2 HN users recommended this explainer2 months2021–2024score 2.5
Years with an HN recommendation, 2007–2026
HN recommends it as the boring, convincing debunking of the Gofast, FLIR and Gimbal videos, which commenters say ended UFO hype for them.
Astronomer David Kipping of Cool Worlds talks with Mick West to break down the three declassified Pentagon UFO videos. They explain the footage through camera artifacts, glare, and perspective effects.
“Mick West's breakdowns of the Pentagon UAP videos was the nail in the coffin of this era of UFO hype for me.” (HN, 2023)
Mick West's breakdowns of the Pentagon UAP videos was the nail in the coffin of this era of UFO hype for me. [this video] These were supposed to be the smoking gun evidence. UFO believers inside the DoD and as high up as US Senators fought for years to get them declassified. As soon as they were public, they were all quickly identified as sensor glare, bokeh, or mis-understood perspective. More generally this showed how easy it is to misinterpret the information being put out by complex sensors like FLIR, even the operators do it.
Shows the Pentagon UFO videos are sensor glare and perspective
This whole thing has a very boring, very likely answer described in this video: [this video] Essentially, there are a few different perspective/camera quirks coming together in these videos which can (apparently) trick even well trained pilots.
Camera and perspective quirks explain the Pentagon UFO videos
With the time thing, that would suggest that these events are uncommon. In that case it would be reasonable that the gov doesn't know what's going on either and that these visitors aren't here for the long hull. Of course, assuming these are visitors and not natural or man made phenomena. But I'll wait for the cell phone events. You suggest it should happen within my lifetime. As was posted in another comment I'm going to post this video. And don't dare claim someone hasn't looked up the links and articles just because they don't agree with you. Do it if they demonstrate that they didn't (there's a big difference and the former is going to piss someone off and is against HN's good faith rules). [this video]
It doesn't take incompetence to make a mistake, any of us can make mistakes even in things we're highly competent in. Optical artefacts are particularly difficult to account for. Take Go Fast for example, they're highly competent experienced aviators, but they still very clearly completely misidentified what, in hindsight, is obviously a bird. Clearly if trained operators can make a mistake like that, other mistakes are possible, so you can't just discount the possibility as absurd. [this video] I can easily see someone thinking an image is of a near object when it's actually a far object, and we know for a fact that highly trained operators can make terrible mistakes using complex tracking equipment.
The videos have been explained: [this video] The pentagon released them because they were getting sick of FOIA requests from the mob of people the To The Stars folks have been rallying. GAO is currently reviewing the contracts granted to those folks as well.
Video list and Hacker News comment labels from HackerTube (prompted by @karpathy), released under ODC-By 1.0, built on the open-index/hacker-news archive. Hacker News data is provided by Y Combinator; comments remain the work of their authors. Video titles, channel names and thumbnails belong to their creators and are shown via YouTube. HackerTube Watch is an unofficial edition. Data export of 2026-10-31.
8 Hacker News comments
From the HN archive; up to 20 kept per video, favoring different commenters. Recommendations first.
Citations, criticism and jokes
Read more
Read more