This will be the usual left wing lesbianic Jews, collaborating with alien species to destroy proud patriotic conservatives. Keep these ultra-Marxist E.T. invaders off our planet.
"Long cylindrical" doesn't even sound like whatever weirdness is going on in the Navy tapes. I'm guessing military experiment that got off track somehow.
David Fravor, who I believe is the Navy Pilot that is the public face of the "Navy tapes" you are referring to, described the object as a "Tic Tac" - which is cylindrical. Still, I'd bet on some experimental (or just rare) type of human/American aircraft. Second place theory is that a pilot is making a joke or resigning or something, similar to how a developer might open a sev-1 ticket to tell his soon to be former company that he is resigning. (Although, hopefully "mischievous prankster" is an attitude that is heavily discouraged among commercial airlines pilot)
The article really jumps to conclusions. This missile shaped and moving like a cruise missile in a part of the US where they test missiles, was probably... a test missile.
Especially given all of the hypersonic missile development going on right now.
> I hate to say this but it looked like a long cylindrical object that almost looked like a cruise missile type of thing
Holy smokes, that would be quite alarming.
American Airlines confirms...the radio transmission was from one of their pilots. OK. It will be interesting to see how the 6-month pentagon directive goes.
(I personally have no opinion on this, as to weapon or sky dolphins or aliens)
One of my pet theories is that there is no big "coverup of the known" with UFOs. Instead it's a coverup of the unknown.
We humans have basically built up a pile of experiential-scientific debt, due to leftover 20th century "don't look into it, don't ask questions" psychology which was rampant in world militaries and governments.
If there's a UFO coverup, it's likely a natural human coverup due to leftover human evolutionary speedbumps like the delayed-frightened animal response.
One specific example:
“There’s no doubt it was something beyond anything we know or understand. […] I have concerns, but I don’t think we can do anything about it. I think this is beyond us. So: Quit worrying about it.” --Lt. Colonel Charles Halt, USAF, who actually experienced the Rendlesham Forest incident
(Can you imagine a military leader with similar psychology managing a department of UFO research?)
Another researcher's take:
“…not only is there a UFO coverup, but they [government / miltary] simply have no idea what they are. They really don’t.” --John Greenwald
IMO we should train our elected and appointed leadership to look into things--otherwise in many cases they will refuse to do so when their subjective leanings are calling the shots. This is basic, foundational strategy for contingencies...
Not the OP, but sometimes I wonder whether some of these events are effects of testing by foreign militaries, and the DoD wants to hide knowledge of foreign military technology (because maybe they're trying to copy it).
Interesting but it raises some questions that get really weird fast:
A) The contents of these experiences tend to swing toward "random and subjective, but in a funny, objective way" which would eventually, logically lead to the conclusion that e.g. mind control is directly available and usable--so why not use it like a government would?
B) Which experiences fall within this scope? Which do not? How could you start to identify them and develop an idea as to purpose?
And C) in the event of any disclosure from moles or leaks inside _any_ military that's involved, I would expect it to hit the fan very fast, on any side you can name.
The details are going to be key, and there are way too many hand-wave explanations that involve broad gestures toward "government stuff".
My point is that A) coming to a conclusion as to what the object is may be way too early, and B) the coverup that urgently needs to be exploded and brought to a conclusion ASAP is the "don't look into things" approach to things we don't already know about.
Again: I personally have no opinion on this, as to weapon or sky dolphins or aliens.
Does it even have to be a secret aircraft? Unless the pilots have relevant qualification, it doesn't even necessarily look the way they described it, due to any number of physics factors.
That's why I said--I have no opinion as to what it is. Why leap to conclusions in either direction, which just gets subjective way too early?
If you're saying, "it's probably..." then that's your call, but being so subjective, the attractiveness of having reached an answer so fast could also prevent you from learning that it's something else. A.k.a blindspot.
>“There’s no doubt it was something beyond anything we know or understand. […] I have concerns, but I don’t think we can do anything about it. I think this is beyond us. So: Quit worrying about it.” --Lt. Colonel Charles Halt, USAF, who actually experienced the Rendlesham Forest incident
Col Halt is not a UFO researcher. He has other primary duties. David Fravor (the tic tac guy) does a good job on Lex Fridman's podcast of explaining why the folks that experience these things can't/don't/won't do anything about it. Basically it's somebody else's job. So don't blame them.
I think the proper term here is "Unidentified Flying Object" for a reason. The pilot clearly said it looked like a cruise missile. The notion that "Unidentified = Alien" is rather far fetched. The acronym should be more accurately called "Undisclosed Flying Object".
Also the most straightforward explanation. UAVs and ALCM's can be dropped from high altitudes and have hundreds of miles of range and all look very similar, plus who knows what they're developing. The whole Southwest has plenty of military airspace and their toys don't always play nice with commercial air traffic.
It's a huge mystery how an airline pilot could possibly see a cruise missile shaped object right outside of the White Sands Missile Range. Probably aliens.
If you're throwing Tomahawks at the Taliban, you'll get longer range from a higher altitude approach, with little risk of being detected let alone shot down.
If you're trying to hit Moscow, by all means, try to avoid radar by going 50 feet off the ground.
Either there's military activity that the military doesn't want to talk about, or extraterrestrials consider green chile a delicacy that is otherwise unobtainable in the universe. Both seem equally plausible.
Depends. In the 80s there were “UFO” sightings in upstate NY which were tomahawk missiles flying between Rome and Griffis AFB for testing purposes. I believe they appeared triangular from some angles due to landing gear.
FYI: foreign governments are known to lock onto airliners in flight from naval and land-based weapons systems. Russia is thought to have shot down a few airliners "by accident" that way when they didn't disengage.
the northeast of the state is actually pretty far from WSMR, and no launches from WSMR leave the range that I'm aware of (or at least haven't for a long time. They did launch a V2 after WWII, and it went the wrong direction and hit the outskirts of Ciudad Juarez.)
It was over 300 of miles from the white sands missile range. The plane had just flown over the western edge of Oklahoma, in the far northeast corner of new Mexico. It was closer to the air force academy in Colorado Springs than it was to white sands.
There is absolutely zero chance a cruise missile would be fired without closing the airspace to civilian aircraft.
The pilot was at 37,000 feet and said the object was above them. Commercial planes top out at about 42k feet and would have shown up on ADS-B. A U-2 flying at 60k would look like a long cylindrical object about the size of a cruise missile (in the same way a 747 looks small from the ground), and not show up on instrurments. Oh and they regularly fly out of Nevada to swoop down over New Mexico/Texas on their way to Mexico and Central America.
Wait, wait, wait...you're saying that because a missile has shot down a plane before in another country during a conflict, the United States military is firing cruise missiles without clearing civilian airspace?
Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was shot down with a surface-to-air missile, a weapon intended specifically for targeting aircraft. A "cruise missile" by comparison is intended for terrestrial targets and has a minimum range of a few hundred miles. Should the missile come in contact with an aircraft during its initial launch phase, your warhead would basically come right back down on top of you - which is why they close the airspace.
Cruise missiles are able to fly in controlled and uncontrolled airspace on Military Training Routes (MTR). There are procedures in place for a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) to be requested and published that alerts other operators of the hazard to flight.
Speaking as a pilot, If there was a NOTAM I can guarantee with 100% certainty an airline pilot would know about it. Also the military doesn’t screw around with this sort of thing, I think the chance is virtually nil they intentionally flew an unmanned aircraft that close to an airliner.
The military screws around constantly. That's why Cavalese happened. That's why that Apache crashed showing off in Afghanistan. IR655 got blown up. Like, we have lots of "military screwing around" instances and like zero aliens. It's so hard to believe that it's aliens.
Also pilot here: I’d drop that figure to 90% as there are so many notams it’s easy to miss the needle in the haystack with the ridiculous volume of irrelevant notams out these days.
It's not military. It's private weapons development company. There's no payload, so they do not need to notify commercial airliners, and it's a classified project, so they cannot anyway.
They are testing hypersonic missile systems for both ABM and warhead delivery.
I wouldn't say "absolutely zero chance", but I'd say "it's unlikely this was an expected outcome, and it's possible that someone is in deep trouble right now."
For others unfamiliar and reticent to google, a "U-2" is:
> The Lockheed U-2, nicknamed "Dragon Lady", is an American single-jet engine, high altitude reconnaissance aircraft operated by the United States Air Force and previously flown by the Central Intelligence Agency.
They do when they’re flying the opposite direction as you.
Also, he’ll if we civilians know what kinds of retrofits have been made in the past several decades, particularly for the purpose of testing and development.
The U2 is a very well-understood and photographed airframe. Even if given engine upgrades, it wouldn't be more than a few mph faster than before. Those big glider wings limit it to a very narrow, predictable, flight envelope.
They go the same speed, but the U-2 is at twice the altitude.
Due to retinal persistence you will see the part of an aircraft that is longest in the direction of travel (the body) more clearly than the wings. Only military aircraft carry radar, commercial planes depend on TCAS which requires the other object to be transmitting a beacon signal.
If a private weapons contractor was testing a new hypersonic missile without any warhead on it, under a classified program - it seems to me that they would need to fly it outside restricted space to test long distances range and guidance systems.
As long as they were not at commercially used altitudes, it seems to me that they wouldn't advise anyone.
I'm not completely up to speed on modern cruise missiles, but don't they leave a smoke trail/contrail/etc behind them if they have a conventional propulsion system? Or do they burn fairly clean in flight?
Aside from launch where they typically have some kind of boost stage, cruise missiles fly at low altitudes with small turbofan engines. Not much of a visual exhaust signature:
The last two paragraphs of the article is clearly talking about aliens.
> Former CIA Director John Brennan thinks there may be life on other planets too. December’s Covid-19 relief bill included a directive to the Pentagon and intelligence agencies to share what they know about UFOs within 6 months. People with the highest of security clearances think there’s something out there.
> ‘Something’ of course doesn’t necessarily mean extraterrestrial in origin, even though New Mexico is home to Roswell…
The way that "Unidentified Flying Object" and "Alien Spacecraft" have become synonymous is a remarkable pernicious evolution of language.
It's a strange thing - I don't think there's any conspiracy to create a cult, just a certain bias in the use of symbols makes "I couldn't explain what that was" become "intelligent creatures from other worlds created this effect".
It's because UFO is never used to mean "plane of unknown precise identity or origin country". Other terms are used for those, like "plane with its transponder disabled" or whatever.
The problem is, when UFO reports occur they invariably seem to objects that cannot fly by any sort of conventional aircraft physics:
a) There are no wings. Ever.
b) They are often reported as moving slowly or even hovering, which missiles cannot/would not do.
Thus UFO has come to be synonymous not with its literal meaning of a flying object that doesn't light up with proper ID codes on radar, but a flying object that is not merely unidentified but unexplainable. Unexplainable Flying Object would be a more accurate expansion given how it's used. That doesn't automatically imply aliens, but the whole "secret military breakthrough" angle is no more falsifiable than aliens are.
Going a bit further, once an object has been confirmed as alien, then it's not really "Unidentified" anymore, now is it?
Almost a linguistic catch-22 version of the "ATM Machine" phrase. Not redundant, but guaranteed to be either colloquially misinterpreted, or technically incorrect.
It's kinda weird how words can just get coopted by popular use. Take calling someone a "Nimrod" -- before Loony Tunes, that would have been a compliment that meant "mighty hunter". But kids growing up in the 50s and on first heard it in when Bugs Bunny used it as an insult, contextually meaning idiot or bumbler or something -- which due to Loony Tunes' cultural influence is now the dominant meaning, supplanting the original biblical origin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimrod#Idiom)
>Going a bit further, once an object has been confirmed as alien, then it's not really "Unidentified" anymore, now is it?
Somehow confirming that it is not from Earth doesn't identify it. There are multiple types of flying objects, like planes and missiles, and could be multiple different aliens groups it could be from.
> Going a bit further, once an object has been confirmed as alien, then it's not really "Unidentified" anymore, now is it?
Depends. Let's take the opposite case, where the object has been determined to be of likely terrestrial origin (identifiable letters and numbers on a wing or tail), but otherwise still mysterious. Is it identified or not? How about if it is rumored to be US military, but officially no one will confirm or deny? How about if someone does officially confirm, but no specifics are available (so there is no project/program name, or branch, or model)?
Especially considering that official statements may be misinformation, at what point can we say that the FO is no longer U?
A similar continuum of identification specificity applies to non-terrestrial origins, all the way up to "Oh yeah, that was BortXd from Omega Draconis, he got drunk again at a tailgate party."
We've really gotta adopt a new term for this stuff. It's fine to be pedantic and say "well 'UFO' doesn't actually mean aliens in the first place", but the acronym has clearly been co-opted by pop culture to be closely tied with aliens for decades now. Even a minor change like "UFOB" (which has been used by the USAF officially) would probably make a big difference. People will continue to say UFO to mean aliens, and that's fine, but official press releases can use a different term so that people don't read the headlines and immediately think "wow, aliens!".
It's in American Airline's benefit to make this story get as big as possible, it's free advertising. They already know the term will be misunderstood, that is their goal.
I feel like this “all press is good press” argument gets deployed a lot as a sort of thought-terminating cliche. I don’t think it’s obvious that AA necessarily benefits from a story that does involve them but could also potentially make some people more afraid of flying.
It gets their name on the front page places like here and probably some regular media coverage, it doesn't say anything bad about the company, and your worry that it could cause people not to fly requires them reading and internalizing the entire article. And all that was required of them was using a correct term for the event.
Yes, the term now is UAP, unidentified aerial phenomenon. There is an official UAP Task Force in the Pentagon. Former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid uses it, Hilary Clinton uses it.
The problem isn't with the term. Any term that means "An unknown flying thing" will come to be associated with aliens. If you start using a new term, that will just make it more exotic and interesting and "official seeming". "Authorities are reporting a UFT!" "What's that" "A UFO!!"
The interesting/curious/conspiracy-invoking concept is the unknown flying thing, whatever you call it. Whatever name you use will get associated with the interesting/curious/conspiracy aspect.
Yea, I don't understand why there can't be intelligible/non-conspiracy conversations about the extremely unusual stuff that has been reported by a good number of reputable people. It seems like there are a few plausible theories and we should be able to have conversations about wth they are.
You're suggesting the media use a new, accurate term to avoid the "wow, aliens" sensationalism and voluntarily lose out on page views/ad clicks? Cool, who do you think will go first?
How come aircrafts are not equipped with color video for later visual confirmation? If a pilot claimed something, we can at least see what they are describing as well, and maybe more details that they didn't catch with video.
Also are commercial pilots not allowed to carry smartphones? Did the pilots not record outside the cockpit window with their phones?
Hearing of this UFO is pretty exciting, and it would be even more exciting to have actual photographs of it from official sources.
Tracking cameras on civilian passenger plane seems like a whole lot extra stuff for operator to maintain and service compared to the benefit of capturing an UFO pictures once every few months.
Because that would make a civillian passenger transport indistinguishable from a recon asset.
You know what happens to recon assets that frequent hostile airspace, don't you? There are legitimate reasons to not build functionality into something.
I think this is a bit of a stretch. I’ve been on a few transatlantic flights that had live camera feeds under the plane that you could tune into as a regular station on the tv. I’d wager they’re more common on commercial flights than you think.
Emirates B777s and A380s do this too. Especially the A380s that stream 3 different cameras (tail, below, front). I don’t think they record the feeds though, maybe that makes a difference? But yeah seems odd to me that recording video makes it a military asset... how many millions of passengers on commercial planes have recorded the view out their window etc.
No it wouldn't. A recon plane would be pointing mostly at the ground rather than in front of above the plane. And you're assuming international flights, whereas there is abundant domestic air traffic in the US that never leaves the country.
> Hearing of this UFO is pretty exciting, and it would be even more exciting to have actual photographs of it from official sources.
It would be, indeed.
There's probably a simple explanation for the fact that when the general public started carrying around high-quality camera equipment at all times, UFO/alien sightings went down and police brutality incidents started cropping up.
Looks like the peak for UFO sightings was 2014-2015 and sightings are still above year 2000 rates[1]. I'm not certain I trust this data, 1990 seems awfully low, maybe there is a bias in how the data is collected, but it's the best source I found.
Apparently it's difficult to quantify the number of police use of force complaints, in part, perhaps, because there are so many different jurisdictions and they collect data and report (or not) differently. I'd bet on use of force complaints declining though, I'd bet it is directly related to crime, which I expect has also gone down.
One explanation for the above is that it is as easy as ever to see a UFO without video evidence. "I forgot to film it! It was so fast! My phone wasn't working! etc". It's also possible to create fake photos, either with props or taking pictures of things that aren't immediately identifiable, or with photo editing software. The existence of phones probably makes police brutality a little less likely, on the other hand, if it does anything, because police know there is an increased chance their subject/victim will be recording them or that someone else will be (or that their bodycams are).
> How come aircrafts are not equipped with color video for later visual confirmation?
They are called reconnaissance aircraft, and open you up to all sorts of fun stuff like compliance with arms control treaties. Also as a general rule, airlines and even private pilots don't like to pay (in fuel) to carry things up in to the sky that they don't need on a regular basis.
> Also are commercial pilots not allowed to carry smartphones?
Pilots are trained to follow one general principal above all else: "Just fly the airplane." The concept is further expanded to "aviate navigate communicate administrate," if you are ever wondering what you should be doing at a given time. Screwing around with your phone is nowhere on the list unless you are on scheduled break time.
Only a handful of US airports would receive A380s (from international destinations) before Covid, and currently few of any of those routes are flying A380s at all (most replaced with a340s, 777, 787 etc). The a380 tail cam probably can’t help us with this one! But I wish they’d add the tail cam to all the wide bodies with IFE. It’s fun to watch on the journey.
Aren't the recent explosion in UFO news and declassifications a little strange? Especially the ads Northrup Grumman is running talking about invisible aliens amongst us? Is this some sort of propaganda campaign? Distraction from something else? Enticing public support for the new space force to fluff some politician's pockets?
I’m pretty sure they are referencing an article published by a science journalism company owned by Northrop - it was discussing the possibility of alien biospheres. That is waaaay different than what op is suggesting. A bit clickbaity in the title- sure. Ad driven propaganda campaign? Lol no
I haven't heard the term "conspiracy theory" thrown around too much with this recent UFO stuff, so you might have a point here. You'd think it would be a great propaganda tactic to harp on this and accuse one or the other side of being conspiracy theorists for talking about it, but I haven't seen that so far. It's definitely unusual.
They confirmed the incident so unless the pilot/copilot were just completely fabricating it, they did in fact have contact with a UFO - that doesn't mean aliens - just something unidentified.
Our senses are not very reliable either. There's room between "fabricating it" and "it really happened". Aren't pilots typically overworked/tired and fairly bored for long streches as well? Seems like likely circumstances for some atypical half-dream or a trick of the eyes.
UFO means "unidentified flying object", and if the pilot didn't know what it was, it was unidentified. Probably some kind of military drone that went off course.
This is kind of sensational. UFO, but a radar signature of something missile like? Hardly invokes the idea of something extra-solar like the common colloquialism does.
At 37K feet, above the airplane, tracking really fast moving objects, in the direction the cockpit is facing, we are expecting a phone or a dash cam? C'mon
Well, is op wondering why this can't be done in the future, or are they asking why it's not on video for us to watch right now? Those are two different questions, your answer addressing the former.
That's the first thing I thought of when I heard about this. If the US was testing its drones, I think it would prefer to keep them in a restricted airspace. On the other hand, if I were a foreign power looking to flaunt my new drone tech, I'd take it over the area that seems to be rife with sensitive bases.
Still, it's most likely this is a US drone on a long range testing mission(or just flying off course due to a sw bug).
Are there reports of any foreign drones flying so far within US borders? I only recall media accounts of stuff like that happening in international waters or borders.
For hypersonic vehicles, restricted airspace is too small. They need to be able to fly into commercial airspace to demonstrate range, guidance systems, etc...
Besides the U.S. Navy videos, there's only one video (out of hundreds I've seen) that has me genuinely wondering if it might be real evidence of an advanced vehicle (aliens or not). It seems to match this American Airpline pilot's description in some ways.
Best guess I've seen was that it was a supply canister or drop tank. But it seems to pause in mid-air at 0:32, travel horizontally, and is over a civilian area where it seems unlikely that something would be dropped. It does look somewhat like a cruise missle but a lot slower.
The pause at 0:32 looks to me like a parallax effect [0] which would have occurred if the person holding the camera moved slightly right, counteracting the object's natural movement. I don't know why there are no contrails or seemingly no wings but the movement is less mysterious.
The UFO pilots are figuring out whether they need to wipe us out (again), or let us join the community of space faring species. Challenge is, we need to demonstrate that our cultures can arrive at a specific and necessary ethical conclusion ourselves, so that there could be some shared moral basis on which to engage other species. If we don't get there ourselves before developing advanced propulsion, we're too much of a risk and they press reset.
298 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 221 ms ] threadVaguely Identified Flying Object
Especially given all of the hypersonic missile development going on right now.
Holy smokes, that would be quite alarming.
American Airlines confirms...the radio transmission was from one of their pilots. OK. It will be interesting to see how the 6-month pentagon directive goes.
(I personally have no opinion on this, as to weapon or sky dolphins or aliens)
One of my pet theories is that there is no big "coverup of the known" with UFOs. Instead it's a coverup of the unknown.
We humans have basically built up a pile of experiential-scientific debt, due to leftover 20th century "don't look into it, don't ask questions" psychology which was rampant in world militaries and governments.
If there's a UFO coverup, it's likely a natural human coverup due to leftover human evolutionary speedbumps like the delayed-frightened animal response.
One specific example:
“There’s no doubt it was something beyond anything we know or understand. […] I have concerns, but I don’t think we can do anything about it. I think this is beyond us. So: Quit worrying about it.” --Lt. Colonel Charles Halt, USAF, who actually experienced the Rendlesham Forest incident
(Can you imagine a military leader with similar psychology managing a department of UFO research?)
Another researcher's take:
“…not only is there a UFO coverup, but they [government / miltary] simply have no idea what they are. They really don’t.” --John Greenwald
IMO we should train our elected and appointed leadership to look into things--otherwise in many cases they will refuse to do so when their subjective leanings are calling the shots. This is basic, foundational strategy for contingencies...
A) The contents of these experiences tend to swing toward "random and subjective, but in a funny, objective way" which would eventually, logically lead to the conclusion that e.g. mind control is directly available and usable--so why not use it like a government would?
B) Which experiences fall within this scope? Which do not? How could you start to identify them and develop an idea as to purpose?
And C) in the event of any disclosure from moles or leaks inside _any_ military that's involved, I would expect it to hit the fan very fast, on any side you can name.
The details are going to be key, and there are way too many hand-wave explanations that involve broad gestures toward "government stuff".
Again: I personally have no opinion on this, as to weapon or sky dolphins or aliens.
That's why I said--I have no opinion as to what it is. Why leap to conclusions in either direction, which just gets subjective way too early?
If you're saying, "it's probably..." then that's your call, but being so subjective, the attractiveness of having reached an answer so fast could also prevent you from learning that it's something else. A.k.a blindspot.
Col Halt is not a UFO researcher. He has other primary duties. David Fravor (the tic tac guy) does a good job on Lex Fridman's podcast of explaining why the folks that experience these things can't/don't/won't do anything about it. Basically it's somebody else's job. So don't blame them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-launched_cruise_missile
If you're throwing Tomahawks at the Taliban, you'll get longer range from a higher altitude approach, with little risk of being detected let alone shot down.
If you're trying to hit Moscow, by all means, try to avoid radar by going 50 feet off the ground.
The pilot was at 37,000 feet and said the object was above them. Commercial planes top out at about 42k feet and would have shown up on ADS-B. A U-2 flying at 60k would look like a long cylindrical object about the size of a cruise missile (in the same way a 747 looks small from the ground), and not show up on instrurments. Oh and they regularly fly out of Nevada to swoop down over New Mexico/Texas on their way to Mexico and Central America.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberia_Airlines_Flight_1812
Just doesn't make sense in a Bayesian sense.
https://ops.group/blog/the-problem-of-bullshit-notams/
They are testing hypersonic missile systems for both ABM and warhead delivery.
Sometimes the military misses a lot of items on the checklist, and accidentally ships a nuclear missile where it didn't intend [0]
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_United_States_Air_Force_n...
I wouldn't say "absolutely zero chance", but I'd say "it's unlikely this was an expected outcome, and it's possible that someone is in deep trouble right now."
> The Lockheed U-2, nicknamed "Dragon Lady", is an American single-jet engine, high altitude reconnaissance aircraft operated by the United States Air Force and previously flown by the Central Intelligence Agency.
Also, he’ll if we civilians know what kinds of retrofits have been made in the past several decades, particularly for the purpose of testing and development.
Due to retinal persistence you will see the part of an aircraft that is longest in the direction of travel (the body) more clearly than the wings. Only military aircraft carry radar, commercial planes depend on TCAS which requires the other object to be transmitting a beacon signal.
https://www.amazon.com/Command-Control-Damascus-Accident-Ill...
As long as they were not at commercially used altitudes, it seems to me that they wouldn't advise anyone.
https://youtu.be/BGoJl8Lr46g
https://youtu.be/WyeMyhKE5Yw
> Former CIA Director John Brennan thinks there may be life on other planets too. December’s Covid-19 relief bill included a directive to the Pentagon and intelligence agencies to share what they know about UFOs within 6 months. People with the highest of security clearances think there’s something out there.
> ‘Something’ of course doesn’t necessarily mean extraterrestrial in origin, even though New Mexico is home to Roswell…
https://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/ufos-the-centr...
Seems like that Covid-19 relief bill was about everything but the Covid-19 relief, lol
Found this in the article. This is close enough to "aliens!" if added to an article about airline incidents.
It's a strange thing - I don't think there's any conspiracy to create a cult, just a certain bias in the use of symbols makes "I couldn't explain what that was" become "intelligent creatures from other worlds created this effect".
The problem is, when UFO reports occur they invariably seem to objects that cannot fly by any sort of conventional aircraft physics:
a) There are no wings. Ever.
b) They are often reported as moving slowly or even hovering, which missiles cannot/would not do.
Thus UFO has come to be synonymous not with its literal meaning of a flying object that doesn't light up with proper ID codes on radar, but a flying object that is not merely unidentified but unexplainable. Unexplainable Flying Object would be a more accurate expansion given how it's used. That doesn't automatically imply aliens, but the whole "secret military breakthrough" angle is no more falsifiable than aliens are.
Almost a linguistic catch-22 version of the "ATM Machine" phrase. Not redundant, but guaranteed to be either colloquially misinterpreted, or technically incorrect.
It's kinda weird how words can just get coopted by popular use. Take calling someone a "Nimrod" -- before Loony Tunes, that would have been a compliment that meant "mighty hunter". But kids growing up in the 50s and on first heard it in when Bugs Bunny used it as an insult, contextually meaning idiot or bumbler or something -- which due to Loony Tunes' cultural influence is now the dominant meaning, supplanting the original biblical origin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimrod#Idiom)
Somehow confirming that it is not from Earth doesn't identify it. There are multiple types of flying objects, like planes and missiles, and could be multiple different aliens groups it could be from.
Depends. Let's take the opposite case, where the object has been determined to be of likely terrestrial origin (identifiable letters and numbers on a wing or tail), but otherwise still mysterious. Is it identified or not? How about if it is rumored to be US military, but officially no one will confirm or deny? How about if someone does officially confirm, but no specifics are available (so there is no project/program name, or branch, or model)?
Especially considering that official statements may be misinformation, at what point can we say that the FO is no longer U?
A similar continuum of identification specificity applies to non-terrestrial origins, all the way up to "Oh yeah, that was BortXd from Omega Draconis, he got drunk again at a tailgate party."
Would guess they both would prefer it if that wasn't in the news.
The interesting/curious/conspiracy-invoking concept is the unknown flying thing, whatever you call it. Whatever name you use will get associated with the interesting/curious/conspiracy aspect.
Also are commercial pilots not allowed to carry smartphones? Did the pilots not record outside the cockpit window with their phones?
Hearing of this UFO is pretty exciting, and it would be even more exciting to have actual photographs of it from official sources.
You know what happens to recon assets that frequent hostile airspace, don't you? There are legitimate reasons to not build functionality into something.
It would be, indeed.
There's probably a simple explanation for the fact that when the general public started carrying around high-quality camera equipment at all times, UFO/alien sightings went down and police brutality incidents started cropping up.
Apparently it's difficult to quantify the number of police use of force complaints, in part, perhaps, because there are so many different jurisdictions and they collect data and report (or not) differently. I'd bet on use of force complaints declining though, I'd bet it is directly related to crime, which I expect has also gone down.
One explanation for the above is that it is as easy as ever to see a UFO without video evidence. "I forgot to film it! It was so fast! My phone wasn't working! etc". It's also possible to create fake photos, either with props or taking pictures of things that aren't immediately identifiable, or with photo editing software. The existence of phones probably makes police brutality a little less likely, on the other hand, if it does anything, because police know there is an increased chance their subject/victim will be recording them or that someone else will be (or that their bodycams are).
1 - https://www.statista.com/chart/8452/ufo-sightings-are-at-rec...
They are called reconnaissance aircraft, and open you up to all sorts of fun stuff like compliance with arms control treaties. Also as a general rule, airlines and even private pilots don't like to pay (in fuel) to carry things up in to the sky that they don't need on a regular basis.
> Also are commercial pilots not allowed to carry smartphones?
Pilots are trained to follow one general principal above all else: "Just fly the airplane." The concept is further expanded to "aviate navigate communicate administrate," if you are ever wondering what you should be doing at a given time. Screwing around with your phone is nowhere on the list unless you are on scheduled break time.
Pilots can also operate a camera and many do record and share their travels on Youtube.
https://now.northropgrumman.com/hiding-in-plain-sight-the-ar...
If the pilot can see it, certainly a cam from inside the cockpit can see it.
I understand that planes aren't cars but... We have cars doing just that: recording absolutely everything in case something unexpected happen.
It's 2021: I'm sure airliners could have it at some point. It doesn't look like a feature too much out of a science-fiction movie.
And this would settle quite some of the UFO sightings.
I guess it didn't happen.
Still, it's most likely this is a US drone on a long range testing mission(or just flying off course due to a sw bug).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-91Nobn2xk
Anyone have any guesses?
Best guess I've seen was that it was a supply canister or drop tank. But it seems to pause in mid-air at 0:32, travel horizontally, and is over a civilian area where it seems unlikely that something would be dropped. It does look somewhat like a cruise missle but a lot slower.
It somewhat resembles the reflection from a strand of spider silk. Maybe something caught on a long strand of spider silk?
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax
People: "Theres no such thing as aliens, you're mad, its nothing"
> Foreign nation continues to send cylindrical drones into US airspace as no one cares