6 HN users recommended this explainer4 months2019–2023score 4.5
Years with an HN recommendation, 2007–2026
HN commenters repeatedly cite it as a checkable, math-based debunking of the famous UFO clips whenever UAP stories come up.
Mick West analyzes the Navy "Go Fast" UFO footage and shows with simple trigonometry and the data overlay that the object is slow and high up, consistent with a balloon. He explains how parallax makes it look fast and argues the original TV claims were wrong.
“See for yourself. This is the most clear case of misidentification.” (HN, 2023)
See for yourself. This is the most clear case of misidentification. All the data you need is shown in the instrument recording and he takes us through how to interpret it step by step. Of course Mick has the advantage of having plenty of time to work through exactly what all the instrument readings are telling us and perform all the trigonometry to interpret it accurately, and explain it to us step by step, while the pilots just eyeballed it and got their estimates wrong. On the other hand the Pentagon analysts had all the time they could want to do the same analysis and still got it wrong. But you don't need to take anyone's word for it, look at the footage yourself and you can do all the calculations independently with middle school geometry. [this video]
Step-by-step instrument reading shows misidentification; checkable with middle school geometry.
Have you watched his debunking of the "Go Fast" video? ( [this video] ) I don't see any wiggle room around what he lays out, certainly not enough to warrant putting 'debunk' into "scarequotes". The object simply was not 'going fast'; it was a weather balloon sized object moving at weather balloon speeds that only looks like it's going fast due to parallax. The only question in my mind is whether the USN is filled with fools who couldn't figure out what he figured out, or whether they're deliberately fucking with us. I'm strongly inclined to think it's the later.
Explains the object is balloon-sized, moving at wind speed; parallax creates fast look.
Yes, here's an in-depth explanation by someone who actually did the math: [this video] Tl;dr it can simply be explained as a balloon drifting in the wind.
In-depth math showing the object is a balloon drifting in wind.
That's only the reminder in the sense of "I've made other videos before about that" of Mick West. The relevant playlist of Mick West with many videos with detailed analysis is: [link] For example [link] Explains how the camera's automatic tracking system contributes to the appearance of movements which aren't real at all. Or: [this video] how the appearance of the "fast movement" is actually due to the plane speed, not the speed of the object observed, which is almost certainly something simple like a weather balloon ...and much more details there.
Shows apparent fast movement comes from plane speed, not the object.
> 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 video zipping just above the water, but rather an object flying at roughly wind-speed at about 12000 feet. [this video]
Shows Go Fast object flying near wind speed at about 12000 feet.
Gofast is just a weather balloon. [this video] Gimbal is a jet. The perceived rotation is an artifact of the camera rotating on a gimbal. [link] Nimitz is also a jet. It’s far away, and blurry. [link] It would be really cool if these were alien spaceships. They’re likely not.
Shows Go Fast footage is a slow weather balloon, via geometry.
Reposting my comment from yet another HN post on these pretty mundane videos. Gofast is just a weather balloon. [this video] Gimbal is a jet. The perceived rotation is an artifact of the camera rotating on a gimbal. [link] Nimitz is also a jet. It’s far away, and blurry. [link] It would be really cool if these were alien spaceships. They’re likely not.
Shows Go Fast footage is a slow weather balloon, via geometry.
Quoting [link] : > This comment on ArsTechnica on the same subject links to some videos which have nice explanations for the videos: [link] Basically lens flare, balloon, and a plane. The video links there are [link] , [this video] , [link] .
One of several videos explaining the UFO clips as mundane objects.
there's actually nothing remarkable about it and in fact most of the more exciting claims of the footage can be put into context with basic trigonometry[1], and Lex should have questioned much of what Fravor said in that podcast. I hope it doesn't turn into the next Joe Rogan show. [1] [this video]
Basic trigonometry puts the footage's exciting claims in context.
Perhaps, but I'm not convinced that these things are actually all that fast, or at least the ones popularized in Gimbal and Go-Fast. The trigonometry just doesn't work out. [this video]
Math suggests the object is not as fast as claimed.
The technology itself in the 'Go Fast' video shows the object isn't moving fast. The distance from the object and the direction of the camera are available in the video, and using this you can calculate the altitude and speed of the object in question. [this video]
Altitude and speed can be calculated from data shown in the video.
GIMBAL looks just like a jet aircraft on thermal camera. GOFAST has been conclusively shown to be a slow-moving object at about 13,000 feet. It's simple geometry. [this video] So GOFAST is probably a 3 or 4, while GIMBAL probably is a 6 or 7 but even more pedestrian. These are pretty pedestrian phenomena and they explain the footage perfectly.
Go Fast shown to be a slow object at about 13,000 feet.
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.
Plays via YouTube's privacy-enhanced embed
13 Hacker News comments
From the HN archive; up to 20 kept per video, favoring different commenters. Recommendations first.
Read more
Citations, criticism and jokes