That makes no sense. Testimony from the pilots who intercepted the object indicates the object demonstrated awareness of their presence.
Watch this video of a U.S. Navy F/A-18 squadron commander (not an average military pilot) who intercepted one of the objects and engaged in aerial maneuvers with it. He describes intercepting the object, flying about one mile away from it, with the object demonstrating awareness of his presence by mirroring his maneuvers. Then he flew aggressively at it, and the object responded by rapidly flying away. It then showed up on radar at the position he was returning to, where he had been flying a combat air patrol before he was sent to intercept the object, indicating that the object had been aware of his aircraft all along.
The commander also said that the flying object appeared to be maneuvering about 20,000 feet over an unknown object which was submerged just beneath the ocean surface.
Other testimony recounted at https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/27666/what-the-hell-is... mentions that the ships had been tracking these objects on radar for a few days already, with them appearing suddenly on radar at 80,000 feet, rapidly descending vertically to 20,000 feet, and then flying straight up again, disappearing past 80,000 feet. The ships went to non-drill battle stations while the aircraft intercepted the object.
It makes perfect sense- in the same way that your reflection in a mirror "demonstrates awareness of your presence." An illusion generated by a sensor glitch or interference is entirely liable to move around when the sensors and interference moves around, and flight computers tracking the glitch would plausibly show it "performing maneuvers" that make no sense for physical objects, such as the ones you describe.
> It makes perfect sense- in the same way that your reflection in a mirror "demonstrates awareness of your presence."
The commander in the video did not describe it as being like a reflection. Why don't you watch his 6-minute testimony and then offer an informed opinion?
> flight computers tracking the glitch would plausibly show it "performing maneuvers" that make no sense for physical objects, such as the ones you describe.
This is an example of "coming up with less-extraordinary theories that contradict the evidence," as gfodor said[1], because you have asserted "glitches" in "flight computers" and ignored the pilots' eyeballs, which corroborated the radar contacts that had been observed over several days.
I didn't say it was a reflection; that was an analogy. Obviously I don't think a bunch of qualified military personnel would be fooled by something that trivial. I think you're reading opposing viewpoints with an agenda. :)
As for pilots' eyeballs- nothing I've read about this clearly states that anyone got close enough to get direct-eye-contact; most mentions of "visual" confirmation are talking about via cameras (and to me, the footage I've seen of it looks precisely like a camera artifact.) Also I wouldn't discount the possibility of a pilot, squinting to see a small distant object that his expensive flight equipment is insisting is there, simply hallucinating- humans are suggestible, and just as vulnerable to "sensor fusion" errors as prototype military hardware.
Radar Contact + FLIR Contact (videos) + Human Eyeball confirmation by two types aircraft + multiple eyewitness testimony != a technical anomaly nor a hallucination
That makes no sense. Testimony from the pilots who intercepted the object indicates the object demonstrated awareness of their presence.
Watch this video of a U.S. Navy F/A-18 squadron commander (not an average military pilot) who intercepted one of the objects and engaged in aerial maneuvers with it. He describes intercepting the object, flying about one mile away from it, with the object demonstrating awareness of his presence by mirroring his maneuvers. Then he flew aggressively at it, and the object responded by rapidly flying away. It then showed up on radar at the position he was returning to, where he had been flying a combat air patrol before he was sent to intercept the object, indicating that the object had been aware of his aircraft all along.
The commander also said that the flying object appeared to be maneuvering about 20,000 feet over an unknown object which was submerged just beneath the ocean surface.
Other testimony recounted at https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/27666/what-the-hell-is... mentions that the ships had been tracking these objects on radar for a few days already, with them appearing suddenly on radar at 80,000 feet, rapidly descending vertically to 20,000 feet, and then flying straight up again, disappearing past 80,000 feet. The ships went to non-drill battle stations while the aircraft intercepted the object.
> the object demonstrated awareness of their presence
That's certainly one interpretation.
> with the object demonstrating awareness of his presence by mirroring his maneuvers. Then he flew aggressively at it, and the object responded by rapidly flying away.
Sounds exactly like the historical reports of "foo fighters" to me.[1]
Look, I love the idea of aliens, but try to apply Occam's Razor here. What's less complicated?
a) An uncommon, but natural phenomenon in which a ball of plasma (or similar) is temporarily attracted to fast-moving, metallic aircraft.
b) An advanced, spacefaring race (or races) travel to Earth and spend over 70 years pulling pranks on military pilots.
Again, I'm no physicist, but consider something like walking through a cloud of flying dandelion seeds. The air currents created by the person walking through the cloud create little vortices that tend to pull the seeds in their "wake" toward them. That doesn't mean the dandelion seeds are "aware" of the person they're being pulled toward.
Consider also something like flux pinning, where two objects can be made to behave as if joined, even though they're separated by several centimeters or more.
"Red sprites" and similar are absolutely unreal-looking. If I saw one without knowing what it was, I'd be sure it was some kind of advanced technology too.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foo_fighter, specifically "Pilots and aircrew reported that the objects flew formation with their aircraft and behaved as if they were under intelligent control, but never displayed hostile behavior."
> Look, I love the idea of aliens, but try to apply Occam's Razor here. What's less complicated?
I said nothing about aliens--you did. In fact, the only interpretation I offered was that the object appeared to demonstrate awareness of the aircraft sent to intercept it. Everything else I wrote was simply reporting the observations of the pilots and naval radar.
> An uncommon, but natural phenomenon in which a ball of plasma (or similar) is temporarily attracted to fast-moving, metallic aircraft.
Did you watch the video I linked? Your explanation bears no resemblance to the phenomenon observed by the Navy: Radar contacts were observed over several days demonstrating bizarre yet consistent behavior. When an aircraft was sent to intercept, the pilot made visual contact with two objects, one beneath the ocean surface and one maneuvering erratically 20,000 feet in the air. The airborne object began mirroring the pilot's movements and then retreated when the pilot flew at it. Radar contact with the object was then established 60 miles away at the position the pilot was returning to, as if the object was anticipating the pilot's intended movement.
In no way does the reported phenomenon bear any resemblance to "a ball of plasma attracted to fast-moving, metallic aircraft."
> An advanced, spacefaring race (or races) travel to Earth and spend over 70 years pulling pranks on military pilots.
I have not speculated on the provenance of the phenomenon--you have.
> Again, I'm no physicist, but consider something like walking through a cloud of flying dandelion seeds. The air currents created by the person walking through the cloud create little vortices that tend to pull the seeds in their "wake" toward them. That doesn't mean the dandelion seeds are "aware" of the person they're being pulled toward.
The charitable interpretation of your comments is that you haven't watched the video and listened to the commander's testimony--and why not? Alternatively, you have, but you're still posting these interpretations that bear no relation to the reported observations--and why would you do that?
I've watched all of the raw footage and either listened to or watched the testimony. I'm sure the pilots saw something. It's very easy to see awareness and intent where there is none.
As I said, it sounds exactly like WWII pilots describing "foo fighters". There were many, many reports of those in WWII, and they're completely indistinguishable from these accounts. It would be extremely difficult at best to build such a thing using today's technology. Probably essentially impossible with 1940s technology.
The most likely explanation, therefore, is that it's some sort of natural phenomenon. Something that looks unearthly, and that seems to be more likely to be encountered by military aircraft than civilian aircraft. Maybe that's due to altitude, speed, composition of the aircraft, area of operation, etc.
There are really only two main classes of alternative beyond that:
- Someone active in the 1940s had the ability to make supersonic glowing drone aircraft, and has managed to keep that technology completely secret ever since.
- Aliens (or equivalent).
Neither of these seem particularly likely versus "atmospheric phenomenon".
If, tomorrow, NASA, NOAA, and the UN IPCC held a joint press conference to announce surprising new evidence which indicated that anthropogenic effects on the climate were minimal, that we could not noticeably affect the climate, regardless of our emissions, and that the climate was essentially out of our control, what would your reaction be? Would that be good news or bad news? Why?
Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear. What I mean is, if these organizations made such an announcement, and assuming that they were correct, what would you think? Would that be good news or bad news? Why?
> Or are you trying to reveal some sort of hidden value judgment or bias or something related to the politics of global warming?
Mainly that, although you aren't the person I posed the question to, and it may not apply to you. Assuming you're being sincere, it doesn't appear to.
Since we've come this far, if I may continue asking you:
Since you seem to sincerely believe that AGW theory is soundly supported by basic science, what do you make of the many reputable, accomplished scientists, physicists, etc. who do not believe that it is soundly supported by basic science?
What do you make of the former IPCC scientists who have whistleblown on the IPCC scientists' political bias and resigned in protest?
What do you make of Cook, et al's fraudulent "97% consensus" paper?
I haven't been banned from HN before, but I'm not surprised that some of my comments resemble ones from those you have banned.
Help me understand, please: what about that comment makes it a flamewar comment? I was attempting to engage him in serious discussion, and he offered voluminous nonsense in return. Is it verboten to point that out? Where did I cross your line?
By the way, I recently exchanged a few comments with you about HN's political bias, and you asked for examples. This submission's comments, and the flagging of my comment, is a good example of what I was talking about. There is a clear bias in that comments espousing a certain view are downvoted and flagged, even without violating the guidelines.
It seems clear that you quickly respond to comments which are flagged, even those flagged by the person being responded to. If I may ask, since I haven't seen this question asked or answered before: do you also police downvotes and flags? i.e. when people downvote, kill, and flag comments that do not deserve to be, do you correct it?
It doesn't appear so to me, and that creates an additional avenue for bias to be expressed: since only users with certain karma scores can vouch for wrongly flagged comments, it's easy for users with high scores to wrongly flag comments from users whose scores do not allow them to protest.
Actually, global cooling & a wet spring means decreased crop yields around the world. This is a serious matter that we need to properly prepare for. Not be distracted by pseudoscience of "Anthropogenic Global Warming".
We are seeing an increase of Earthquakes & Volcanic Eruptions, driven by space weather. We need to prepare accordingly. The next few winters will continue to get colder.
> For one thing, "rising sea levels" is often used as a symbol, representing all the varied consequences of global warming, the most depressing of which may be global ecological turmoil, so you might consider taking it less literally.
Fascinating. It's good to see someone like you admit the lying.
Or maybe you slipped and let your guard down. This is probably a relatively safe place to do so. Average people don't read HN, so they'll never find out.
The problem with lying is that there are only two explanations: either your claims can't withstand honest scrutiny, or everyone's too stupid to understand the truth, so you have to fool them. History is littered with atrocities committed by those who believed the latter.
He's trying to tell you, in an indirect, humorous way, that the name of your product, when spoken in English and pronounced a certain way, sounds like something other than the name of the planet and mythological god.
His comment has been downvoted according to HN's sense of humor, or lack thereof.
Thanks for your explaining!
I understood now.
Honestly, I didn’t have any idea to this project but I like names of planets or gods, so I named this as Uranus!
Those release notes are some of the best written I've ever seen. Clear, concise, comprehensive. Gives a lot of confidence in the project going forward. Nice work.
