, subscribe"-section either. Just a pure explanation of why the object shown isn't as mystical as it appears at first glance.
I agree the videos are thoroughly debunked as being aliens, but there still are credible reports that navy/air force see craft observing them periodically. That doesn't have to be aliens for the reports to be true.
e.g. The video that got debunked as Bokeh (accurately) is still someone on that ship attempting to video a craft that they see nearby them. It's only viewers of the video who get confused and believe that the bokeh effect is what they are supposed to be seeing in the video.
Mick Wests videos on the topic have been thoroughly debunked by fighter pilots and experienced aviators.
He also completely ignores the eyewitness testimony and radar data.
He’s one of the least credible debunkers you can find.
> Mick Wests videos on the topic have been thoroughly debunked by fighter pilots and experienced aviators.
I have never seen a counter-analysis. Can you explain why you think this? It's not common knowledge that the observations of Mick West has been "debunked"...at least not as commonly known or easy to find as the Mick West analysis or the source videos.
Well Lemmino's video on the topic had a source for an interview with a specialist for the pod optics who disputes it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fefUZAGtCO4&t=310s
Regardless I think the simplest counter argument is that if that were really the case, you'd see these damn things on every flight facing the sun and people would know to ignore them. Lens flares also don't show up on radar and on pilot's eyes. No crazy analysis needed.
> No crazy analysis needed.
That's unnecessarily pejorative. Presenting something as evidence, requires some amount of rigor. This is why an in-depth analysis is valued. Presenting as strong a case as possible for either side, is the method by which we can best decide on what is known.
> Regardless I think the simplest counter argument is that if that were really the case, you'd see these damn things on every flight facing the sun and people would know to ignore them
I don't believe that's a counter-argument, as it applies to both conclusions. A unique coincidence does not imply it's common. ie If the gimbal video was a UFO, you'd see these damn things on every flight, etc.
> Lens flares also don't show up on radar and on pilot's eyes.
Mick West's analysis video does not contend that the object is only a lens flare, but an object with a lens flare (or lens artifact) overlaying it. There is no dispute that the pilots saw a group of objects with targeting information on a singular physical object from the video source.
Love your references for these claims. They're so thorough.