UFO Disclosure Group Releases Newest Navy F/A-18 Super Hornet UFO Encounter Video (cnn.com)

alaskana98 writes: CNN and other media outlets are reporting that the "To The Stars Academy of Arts and Science" group has released the third in a series of videos purportedly showing an encounter between Navy F/A-18 Super Hornet pilots and an object moving at seemingly impossible speeds off the East Coast of the United States. The video was captured by the Raytheon: Advanced Targeting Forward-Looking Infrared (ATFLIR) pod and includes audio of the pilots excitedly observing this object from far above as it zooms over the ocean surface. The ATFLIR system has trouble getting a lock on the object at first but then gets a lock on it eventually demonstrating that whatever this this was it wasn't a figment of the pilots imaginations. If the video is authentic there are indeed some strange things flying in our skies. The video can be viewed here.

Comments

Obviously

[I'm New Around Here]

They found Jonathon Livingston Seagull.

Show me some G force god damnit!

[BlacKSacrificE]

It's nice to see something flying in a straight line, but I'm not going to get excited till I see something move/bank/turn at a rate that exceeds current flight technologies. THAT will be impressive.

Re:Show me some G force god damnit!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's nice to see something flying in a straight line, but I'm not going to get excited till I see something move/bank/turn at a rate that exceeds current flight technologies. THAT will be impressive.

The vid we see is but a tiny portion of the entire flick
 
The portion containing "move/bank/turn at a rate that exceeds current flight technologies" are deemed to be not-for-civilian-consumption, and have been redacted accordingly

Re:Show me some G force god damnit!

[Hognoxious]

6/10.

The "<line noise> no carrier" or "BRB - door" is NOT optional.

Re: Show me some G force god damnit!

[c6gunner]

The portion containing "move/bank/turn at a rate that exceeds current flight technologies" are deemed to be not-for-civilian-consumption, and have been redacted accordingly.

Remember folks; if the data is missing, it's because the conspirators hid it. And if the data directly contradicts your hypothesis, it's clearly fake data planted by the conspirators!!!1!

Re: Show me some G force god damnit!

[houghi]

I wanted to verify your claim, but found no data on the subject. Ergo : you are right.

Re: Show me some G force god damnit!

[shaitand]

A set of assumptions that while self-reinforcing also has a higher probability of being the correct answer as one mass government conspiracy and/or cover-up after another is leaked/caught/revealed.

Re: Show me some G force god damnit!

[dwillden]

Actually the entire thing is a conspiracy planted by the conspirators to distract us from the real conspiracy, an attempt to cover up the fact that Al Bundy once scored four touchdowns in a game for Polk High School to win the High School City Championship for Chicago

Re: Show me some G force god damnit!

[Anonymous Coward]

The portion containing "move/bank/turn at a rate that exceeds current flight technologies" are deemed to be not-for-civilian-consumption, and have been redacted accordingly.

Remember folks; if the data is missing, it's because the conspirators hid it. And if the data directly contradicts your hypothesis, it's clearly fake data planted by the conspirators!!!1!

What I saw is consistent with a meteoroid approaching terminal speed after atmosphere entry.

Re:Show me some G force god damnit!

[Anonymous Coward]

That might imply that it's a spy craft either from another country or from the USA itself. Pilots aren't privy to all of the top-secret going-ons of the government.

Re:Show me some G force god damnit!

[Killall -9 Bash]

3/10.

No mention of "tin foil" in your conspiracy theory ridicule.

Re: Show me some G force god damnit!

[Killall -9 Bash]

Actually the entire thing is a conspiracy planted by the conspirators to distract us from the real conspiracy, an attempt to cover up the fact that Al Bundy once scored four touchdowns in a game for Polk High School to win the High School City Championship for Chicago

Actually this post is disinfo designed to ridicule the idea of fake conspiracies (like flat earth) being used to discredit real conspiracies (like fluoride in the water).

As usual, the fat super-nerds at the NSA are not as clever as they think they are, and we are not as dumb as they think we are.

Re: Show me some G force god damnit!

[Anonymous Coward]

The CONSPIRATORS are ALL-POWERFUL, but CAN'T STOP ME from posting to Slashdot. SIGNAL BOOST!!!11

Re:Show me some G force god damnit!

[lgw]

That might imply that it's a spy craft either from another country or from the USA itself. Pilots aren't privy to all of the top-secret going-ons of the government.

The one secret government coverup that actually worked (kept the secret for decades) was Project Blue Book. As the SR-71 was being invented and test-flown, there were simply going to be to many credible witnesses, to much footage like TFA. And what's the use of a spy plan the Commies already know about? So we hid the SR-71 in plain sight by treating every sighting as a UFO sighting, interviewing the witnesses about the UFO they saw, and leaking the program.

The Ruskies dismissed the inevitable leaking data as US UFO craziness.

Re:Show me some G force god damnit!

[mikael]

You haven't seen a flock of seagulls collapse into a singularity when someone throws bits of tasty food up into the air. Quite entertaining when you are high-school kids on a school trip to the coast.

Re: Show me some G force god damnit!

[mikeiver1]

Likely a type of cruse missile test or the like that was secret. Who cares until the parade the aliens out in front of us!

Re: Show me some G force god damnit!

[c6gunner]

Actually this post is disinfo designed to ridicule the idea of fake conspiracies (like flat earth) being used to discredit real conspiracies (like fluoride in the water).

That's an absolutely brilliant display of Poe's Law. Thank you!

Nothing to see

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like a weather balloon to me.

Re:Nothing to see

[Anonymous Coward]

even the former leader of your united states of america james earl carter jr thought he saw a ufo once
but it's been proven he only saw the planet venus.
venus was at its peak brilliance last night. you probably thought you saw something up in the sky other than venus
but I assure you, it was venus.
your scientists have yet to discover how neural networks create self contiousness,
let alone how the human brain processes two dimentional retinal images into the three dimentional phenomenon known as 'perception'
yet you somehow brazenly declare: 'seeing is believing''

Re:Nothing to see

[Anonymous Coward]

pffft, obviously light from venus reflecting off a weather balloon onto marsh gas. next!

Re:Nothing to see

[kdn102]

Love that episode! When my GF mentioned she has all of the X Files on DVD that was the first one we watched.

Re:Nothing to see

[cstacy]

let alone how the human brain processes two dimentional retinal images into the three dimentional phenomenon known as 'perception'
yet you somehow brazenly declare: 'seeing is believing''

I Want To Believe

Re:Nothing to see

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean the planet Venus, don't you? With just a touch of swamp gas! Over an inversion layer.

Re: Nothing to see

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong planet: I heard that pffft. The only marsh gas round here came from Uranus.

Re:Nothing to see

[Anonymous Coward]

Carter has clarified in interviews that he did not think it was an alien, merely that he witnessed an object he could not identify and, being a dutiful citizen, reported it. He *does not* think it was an alien.

Re:Nothing to see

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a bit far fetched, isn't it? The OBVIOUS answer is it's aliens who not only advanced to the level of manipulating space-time, but also somehow found our tiny speck of dust among infinite stars and also have immense interest in simplistic life and who somehow lack the technology to simulate or study that life from afar so they have to come here to put things into our butts.

Re:Nothing to see

[UnknownSoldier]

/sarcasm I thought it was swamp gas !

25kft?

[Balial]

They were flying at exactly 25k feet for the entire segment of that video?

Re:25kft?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, flying at a level altitude within relatively tight tolerances is one of the very first things they teach you when getting your pilots license.

Re:25kft?

[BlacKSacrificE]

A solid "B" on the ASQ-228 altimeter indicates the system was in barometric altitude mode (R would be RADAR altitude).. Perhaps the flashing means the area barometric pressure had not been set and as such, the altimeter is not to be referenced/frozen at the last known good altitude? Does seem odd now you have pointed that out..

Re:25kft?

[PolygamousRanchKid]

They were flying at exactly 25k feet for the entire segment of that video?

Alien feet, not human feet.

There's an equation to convert alien feet into the size of Wales, but it's too big to fit in the margin of this page . . .

Re:25kft?

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, just about every autopilot in existence has an "Altitude Hold" setting which only regulates the altitude you're at without any regard for flightplan waypoints, speed, etc. Altitude Hold even predates the fancier autopilot features of today like following GPS/VOR waypoints, because altitude hold only requires access to the pressure sensors (pitot and static) and doesn't require comm links or radios (like GPS does).

The altitude readouts (in my experience) never show the 'ones' digit of altitude and many don't even show tens, because that resolution isn't needed in most cases. If your flight path crosses another aircraft's flight path, it's not going to be 50 feet separating you vertically, it's going to be hundreds of feet (with the newest TCAS systems) or thousands of feet (Old TCAS). So at a bare minimum the aircraft has to move +/- 10 feet to change the readout, and during altitude hold the only time I see that happen is when faced with turbulence. Even in that situation, I rarely see the readout change. Autopilots are really good at maintaining altitude, heading, attitude, etc.

The only time you might care about 10s of feet is during landing, and you use a radar altimeter for that, which gives you altitude above ground level and is a totally different instrument from the pitot/static tubes that give you the barometric-corrected altitude above sea level.

Re:25kft?

[uvajed_ekil]

They were flying at exactly 25k feet for the entire segment of that video?

Which means that they weren't actually concerned/interested enough in that "object" to try to intercept it, got it.

Re:25kft?

[aaronb1138]

So it doesn't know where the nearest gas station is?

I want to believe, but

[Anonymous Coward]

tests to lock onto missiles or other high speed projectile? Sensor spoofing? Sensor hacking?

Re:I want to believe, but

[Aighearach]

Or just a bug.

I mean, seriously, the computer flipped a bit. This is evidence that the computer flipped a bit.

It tells nothing about if an object was even detected.

Sensors are useful when they're reporting information in their expected and well-calibrated regions. Odd-looking data does not imply an important observation, though it is certainly possible. Odd-looking sensor results imply a sensor problem.

Re:I want to believe, but

[GameboyRMH]

Theoretically, which particular bit might you flip on a computer to produce a fast-moving trackable object in a video stream and have the targeting system lock onto it?

Re: I want to believe, but

[guruevi]

All it shows is a video of the targeting system locking on an object that is surprisingly unperturbed by the atmosphere. It doesn't vary in distance, apparent size, doesn't shake or anything that would be considered normal when picking up an object, only slowly rotating as if it were locked in a fluid either right inside or outside the sensor itself.

Re: I want to believe, but

[GameboyRMH]

Before the targeting system locks onto the object we can see the same object flying across the screen multiple times as the camera attempts to track it. The behavior is otherwise normal for tracking an object at long distance. Those cameras don't shake like a dude with a camcorder.

Re: I want to believe, but

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? A bug at 25k feet going mach .6. Because for that sensor to pick up a bug like that it would have had to have been flying with the jet and been maybe a couple feet from the sensor. Not quite even remotely pissible in this realm of realuty. It picked up something moving fast 1000s of feet below it.

Re: I want to believe, but

[Anonymous Coward]

Were the pilots on drugs and hallucinating as usual then?

Re: I want to believe, but

[uvajed_ekil]

Really? A bug at 25k feet going mach .6. Because for that sensor to pick up a bug like that it would have had to have been flying with the jet and been maybe a couple feet from the sensor. Not quite even remotely pissible in this realm of realuty. It picked up something moving fast 1000s of feet below it.

Wait, mach .6 is a "seemingly impossible" speed? Since when? Even if this is supposed to say mach 6, we've seen things that fly that fast, like various rockets and experimental scram jets.

Re: I want to believe, but

[Dzimas]

Were the pilots on drugs and hallucinating as usual then?

You joke, but altitude hypoxia can result in disorientation, hallucination and mental impairment. At 20,000 ft, your blood is only capable of carrying 2/3 the oxygen it can transport at sea level. Trying to breathe air at 35,000 ft can result in as little as 15 seconds of useful consciousness. Part of your cockpit scan when flying with a pressure demand flow system is a visual check of the flow meter (which works like the little windows at gas stations that confirm the fuel is running) and the oxygen PSI gauge. It's a surprisingly low-tech piece of gear with big green and red toggle switches because when you *absolutely* need to verify that it's working, you need a Fisher Price-level user interface.

Re: I want to believe, but

[Anonymous Coward]

It became seemingly impossible when people started discussing an insect flying at it. Insects are not experimental scram jets or rockets.

Re: I want to believe, but

[Anonymous Coward]

Correction/update to this statement - in the context of the post you were replying to it's seemingly impossible (for a bug) - in the general context of the observed object, it would only be 'seemingly impossible' if it was behaving like the rest of the (claimed to be) related objects, and making frequent sharp (ie: 90 degree) turns.

The one in this video, for what is presented of it, is just going in a straight line, so yeah, not nearly as impossible, though most (not necessarily all) of the things that can go at that speed would leave a contrail. We can eliminate rocket right away for example.

Re: I want to believe, but

[guruevi]

My assumption would be for the camera to pick up atmospheric disturbances especially of hot objects at distance and the object would thus be dimming and brightening or appear to be shaking, even if the camera was somehow perfectly able to keep track of an object.

Re: I want to believe, but

[Anonymous Coward]

...but not too many insects.

Re:I want to believe, but

[Aighearach]

Whichever bit stores your conclusion about "is the tracking system locked on?"

What a silly question. You clearly don't understand what a "bit" is on a computer, or how it is used, or what flipping one means.

There was a single correct interpretation, and it was also the most obvious one.

Re:I want to believe, but

[GameboyRMH]

Nonsense. There is no one bit for being locked on to a phenomena visible on a video feed. It didn't lock on to nothing.

Re:I want to believe, but

[Aighearach]

You know you don't understand the basics of programming when you say that stuff.

Yes, there is a single bit that stores the boolean value about if the current state is "locked" or "not locked."

It didn't lock on to nothing.

Yeah, says who, Harry Potter? It locked onto something, and that something might very well have been nothing! Do you comprehend any of your own words? Waving your hands doesn't cause you to have knowledge of why the target lock indicator was or wasn't on you nincompoop.

Re:I want to believe, but

[GameboyRMH]

You know you don't understand the basics of programming when you say that stuff.

Funny, I'm beginning to think the same thing about you, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're not reading my posts carefully.

Yes, there is a single bit that stores the boolean value about if the current state is "locked" or "not locked."

Sure, quite likely there is. But like I said, there is no one bit for "lock onto this visible phenomena in the infrared video feed in particular."

Yeah, says who, Harry Potter? It locked onto something, and that something might very well have been nothing! Do you comprehend any of your own words? Waving your hands doesn't cause you to have knowledge of why the target lock indicator was or wasn't on you nincompoop.

It takes some seriously magical thinking to think that the visible thing that the system locked onto was also some kind of glitch that matches perfectly with the targeting system glitch. If you understand anything about how digital video signals work, you'd know that the odds of a glitch producing that flying blip in the video are roughly equal to the odds of a glitch superimposing images of a breakdancing William Shakespeare. Glitches in video tend to produce multicolored garbage that looks...glitchy, usually localized or banded coloring artifacts. The odds of the targeting system randomly locking onto the exact point in space that such an incredibly improbable glitch appears to be moving through are astronomical, making the possibility absurd.

Re: I want to believe, but

[david_thornley]

You're doing the wrong experiments, then.

Re:I want to believe, but

[Aighearach]

No, no, no, no, no, probability is not some blah-blah about Willy and his and his little plays.

There is a long history of this sort of sensor glitch, don't be so airheaded. You know you don't have any idea how likely it is, because you haven't ever looked into it enough detail. You just waving your hands and imagining a probability! But look up past examples, because sensor bugs are a real thing. Little fuckers crawl inside everything eventually, and when they get inside a sensor they die.

In this case it appears the crew just couldn't read their display, and had bumped a knob. But very similar things have happened again and again and again, and yet old Willy never shows up to a local book signing. He'd make a bundle for sure.

Re:I want to believe, but

[GameboyRMH]

There is a long history of this sort of sensor glitch, don't be so airheaded. You know you don't have any idea how likely it is, because you haven't ever looked into it enough detail.

Show me one example of one of these targeting systems glitching in a way that produces a clearly visible false object on the video feed, which appears to move independently of the video stream, and then locking onto it. Just one. I've now researched fighter aircraft sensor bugs and have found no such thing. The closest thing I've found is an F35 system locking onto a non-visible false target among a tight group of targets.

I know that the odds against producing the false object on video are already astronomical from my experience with video editing and data recovery. And considering all the combinations of position, speed, and direction possible in 3-dimensional space, the odds of the radar-guided targeting system then locking onto a false target that flawlessly and continuously matches those factors to those of a supposedly random false target on video is so thin that it would never ever happen before the heat death of the universe, even if you packed the universe with fighter aircraft targeting systems and bombarded them with ideal amounts of radiation to produce glitches from the big bang until heat death. Take a video file and try altering some bytes in a hex editor to see what happens. Let me know when you get something that even vaguely resembles a single moving object.

Re:I want to believe, but

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, there is a single bit that stores the boolean value about if the current state is "locked" or "not locked."

Not necessarily, it could be file not found!

Re:I want to believe, but

[Aighearach]

There is a long history of this sort of sensor glitch, don't be so airheaded. You know you don't have any idea how likely it is, because you haven't ever looked into it enough detail.

Show me one example...

No, look it up yourself and find out if you're right, or wrong. (Spoiler: Wrong!) Don't ask me to show you stuff, that's exactly why you're full of shit; people talk, you measure their personal Virtue, and if that measurement tells you they're somebody you like, then you believe them and repeat their blah-blah as if it was knowledge you learned. It isn't. It isn't knowledge, it is just rumor. It doesn't make you sciencey, it makes you an idiot.

Don't ask me to show you what I already told you the answer is. You should be able to easily look it up from objective sources, without having to ask me what sources are high quality. If you need to get that meta-data from the same source as the data you're trying to verify, you're just getting taken for a ride, you're not participating in discussions, or even collecting the information necessary to do an analysis before coming to conclusions!

I know that the odds against producing the false object on video are already astronomical from my experience with video editing and data recovery.

LMFAO! No. Just, no.

Re:I want to believe, but

[GameboyRMH]

No, look it up yourself and find out if you're right, or wrong. (Spoiler: Wrong!)

You assert that these astronomically improbable bugs have happened, I try to find when they have and failed, I ask you to show me these occurrences that you say you know about, and next you assert that I'm wrong for not finding them and you won't tell me why? Do you see how full of shit this makes you look?

Don't ask me to show you stuff, that's exactly why you're full of shit; people talk, you measure their personal Virtue, and if that measurement tells you they're somebody you like, then you believe them and repeat their blah-blah as if it was knowledge you learned. It isn't. It isn't knowledge, it is just rumor. It doesn't make you sciencey, it makes you an idiot.

Where the flying fuck did this come from? I'm simply asking for evidence of your extraordinary claims! I've already given you far more credibility and respect than a jackass nonsensemonger deserves. I'll take that back if you show evidence. Show me this evidence you allege exists, I fucking dare you.

Don't ask me to show you what I already told you the answer is. You should be able to easily look it up from objective sources, without having to ask me what sources are high quality.

I TRIED. THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU. SOURCE OR IT DIDN'T HAPPEN AND YOU'RE A FULL-OF-SHIT PEDDLER OF LIES.

LMFAO! No. Just, no.

I have experience, you have "LMFAO, No." Maybe there's hard evidence of complex realistic visible phenomena arising from random bit-flipping in digital video streams somewhere in the same hard-to-find source you refuse to share?

UFO

[aepervius]

UFO means unknown flying object. UFO does not mean alien. Just my 23 cents to those who will jump to conclusion. My own hypothesis are that the explanation are immensely far more likely to be something mundane which cannot be proven but neither can it be discarded, e.g. some dust before the equipment, insects or equally mundane stuff. Alien do not even come in the top 5.

Re:UFO

[Anonymous Coward]

But if you can't identify something then that is proof it is aliens. or ghosts. or a secret government project. or aliens.

Re:UFO

[aepervius]

I am assuming that you are saying this in jest, but since some people are truly thinking that, let me clarify : unknown means you have no strong evidence of what that could be. That does not mean that the least likely explanation suddenly jump to the forefront. It is just means that you cannot conclusively assign an origin. In fact many UFO are known to have been very likely mundane (venus in the sky, some plane crash from their angle and orientation stating they were chasing an UFO actually have a strong likely explanation pilot mistook a sky body like venus for an UFO, another one from many decades earlier was probably a blimp, the form described by the people and the movement certainly correspond to a blimp, etc...), but since there is no *conclusive* evidence which we unmistakenly can assign, then they stay as "UFO" as unknown. Think of it that way : if you die isolated in the wood, you will be only "missing" but unless somebody find the body there is no strong evidence you died there, or you skipped to a new life, or were abducted by alien. So you are an "unknown life sign" unless your body is found. But if you were lost in a forest where we known there are wild animals and people get lost and die of exposure.... Then a strong hypothesis is that you were lsot. You still be left as "ULO" until your body is found and identified ;).

Re:UFO

[taylorius]

It seems to me you're trying to have it both ways here. If it's merely dust, or an insect, or some other other mundane occurrence fooling the pilots' sensor, then it would be the sort of thing that happens somewhat regularly, that the pilots would be used to dealing with. Given their excitement, this event is clearly not usual from the pilots' perspective, (who presumably know their equipment well, given they use it every day)

Re: UFO

[Anonymous Coward]

So you are saying it is definitely the ghosts from an alien government's bigfoot.experiment! Time to update my news letter to TimeCube!

Re:UFO

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems like a common failure mode of human logic. "I don't have an explanation for ..." therefore "it must be aliens / deities / fairies / insert-that-thing-you-want-to-believe-in-but-struggle-to-find-evidence-for."

"We don't know" / "insufficient data" just seems to freak some people out.

Re:UFO

[Aighearach]

I see UFOs all the time, usually they turn out to be insects. Sometimes birds.

Personally, I'm not even convinced they saw an object other than their sensor readout screens. And if an object was involved, it might only be "flying" in the sense that it is inside a sensor and the sensor is flying.

Re:UFO

[Aighearach]

Wait, so you're saying that because something happens, it must be common? And if it isn't common, it must not be a known thing?

Wouldn't it make more sense that if it a mundane sensor occurrence, then it is uncommon or rare, because the pilots are exited by it?

Notice how far off of logical your answer is? You have evidence that it is uncommon or rare, and you take that to mean that if it was the most likely explanation, it would have to be common instead. Because the pilots have more experience with common readings. There is no reason to think that at all.

Re:UFO

[Martin S.]

Being mundane does not mean it is common.

Re:UFO

[taylorius]

>Wait, so you're saying that because something happens, it must be common? And if it isn't common, it must not be a known thing?

I don't think I said anything along those lines.

>Notice how far off of logical your answer is? You have evidence that it is uncommon or rare, and you take that to mean that if it was the most likely explanation, it >would have to be common instead. Because the pilots have more experience with common readings. There is no reason to think that at all.

It certainly *could* be something rare, yet mundane, however the two examples given - dust on the sensor or an insect, don't strike me as the sort of things that would fool pilots who are well used to operating such machinery. (That does not imply that I think it is an alien spaceship, though)

Re: UFO

[Anonymous Coward]

UFO in the context of military files released to the mainstream media has a particular meaning: distraction from aeronautical research and testing that might be publically observable. Once enough credulous people think there might be aliens out there, any civilian reports of incredible phenomena that might, upon serious investigation, unmask some Skunkworks' latest OXCART or AURORA, will be rejected as UFO hysteria by serious-minded folks disgusted at the simplicity of the credulous.
My takeaway from this is that the military would like you not to notice some new reconnaissance or weapon technology currently being tested at sea (probably hypersonic weapons like the Russians recently demonstrated), so they have mocked up some grainy, unrelated UFO footage for you to ponder instead.

Re: UFO

[Anonymous Coward]

And, continuing you incredibly insightful train of thought, the sensor issue manifest itself as some kind of object appearing on a separate video feed which behaved in just the same way that the sensor was *misbehaving*.

Re:UFO

[Anonymous Coward]

Dust or insect seem unlikely, do you have any other bad ideas. It's obviously alien.

Re:UFO

[Anonymous Coward]

This also lacks stealth tech. If it were Aliens, perhaps we can take comfort in knowing we have a technological leg up...

If it were a government secret weapon, its also not using the latest tech, which might mean a test or a foreign governments tech who lacks stealth.

Just some things to think about....

Re:UFO

[Anonymous Coward]

It's bitztream the autism-hating, custom EpiPen-hating, Musk-hating, Qualcomm-hating, Firefox tabs-hating, Slashdot editors-hating Slashdot troll!

Re:UFO

[swb]

I think you're discounting the experience of fighter pilots. They have hundreds (some thousands) of hours of flight time and a lot of experience not to mention a lot of classroom education devoted to understanding aviation platforms they will encounter and the complexities and contradictions involved in tracking other flying objects (many of which may not be manned, like missiles). They're literally world-class experts at in-flight interception of flying objects.

If these guys are surprised and mystified by something they encounter in flight, I'm willing to accept it's a pretty unusual anomaly. It doesn't mean little green men, but the other extreme implies they're inexperienced or naive, which is even less likely.

Re:UFO

[Anonymous Coward]

> UFO means unknown flying object. UFO does not mean alien.

Makes me want to slap a fool every time someone declares, "ufos dont' exist! only idiots believe in ufos!"

Talk about idiots.

Re:UFO

[Anonymous Coward]

Most fighter pilots I've met have been the biggest buffoons in existence. Sure, they've learnt a lot about flying planes, but they're mostly jackasses with chips on their shoulders and egos big enough to make them horrible people to hang around with.

Re:UFO

[jon3k]

I think you're discounting the experience of fighter pilots.

What is the experience of these particular fighter pilots? Have we asked any other fighter pilots with more experience what it could be? It honestly didn't even seem to be going that fast to me, just that it was close to the water. It was also flying in a very straight line. It could be a cruise missile test, who knows?

Re:UFO

[shaitand]

"You have evidence that it is uncommon or rare, and you take that to mean that if it was the most likely explanation, it would have to be common instead"

If you are talking about an uncommon or rare explanation than it is hardly the most likely... it is unlikely, to the point of being rare. Determining that a blimp is more likely than Aliens is mostly just bias.

Re: UFO

[Type44Q]

Wait, so you're saying that because something happens, it must be common?

Apparently there's just no discussing this without the brilliant autistic nerds working themselves into a frenzy... "It simple can't be...!" What none of us realize is that when we get frustrated and/or upset (and this subject is particularly frustrating to those who only tend to use their left hemisphere, and upsetting to those who derive comfort from their firm, inflexible view of "reality"), it greatly reduces our ability to think clearly, hence comments such as the one above...

Re: UFO

[Anonymous Coward]

A rare software bug that Raytheon wouldn't want to admit? Impossible!

Re:UFO

[Anonymous Coward]

> UFO means unknown flying object.

No, it means "United Fruitcake Outlet."

Re: UFO

[Anonymous Coward]

So, you were either logistics (i.e. box kicker) or a tanker pilot whe you were in the military, amirite?

Re:UFO

[swb]

My sense is that flying an F/A-18 SuperHornet off an aircraft carrier crosses a threshold of experience that makes their expertise sufficient. The existence of other fighter pilots with more experience doesn't disqualify these specific pilots' experience or expertise.

It could be a cruise missile test, who knows?

I suspect that these pilots have either the instruction, instrumentation, experience or ground controller feedback to know that it's not a conventional cruise missile. Neither you nor I have any experience with this in-flight imagery platform besides a handful of YouTube videos to even remotely analyze the movement of this object or its possible genesis. This whole video boils down to the pilots' reactions as experienced military aviators in combination with the imagery platform's video.

Now, all this being said, my larger analysis of the "event" this and its companion video is that it's not improbable that the objects they saw were advanced weapons or aircraft systems being tested out of any of the regional Air Force bases. They were flown in close to a carrier/group conducting training specifically to blind test existing combat tracking systems against their development platform. A carrier conducting training in otherwise safe waters is unlikely to respond with live munitions, especially against an unknown object not presenting an objective, immediate threat and the possible testers knew this ahead of time.

The larger idea being if some new drone/flight platform isn't identifiable by our Navy or their aviators, it's not going to be identifiable or maybe even detectable by Russian, Chinese or other hostiles with lesser systems and pilots.

Re:UFO

[Anonymous Coward]

But if you can't identify something then that is proof it is aliens. or ghosts. or a secret government project. or aliens.

or global warming

Re:UFO

[Anonymous Coward]

UFO means unknown flying object. UFO does not mean alien. Just my 23 cents to those who will jump to conclusion. My own hypothesis are that the explanation are immensely far more likely to be something mundane which cannot be proven but neither can it be discarded, e.g. some dust before the equipment, insects or

...a meteoroid at terminal speed just before splash down.

Re:UFO

[Anonymous Coward]

In December there was that article about the Pentagon official who said "UFOs existence is proven beyond a reasonable doubt."

"I hate to use the term UFO but that's what we're looking at," he said. Well, duh. If you haven't identified it, it's clearly a UFO.

"I think it's pretty clear this is not us, and it's not anyone else, so no one has to ask questions where they're from."

Indeed.. if it's not us and not anyone else, the question is moot. Do you need to see a Venn diagram of that assertion?

Re:UFO

[Anonymous Coward]

But if you can't identify something then that is proof it is aliens. or ghosts. or a secret government project. or aliens.

Exactly! Just like how I wasn't there to witness the moment of Obama's birth (and track him until the elections, to be sure he wasn't switched with a double) so he must have been born in Kenya, or Indonesia, or he's a reptilian alien, and has a FAKE birth certificate. Finally, someone who understands logical reasoning.

Re:UFO

[Anonymous Coward]

Dust can be common without dust that causes false sensor contacts being common or impossible.

It's analogous to seeing a face in your toast. Toast usually has patterns on the surface from uneven heating while being toasted. However it's rarer that the patterns are recognized as a face by the human brain's facial recognition behavior, and even rarer that the "face" passes for an image of Jesus.

This could be the infrared sensor equivalent of toast-Jesus. A common occurrence like dust (more likely water droplets) that normally produces noise the system filters out instead produced noise that happened to match a pattern it was set to categorize as a flying object resulting in a false sensor contact with implausible properties for a flying object (because it's not detecting an actual flying object).

Re:UFO

[jon3k]

he existence of other fighter pilots with more experience doesn't disqualify these specific pilots' experience or expertise.

I'm not trying to disqualify anyones opinion, I'm just pointing out the huge continuum between "first flight off a carrier" and someone flying for 20 years. It's entirely possible they just haven't seem something like this before.

Neither you nor I have any experience with this in-flight imagery platform besides a handful of YouTube videos to even remotely analyze the movement of this object or its possible genesis. This whole video boils down to the pilots' reactions as experienced military aviators in combination with the imagery platform's video.

I've got less than that, I have no idea. I agree unless this was something they just weren't aware of, something secretive being tested. Being a military aviator doesn't mean you've seen everything, or even most things. Shit, even someone REALLY experienced might not have seen this particular thing, or maybe it's so new no one's seen it. There's just so many possibilities. While I agree based on my laymen's understanding of the term UFO, this is a UFO - it's something flying that we can't identify. I just worry about all the people who immediately jump to "aliens".

Re:UFO

[Anonymous Coward]

They have hundreds (some thousands) of hours of flight time and a lot of experience not to mention a lot of classroom education devoted to understanding aviation platforms

Not to mention the thousands of demonstrations wherein they shoot down their wristwatches.

Re:UFO

[k6mfw]

John Pike said someone sees a light in the sky. What is it? A weather phenomena? An airplane? A satellite? An alien spacecraft? Or just a light in the sky? It all depends on what movie you saw the night before.

Re:UFO

[swb]

I'm just pointing out the huge continuum between "first flight off a carrier" and someone flying for 20 years.

They don't let just anyone take off and land $70 million dollar fighter planes from a ship at sea. These guys have years of instruction and hundreds of hours of flight training before they ever set foot on an aircraft carrier.

So even a "green" pilot is neither inexperienced or uneducated, but I highly doubt the military would have allowed a newly minted carrier pilot be involved in intercepting these things. The odds are extremely in favor of these pilots being very experienced Naval aviators.

Re:UFO

[angel'o'sphere]

but the other extreme implies they're inexperienced or naive, which is even less likely.
Come on :)
They are americans, what do you expect?

Re: UFO

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually an astrophysicist with a keen interest in flying, so I met a lot of military pilots (both former and current) through general aviation.

Re: UFO

[Aighearach]

Just because you're bigoted against people with disabilities doesn't make you smawt or knowy or whatever, man.

It also obviously doesn't even imply you can read, since you didn't comprehend any of the points I made. I can tell because you said a bunch of weird stuff about "can't be" blah blah, and I wasn't using absolutes at all. In fact the points I did make were highly critical of that sort of attitude.

It shouldn't really be any surprise, as soon as you use language of bigotry it is obvious you're an idiot.

Re:UFO

[Aighearach]

Uh, you know, it all depends on if you've already narrowed it down or not.

Like, at first you don't think of any good explanation at all, so everything seems unlikely, both common reasons and uncommon reasons.

If you then have a bunch of circumstantial evidence that points at uncommon reasons, (for example, in the past lots of things of this nature have turned out to be insects stuck inside an oil lense in the sensor, or something like that) then that uncommon reason to have a problem is the most likely that you know of. It does not matter if the average sensor never gets a bug stuck in it. Totally irrelevant.

Just like, demographically some person might have some probably of getting cancer that is greater than 0%, and less than 100%. But an actual individual at a particular time doesn't have that % chance; they either have it or they don't. It is either 0%, or 100%. All the time. The probability being in between only represents a lack of knowledge about both current and future events and states. So in the story, you can know that all the different types of sensor ghosting are uncommon or rare problems to have with the sensor, and yet they might still be the most likely explanation for the observation.

Re:UFO

[Aighearach]

I heavily discount all words that all people say. Especially words that describe the person's experience. In cases such as this where I have video, I usually end up thinking they were clueless about what they saw, but made up an explanation anyways!

I do not care if they're purported to be "experts." But in this case, they're not experts in sensor design at all, they're just experienced in a field of endeavor that causes them to sit in from the sensor readouts for long periods of time.

I'd expect them to be full of well-established misunderstandings about the technology, rather than having somehow gained engineering knowledge simply from the radiance off an engineered object.

Last year I had a pilot trying to sound really knowy and insisting he knew all about weather radar, and I realized in less than a minute that he couldn't even identify the minutes vs hours on the timestamp that is printed on the radar animation frames! Even after pointing it out to him, and where you can just look at the screen and verify by the pixel velocity which units would even be reasonable, he was still unable to admit the error. Why? Because pilots are really really macho. This guy didn't even know the difference between the raw sensor data and the "qualified precipitation data." He flies in airplanes that have proprietary realtime weather radar, which is great, but he's so clueless about the difference between the different products he doesn't even realize that they're different; the realtime one shows rain that doesn't even get to the ground, because it is designed for pilots, and the weather service product shows a map where the precipitation is probably getting to the ground. But if you don't know the difference, having the extra data doesn't actually help you to plan. He can't comprehend that there are different products, because when he thinks about radar he only has room for "better" or "worse" types of thinking. He can't hold it in his brain that they're both better for different uses, and the proprietary one for pilots is expensive simply because there are very few people who benefit from knowing about rain that is falling from the clouds but not reaching the ground. The government doesn't do that measurement, so pilots pay for it. Duh. But he can only see, "me have expensive data, me better, gubermind dunt no bout wethur."

Yes, they are inexperienced at sensor engineering, and yes, they are naive about the realities of quality control. See, being pilots doesn't give them magical knowledge of other fields, even fields that build tools for use by pilots!

Re:UFO

[Aighearach]

The whole "just anyone" stuff is just pure logical fallacy, though, right?

Pure.

It literally does not matter who they are. Or who you see them as.

If a virtuous person is wrong about what they see, the Universe does not bow to their superior Virtue and change reality to match what they thought they saw. So clearly measuring your perception of the virtue that sticks to them because of their occupation is not going to make any logical difference as to what it was that was pictured on their sensor readout.

Re:UFO

[Aighearach]

As can be learned from Winston Churchill quotes, it doesn't really matter if we might be experienced and wise, we still tried all the other answers out for size before settling on what we knew was Right.

There is absolutely no way to judge from the actions of American military personnel if they are inexperienced, naive, have a clever plan, or are just plain nuts. This is actually by design. It is explained somewhat in the movie The Lost Battalion.

Re:UFO

[UnknownSoldier]

> Pentagon official who said "UFOs existence is proven beyond a reasonable doubt."

Here is the quote:

In an interview with British broadsheet The Telegraph published on Saturday, Luis Elizondo told the newspaper of the sightings, "In my opinion, if this was a court of law, we have reached the point of 'beyond reasonable doubt.' "

Source:
http://www.newsweek.com/ufo-ex...

Re:UFO

[shaitand]

"It is either 0%, or 100%. All the time."

How pre-quantum that philosophy is. All I'm saying is that radar ghosting and blips are little like religion in that you've picked something that can be used to explain away anything without a requirement for evidence. That is called faith. Which isn't to say faith is always misplaced but when we do something of that sort we should do it with eyes wide open so we are open to it when some evidence to the contrary comes up.

Blimps and weather balloons are a pretty rare sight for most of us and often things like this are dismissed simply because it is possible for someone to figure out how to model them or some equipment malfunction to create some similar result. But that is additional evidence of those possibilities being possibilities not that they are the right possibility. Aliens are a possibility so likely that there is contentious debate about whether it is even statistically possible for them to not exist and manifest naturally. If you replaced Aliens with just about anything else in the previous sentence we would pursue chasing it down with extreme scientific vigor but because of bias against Aliens we will accept any potential alternative explanation in place of them. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence but how extraordinary is something that is statistically extremely probable to manifest naturally?

Re:UFO

[david_thornley]

If you see a flying object, and can confirm that it's an alien spacecraft, it's no longer a UFO.

Re:UFO

[RespekMyAthorati]

Or a North Korean missile badly off course.

Re:UFO

[Anonymous Coward]

It could be a cruise missile test, who knows?

In IR we should see the hot exhaust gases.

Re:UFO

[Aighearach]

Quantum doesn't add anything but "I don't know," and you should already be sorting based on that.

Re:UFO

[jon3k]

I think it depends on who's turn it is and who's ready to go. This is assuming they were dispatched specifically to intercept this and didn't just run into it on some training mission. Again, there is a huge range of experience in pilots, we don't know how experienced these guys are or what they've seen. And of course it might be something even experienced pilots would be unfamiliar with.

This is stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

This is ridiculous. Obvously they're not laughing a the fact that there is a flying white dot on the screen, they're laughing at people believing it is a flying ufo.

it is not. On the other hand, it is a gauss gun projectile.

Re:This is stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

People are stupid

Re:This is stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

You are people, therefore, you are stupid.

I'm glad we had this discussion.

Re:This is stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Some people are more stupid than others.

Re: This is stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Would an intelligent person need to post on a website to other people to explain that? Whom does that benefit? How is that a good use of their intellect?

Re: This is stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not gauss gun projectile, it's an experimental black-ops drone.

Re: This is stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Hopefully to encourage people not to post UFO stories in the future and make this a better website.

Let's try UFOs!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Damn it, we can't even keep them fixated on and distracted with this 'POTUS n' Pornstar' thing. Let's try UFOs!"

The Chinese

[Anonymous Coward]

They Chinese aren't wasting most of their huge military budget on foreign wars, and all that money has to be going on something. Despite what many Americans believe, China has some incredibly intelligent people who are highly capable of developing highly innovative technology. It isn't unreasonable to suspect they could have developed a hypersonic aircraft that can fly at low altitudes. This is probably a more likely explanation than aliens.

Re: The Chinese

[Anonymous Coward]

^this!

The technologically advanced civilization is known as âoeChinaâ

Flying high?

[petes_PoV]

The accompanying audio does not sound like "highly trained" personnel. It sounds like a couple of (stoned?) jocks playing a video game. If that is the standard of professionalism for fighter pilots, then it explains a lot about recent armed conflicts.

Re:Flying high?

[DNS-and-BIND]

Wow, that's a step up from the usual criticism of the US military as murderers, monsters, uneducated deplorables, baby-killers, etc. If the best you can come up with is that their standards of elocution don't match what your never-served mind imagines fighter pilots must be like, I can only conclude that the US military has made great strides of improvement.

Re:Flying high?

[Aighearach]

So you're saying if they sounded like stoned jocks playing a videogame, it would somehow be impossible to notice, because Freedom Fries? Did I get your complaint right?

Re:Flying high?

[DNS-and-BIND]

Your inaccurate recapitulation of my argument reminds me of when the BBC interviewed Jordan Peterson and ignored everything he said. I'm saying if that's the worst criticism you can come up with, it's a big step forward. Typically people like you use vile slander. This is very mild. It's like people coming out and admitting Trump is not actually Adolf Hitler. So, you know, Progress!

Re: Flying high?

[Nidi62]

Ever been around fighter pilots? They are jocks. To be fair though, you have to have a jock kind of mindset and ego to be successful at that job.

Re: Flying high?

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you never seen Top Gun? For Goose's sake!

Re: Flying high?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. This guy might be retarded.

Probably stoned like the pilots.

Re:Flying high?

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting, let me check. Here is a picture of Adolf Hitler. Let's compare this with a picture of Donald Trump. Darn, you're right! No resemblance!

Re:Flying high?

[ceoyoyo]

When a couple of F-16 pilots dropped a bomb on allies in Afghanistan, part of their defence was that they were high on speed (as ordered), so possibly not that far off.

Re:Flying high?

[nintendoeats]

I've been around military personnel who thought they were alone. When they aren't in a Life Or Death situation they can be immensely childish. I'm not saying for a moment that there aren't some very smart and respectable people working for every nation's military, but on average the culture is deliberately dumb and it's not where the best and brightest tend to go.

Re:Flying high?

[nintendoeats]

And further to this point: http://www.darwinawards.com/da...

And?

[Gravis Zero]

Why has /. stooped to the level of publishing UFO conspiracy bullshit? I call it bullshit because it lacks any substance of real information. "The video is of something... but we don't know what exactly but it's definitely a thing!" Great... when you find out what it is then you will have a story. Until then you should stfu.

Re:And?

[taylorius]

You do know what the letters UFO stand for, right?

Re:And?

[Anonymous Coward]

They haven't stooped to the level of your spelling and grammar yet at least.

Re:And?

[Anonymous Coward]

You do know what the letters UFO stand for, right?

Based on the parents comments, obviously not.

Re:And?

[Anonymous Coward]

Given that this story was run yesterday by CNN/HuffPo/BusinessInsider/NavyTimes/PopularMechanics/Newsweek/more (both sides of aisle, business section, trade section), and my wife and I discussed it over dinner yesterday, I think that this one is fair game for picking up on /.

This is a story. Notably, the USMilitary encountered a large number of these regularly (as determined from recent Senate hearings), and has recently had the funding reduced to 0. Not sure what the real story is, but could be anything from "aliens are real and the military has been investigating them for a long time" to "General X uses the 'alien' money to get drunk with strippers and is pissed as hell that the funding got cut so he released a fake alien video to the newmedia to get the program refunded".

Re:And?

[kamapuaa]

The organization releasing the details clearly believes UFOs are aliens. They also apparently believe in telepathy, and a bunch of other wacky sci-fi bullshit.

UFOs in common parlance means little green aliens from Pluto. Don't be pedantic.

It can mean whatever you want...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want, you can choose to think this means basically whatever you want.

Bugs/spiderweb in front of the camera, aliens here to warn us of Trump that showed up too late, water reflection onto the optics, angels here to warn us of Trump too late, a laser pointer tracking the craft, or demons in the sky celebrating that it's too late for us to prevent Trump.

Any of them could be possible... and because of that, it doesn't really mean any of them. Like countless angel/fairy/alien/moving spot 'videos' that last a few seconds, aren't controlled or properly repeatable, and are of very suspect content that could be recreated in several available ways.

Posting anonymously because skepticism suffers from a rather nasty praise/punishment ratio in today's America.

Re:It can mean whatever you want...

[sysrammer]

Obama did it.

It was clever the way he misdirected his enemies ire; for instance those FEMA concentration camps. He had you all up in arms (pun not intended) about how he was going to banish his foes to the camps. Of course, nothing came of it. That never was the plan.

The actual plan is in its final fruition. Those staging camps are now manned by his minions: the drones are being deployed (and of course are being called UFOs, a useful deception); they have tricked MSM into being the mouthpiece for their propaganda program; and a motivational/instructional documentary was released worldwide (one of the more successful training videos ever made...receipts have reportedly just passed the $1 billion mark).

Cruise missile test?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seemingly impossible flight speeds sounds like a ground hugging scramjet test to me, maybe with some sort of heat resistant or ablative cover to ensure it makes it to the target.

Sufficiently fast and you wouldn't be concerned about the light effect, so long as it can outpace radar tracking.

Who knows, it could've been the US Government testing it on their own pilots before giving it a try out in the wild.

Re:Cruise missile test?

[Anonymous Coward]

> so long as it can outpace radar tracking.

Evade radar tracking, you mean?

To outpace it, you'd have to move faster than light.

/r/conspiracy

[Anonymous Coward]

wtf is this doing here?

Re:/r/conspiracy

[sysrammer]

wtf is this doing here?

This is where we discuss unidentified anonymous cowards.

Small meteoroid in free fall

[skoskav]

My turbo research before I'm off to work is that it could be a small-ish meteoroid in free fall. It appearing as a cold white object in the IR-camera's "black mode" could be due to it still retaining the near-zero Kelvin temperature from space, though I'm unsure how the atmospheric entry would have affected that.

Noted scientific skeptic Phil Plait's article on a possible event such as this: http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad...

Featured video (1m 50s in): https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:Small meteoroid in free fall

[GameboyRMH]

That makes a lot of sense. If it broke off of a larger meteoroid after entry it easily could've remained cold.

avoid blue aliens

[Anonymous Coward]

they may seem sexy but they will destroy you

Not all that fast

[Lonewolf666]

If you follow the video from 1:35 to 1:55, the range displayed on the screen drops from 4.4 nautical miles to 3.4.
That's 0.1 mile per second or 185 m/s. The speed of the F18 itself and the shifting angle makes calculating the speed of the UFO more difficult, but it looks looks like the object is approaching the plane rather than flying away. So part of the 185 m/s are from the F18's own speed. As a rough guess, the thing was doing perhaps Mach 0.5. There are a lot of man-made objects that can do that. A drone maybe?

Re:Not all that fast

[Anonymous Coward]

185 m/s? That's 666 km/h!
Coincidence? I don't think so... This UFO is clearly some sort of winged demon.

Re:Not all that fast

[willy_me]

So, the same speed as the F18. The object could be stationary and the perceived speed is the result of the observer moving towards the object. The moving background would just be an optical illusion resulting from the fact the observer is moving. All the sudden, it really does look like a weather balloon.

Re:Not all that fast

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a depressing commentary on the state of the Navy when slashdotters know more about operating F18s than their pilots, despite extensive training.

Or perhaps they do know what constitutes something anomalous and we don't know more about operating F18 detection pods than they do.

Re:Not all that fast

[deadwill69]

Yes. A Gulf Steam IV or V. Also many other private craft. Looks like a drug run to me flying fast and low to avoid radar and no lights to avoid detection. Still left an IR signature though. I totally agree with the speed calculations. More hype than substance about something that can be easily explained. Wish I had points.

Re:Not all that fast

[jandrese]

This is so often the case with UFO conspiracies. You find one out of the ordinary situation and embellish the crap out of it to make it sound mysterious.

Claim: UFO was making impossible maneuvers!
Evidence: UFO appears to be flying in a straight line

Claim: UFO was moving at an impossible speed
Evidence: UFO was traveling at about Mach 0.5

Claim: UFO was at an impossible altitude
Evidence: UFO was flying low, possibly to avoid civilian radar.

Claim: UFO disappeared from RADAR suddenly
Evidence: UFO flew out of RADAR range.

This is why it is so hard to take these claims seriously. The people who make them have long since lost all credibility outside of their echo chamber.

Re:Not all that fast

[deadwill69]

Sadly you are correct. It's almost impossible to have any kind of discussion with these people about how they are viewing it incorrectly. They know somebody that's a friend of a friend and they said it so it must be right. Happens all to often.

Re:Not all that fast

[epine]

If you follow the video from 1:35 to 1:55, the range displayed on the screen drops from 4.4 nautical miles to 3.4.

Yes, and then the video ends for no apparent reason, with the mysterious object still locked.

Most probable explanation: ET caused a malfunction of some kind in the recording gear.

Re:Not all that fast

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly you are correct. It's almost impossible to have any kind of discussion with these people about how they are viewing it incorrectly. They know somebody that's a friend of a friend and they said it so it must be right. Happens all to often.

Who is this "often" and why must all of it happen to him or her?

Re:Not all that fast

[FormOfActionBanana]

That's 360 kts!

Re:Not all that fast

[mcswell]

1 (nautical) mile / 20 seconds = 0.05 miles/ second = 180mph (about 90 m/s), about Mach 0.23 at sea level.

Re:Not all that fast

[Anonymous Coward]

If you follow the video from 1:35 to 1:55, the range displayed on the screen drops from 4.4 nautical miles to 3.4.
That's 0.1 mile per second or 185 m/s.

1:35 to 1:55 is, by my math, 20 seconds.
4.4 to 3.4 is one.
So I figure 0.05 miles per second. Or 92.6 m/s.

Re:Not all that fast

[fedos]

Their method of assessing the evidence is the same as flat earthers use for evaluating satellite photos of the Earth. Look at an image, ignore context, and declare things to be impossible because your lack of training and experience in the subject matter leaves you unable to understand what you're seeing.

Parallax movement for stationary object

[DrTJ]

The motion of the water is upwards/right. If they were filming with a constant pan/tilt the water would appear moving down/left given their heading.
Now, they locked the camera tracking at the object (at somewhere between 0 and 25k ft) and that would make the water appear to move upwards/right even if the object wasn't moving at all, due to the parallax effect. This is similar to how a street light appears to move relative to the background (when you look at it, i.e. track it), while the background and the light in fact are stationary, you're just changing perspective when you drive along the road.

So, it is entirely possible to get this effect with a very slow moving, or even stationary, object due to the parallax. The "apparent fast linear motion" is also consistent with the fast linear motion of the aircraft.

It could be a drone, a bird, or even a bag floating in the air. To tell otherwise, one would need more information, primarily the of the FoV of the camera.

Re:Parallax movement for stationary object

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely the experienced fighter pilots (2 of them) would know this and be less excited.

Re:Parallax movement for stationary object

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably not, their routine is so boring that they get excited about any change.

What’s the deal with the weak old news?

[Anonymous Coward]

This has become a daily occurance here. Old news, and 32 total people commenting on each article = dying slashdot.

Re:What’s the deal with the weak old news?

[Anonymous Coward]

Stick a fork in it mate, this place is done.

Re:What’s the deal with the weak old news?

[Anonymous Coward]

Stick a fork in it mate, this place is done.

Are you a bot then if no one reads or comments here anymore? Wait, am I a bot?

The lock on means a solid object

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact the pilot locked on to the object for tracking makes this a very credible piece of video. What it is can be up for discussion. But I clearly can tell from the difficult time at first the pilot had at first locking on that the object was moving fast and did not have any wings. Not many objects come to mind that can fly very fast without wings. For myself having saw several orange objects at night that were not of anything I have ever seen before. I think something from somewhere else is definitely here. Maybe pilots don't know what, but I'm pretty sure those high up in governments know what is going on.

Re: The lock on means a solid object

[c6gunner]

But I clearly can tell from the difficult time at first the pilot had at first locking on that the object was moving fast and did not have any wings.

I clearly can tell that you pulled that conclusion out of your ass.

Re: The lock on means a solid object

[Anonymous Coward]

What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I’m the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You’re fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little “clever” comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You’re fucking dead, kiddo.

Re: The lock on means a solid object

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck off bitch

Re: The lock on means a solid object

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is the US taxpayer funding a war against gorillas?

Re: The lock on means a solid object

[Applehu Akbar]

"...I am trained in gorilla warfare "

Mano a mano?

Re: The lock on means a solid object

[Anonymous Coward]

banana a banana

Re: The lock on means a solid object

[pr0nbot]

Mono a mono

Re: The lock on means a solid object

[Anonymous Coward]

They kept losing to sand monkeys so they had to find something easier to fight?

Re: The lock on means a solid object

[Anonymous Coward]

So, you are all of thirteen, then?

numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda

If they are secret, why are you talking about them?

300 confirmed kills

Were they confirmed by your mom, or just the friends you play with on that COD server?

gorilla warfare

It's not warfare until you give the gorilla a gun. Otherwise that's just poaching.

top of my class in the Navy Seals ... access to arsenal of United States Marine Corps

Hate to break it to you kid - the Navy Seals are NOT part of the Marines. Now, get upstairs, your mother needs the trash taken out.

Re: The lock on means a solid object

[c6gunner]

I see the Counterstrike crowd has migrated to Slashdot.

Re: The lock on means a solid object

[Sporkinum]

Jocko homo.

Re: The lock on means a solid object

[SinGunner]

Magilla a Magilla

Re: The lock on means a solid object

[Jodka]

Why is the US taxpayer funding a war against gorillas?

For the Gorilla Channel.

Re: The lock on means a solid object

[david_thornley]

Mario a Mario?

Re: The lock on means a solid object

[Anonymous Coward]

The "banana for scale" was, unfortunately, eaten by the gorilla.

impossible conclusions from the evidence

[bloodhawk]

The video doesn't seem to provide evidence of "impossible speed", without knowing the distance to the object the angle of the camera plus the movement of the jet could mean this is anything from impossible speed to a slow moving object that the camera is making appear fast.

Re:impossible conclusions from the evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe the equipment in question has a FoV of 1.5 degrees.

Re:impossible conclusions from the evidence

[uvajed_ekil]

The video doesn't seem to provide evidence of "impossible speed", without knowing the distance to the object the angle of the camera plus the movement of the jet could mean this is anything from impossible speed to a slow moving object that the camera is making appear fast.

The speed we've seen mentioned here is mach .5 or mach .6, which has not been refuted, so the "impossible speed" hype of the summary (and headlines elsewhere) seems to be some over-excited and misleading BS, as expected.

Re:impossible conclusions from the evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

The sensor gives you a bunch of data.

The little square at he top left corner indicates the direction in which the sensor is looking with respect to the aircraft centerline, more or less. Top middle, is either track angle or aspect angle.

To the right, you have 190Vc (closure in knots).

Bottom left, own aircraft speed (0.61M).

So, the contact is on the left side of the aircraft, flying something close to a reciprocal heading. It's hard to judge speed but it's not that high.

A strange thing is that the object appears to be colder than the sea, and that's about it - and even that depends on my interpretation of the imagery.

Basically, pretty much nothing particularly strange happening here in terms of technolgy - the question is, what is that thing and who does it belong to?

Re:impossible conclusions from the evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

The speed of .5 mach was suggested on this forum, so please do not start propagating this info as fact as it fails to take into account a number of things that would greatly vary the calculated result, (distance to target seems to be pretty important here guys).

As far as everything else being said about how mundane this must have been, you really do need to listen to what the guys are saying, they simply would not be getting this excited about something travelling a normal speeds making normal maneuvers, as they see that all the time. Carriers offer considerable informational support to their fighters, had this been anything identifiable the carrier would have been relayed that information to them (pilot and co-pilot), although we didn't see any fantastic maneuvers (camera lock was very steady), we can infer based on the excitement in the voices of the pilot and co-pilot that something about what this object is doing is reasonably outside the norm.

Re:impossible conclusions from the evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

insufficient to draw any conclusions.

The thing that worries me

[MrKaos]

If there is an alien civilisation that has arrrived here recently creating all these weird booms that would mean all of those in control or our government wouldn't be the supreme power on our planet and who will comfort us from scary things?

Worst of all they would have to answer to a more technologically advanced race for being assholes and fucking up the planet we live on. I don't think anyone wants that so even if it is true we should just make up as many reasons as we can so we don't have to answer for anything.

UFOs and aliens are a figment of our imagination. I know, for absolute 100% sure that there is no such thing, I've checked everywhere I go and I haven't seen anything in my city, even on my phone. Obviously anyone who has seen something like this must be falsifying there experiences.

People should not forget, if an alien civilisation came here, the government, military and all the oil companies would be the first to relinquish control, hold hands with us all and sing 'Kom By Yah', therefore aliens and UFOS don't exist.

Re:The thing that worries me

[Anonymous Coward]

If there is an alien civilisation that has arrrived here recently creating all these weird booms that would mean all of those in control or our government wouldn't be the supreme power on our planet and who will comfort us from scary things?

Based on our own ability to leave this rock we call Earth, it's pretty obvious if we did have an alien visitor who would be the supreme power. There won't be any comforting provided; they'll be shitting their pants like the rest of us.

Worst of all they would have to answer to a more technologically advanced race for being assholes and fucking up the planet we live on. I don't think anyone wants that so even if it is true we should just make up as many reasons as we can so we don't have to answer for anything.

Uh, let's try and not assume why an alien species might be visiting us. Chances are when WE finally have to leave our planet, it will be because we fucked it up beyond repair. Those visiting us might have suffered from the same damn fate.

People should not forget, if an alien civilisation came here, the government, military and all the oil companies would be the first to relinquish control, hold hands with us all and sing 'Kom By Yah', therefore aliens and UFOS don't exist.

Not according to damn near every movie we've ever written on this subject. Fight to the Death comes to mind here as to what governments would do.

Re:The thing that worries me

[MrKaos]

it's pretty obvious if we did have an alien visitor who would be the supreme power. There won't be any comforting provided; they'll be shitting their pants like the rest of us.

Aliens coming here would see just how peaceful we are and say "Hey, let's go visit the highly evolved primates on #0422, they are so welcoming!" but since there is no such things as Aliens with technology millions or billions of years ahead of us and it's not possible that they've always been here, this discussion is just a theory.

Uh, let's try and not assume why an alien species might be visiting us. Chances are when WE finally have to leave our planet, it will be because we fucked it up beyond repair. Those visiting us might have suffered from the same damn fate.

Obviously for the steak - WHAT DO YOU THINK CATTLE MUTILATIONS ARE! and why would *we* leave. Anything that happens now is a problem for future generations, so we will be ok, I'm sure they'll sort it out!

Not according to damn near every movie we've ever written on this subject. Fight to the Death comes to mind here as to what governments would do.

How dare you! The US military has been the greatest force for peace, period. If they knew about UFOs and alien civilizations they would tell us all because it is the right thing to do. They have all of our best interests as their Number One priority. They don't want to have control, they don't have any hidden 'interests' they need to protect. The US Military is a humane organization and to our knowledge they have never hurt anyone on purpose that didn't deserve it.

Do you think all those nuclear missiles pointing at targets in other countries are there to be used, they're MAD about peace, so what alien *wouldn't* want to come and visit? They can see WE'RE A PEACEFUL RACE.

Lun Ekranoplan

[The Grim Reefer]

It looks like Putin has an updated version of the Lun Ekranoplan

Looks like a sea-skimming missile

[Zorpheus]

Could be an anti-ship missile, a cruise missile, or maybe even a sea-skimming plane.

Re:Looks like a sea-skimming missile

[AHuxley]

Yes the talk of getting "it".
China, Russia, private sector or the UK is not sharing again.

Re:Looks like a sea-skimming missile

[Zorpheus]

The Russians are just testing the new hypersonic Kinzhal missile. It can go up to Mach 10, who knows how much it is still at sea level.

Re:Looks like a sea-skimming missile

[uvajed_ekil]

The Russians are just testing the new hypersonic Kinzhal missile. It can go up to Mach 10, who knows how much it is still at sea level.

This thing was moving far SLOWER than any missile I'm aware of. That means it must be aliens.

instrumentation error?

[Anonymous Coward]

before even errors in interpretation (people seeing what they want to see), has anything been done to rule out instrumentation error? please do not forget that the USAF is filled with people who "want to believe" (whether it is some sadistic sky god or aliens)

Sigh.

[ledow]

I absolutely agree 100%.

It's a UFO. It's apparently flying (but that's not proven). It's apparently an object (but that's got a given either). And we don't know what it is.

And?

To be honest, it fits all the classic hallmarks of "UFO as aliens" sightings, from the scale, to the speed, to being just a blob. I'm really disappointed that people are still doing this stuff in 2018...

But I'm much more disappointed that Slashdot sees fit to make an article of it.

Re:Sigh.

[Anonymous Coward]

O, I don't agree.
I didn't read the article (nothing new there).
I didn't watch the video.
What I did, was read the comments. The comments alone makes it worth /. posting this, imo.

Re:Sigh.

[Anonymous Coward]

It is an object, as the image is through the FLIR pod which indicates heat differences. Inanimate objects blend into the background as they are at the same temperature as ambient. So, this object was either very much colder or hotter than ambient (implying energy is being expended in or on the object).

where was is going

[Anonymous Coward]

Was it heading for Antarctica?

Sorry

[Anonymous Coward]

Apologies, it was me. Just testing the drone delivery system.
--Bezos

4 stars, molten

[Anonymous Coward]

Quick delivery by Amazon drone but some of the chocolates in the box were molten so I will subtract 1 star.

UFO != Aliens

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to know how fast this was going... Could be a drone! :D

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

That's no moon

[grahamlee]

It looks like a TIE fighter. [yes, thank you, I know it's the HUD that looks like a TIE fighter]

Let's go to the film...

[jddj]

"Here's the official, stolen, government training film of the secret plan to deal with an alien uprising."
(Martial music swells in the background)
(NCO-In-Charge Commentator): "Classified ultra-secret! Air Force generals only! Ten-hut! At ease mens, take your seat!"
(The General): "This is General Curtis Goatheart. If you are viewing this film, then we are under extraterrestrial attack. Beware- your brain may no longer be the boss! If you are beginning to doubt what I am saying, you are probably hallucinating. Listen carefully!"
(One second burst of ringing alarm bell)
(NCOIC): "What to do if an alien appears! ONE!"
(The General): "Drop beneath the seat of your plane and look away."
(NCOIC): "TWO!"
(The General): "Avoid eye contact."
(NCOIC): "THREE!"
(The General): "If there are no eyes, avoid all contact."
(One second burst of ringing alarm bell)
(NCOIC): "How to identify alleged sightings! ONE!"
(The General): "Pie plates, or as reflections in the atmosphere."
(NCOIC): "TWO!"
(The General): "Dry cleaning bags filled with marsh gas, or..."
(NCOIC) "THREE!"
(The General): "Mass insanity!"
(One second burst of ringing alarm bell)
(NCOIC): "How to inform your wife, and others under your command!"
(Bugle blowing reville in the background, faint drumbeat, soft clatter of dinnerware)
(General's Wife): "...Can I freshen that up for you?..."
(The Colonel): "I don't know how she got that requisition..."
(General's Wife): "Oh, she gets it in the back..."
(The Colonel): "Well, she's not allowed to have them unless she's..."
(Another Officer): "Unless she's related to the (undecipherable) of the PX..."
(Sound of a spoon repeatedly striking a water glass)
(The General): "Honey and men- I have something awesome to reveal to you."
(The Colonel): "Well, go ahead, sir."
(General's Wife): "Go ahead."
(The General): "Two flying saucers have just landed on my plate."
(Long moment of silence)
(The Colonel): "Well, turn away sir- I'll eat them."
(Nervous laughter)
(Sound of a spoon repeatedly striking a water glass)
(The General): "Men- our greatest fear is realized- we are under attack from superior consciousness."
(The Colonel): "The eggs, sir?"
(The General): "They're only the beginning."
(More nervous laughter)
(Another Officer): "Can I have some more of those flapjacks?"
(The General): "All right, men- questions? Questions?"
(The Major): "Ah, sir?"
(The General): "Yes, Major?"
(The Major): "Ah, pass the ah, syrup, General?"
(The General): "That's a good idea, Chuck, but syrup won't stop 'em!"
(Another Officer): "But, sir..."
(The Colonel): "Ah, sir?"
(The General): "Colonel?"
(The Colonel): "Are you nuts?"
(The General): "H-Hmmm! That is just exactly what they want you to believe! (chuckle)"
(The Colonel): "The eggs, sir?"
(The General): "Let's just call them 'the phenomena' "
(The Colonel): "Well, if I may respectfully submit, sir, I think you've got your phenomena
scrambled, General."
(More nervous laughter)
(General's Wife): "What about my eggs, dear?"
(The General): "Honey- they're in- everybody's eggs!"
(The Colonel, slightly sarcastically): "Good lord!"
(Faint drumbeat, soft clatter of dinnerware in the background)
(The General's wife begins sobbing hysterically, but softly)
(Another Officer): "I think I'm going to have to leave this table..."
(The Major): "...another cup of coffee, sir- settle you down a bit..."
(NCOIC): "CONCLUSION!"
(The General): "They think he is insane. Yet he outranks them. His option- command!"
(NCOIC): "ONE!"
(The General): "He seals off the area."
(NCOIC): "TWO!"
(The General): "Secures the cooperation of local officials."
(NCOIC): "THREE!"
(The General): "Obtains expert scientific susistence (sic)."
(NCOIC): "FOUR!"
(The General): "Evacuates all government employees, and..."
(NCOIC): "FIVE!"
(The General): "...bombs aliens back to stone age!"
(Martial music swells up in the background)
(NCOIC): "END OF FILM!"

Re:Let's go to the film...

[sysrammer]

+1 FT

"If it proves to be authentic"

[Anonymous Coward]

For fucks sake /. What the fuck happened to you??

If all of the posters above are 30 yrs of age...

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems to me the turn of the century, and on, produced some very closed minded, lazy, docile, self-centered, consumer generation individuals.

Compared to the previous turn of the century that generated some incredible leaps, advances and progress in every sphere of life thanks to some truly open minded individuals, this turn of the century so far appears to be reversing 100 years of that.

This World has a pretty sad future then, if you are to "take over" the torch of leading it forward, with this kind of drivel I read here. And I guess "baby boomers" promised you that you will inherit our World, so now all you do is sit and wait for it, while the generations in-between toil and keep you, and them alive.

I'm very saddened to be in this world with you...I can only hope that these truly *are* ETs, so I can kindly ask them to take me some place else.

Wow!

[OneHundredAndTen]

With evidence like that, who can deny the truth? Seriously, this is just another one in the long series of videos of lights in the sky, that can be just about anything. Proof of ETs it ain't. Provide solid, irrefutable proof, not this nonsense.

Re:Wow!

[careysub]

Yep, pretty much. These videos come accompanied by a wall of hype about showing amazing things. But nothing amazing appears in the video. Same as the last one. It is always an object locked dead center in the camera, showing no sign of "maneuvering" and with the apparent motion quite possibly entirely due to parallax and the aircraft itself.

And this stuff is being pushed by a guy who is making money from this hype. This is a commercial venture, converting gullibility into cold hard cash legally. He is using his former status in the government to monetize his retirement.

Wakanda Forever

[Glenstorm]

They'll be making an announcement next week regarding new initiatives to share their technology with the rest of the world.

Clearly a "sea skipper"

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone figured out how to make a sea skipper. You know, like a skipping stone but propelled. It would be rather fuel efficient. The control issues are the problem + the variability of the ocean surface. AI + lidar maybe?

Starting to think this is an advertisement

[MTEK]

Anyone know whether Raytheon's AN/ASQ-228 is available for export?

Re:Starting to think this is an advertisement

[Anonymous Coward]

From Wikipedia..

ATFLIR presently is used only by the US Navy on the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and the earlier F/A-18C/D and with Marine Corps F/A-18Cs when deployed onboard aircraft carriers. It is normally carried on one of the fuselage hardpoints otherwise used for AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles. 410 pods were delivered to the U.S. Navy. Pods have also been delivered to Switzerland and Australia, and six pods will be delivered to Malaysia.

Re:Thanks for the autoplay clickbait, Miss Mash!

[Anonymous Coward]

Somebody needs to shadow-ban you and all other off-topic trolls.

Ban everybody from 4,000,000 up. All trolls.

Re:Thanks for the autoplay clickbait, Miss Mash!

[kilfarsnar]

Interesting. Indeed, Hillary has KKK links. Why was Slashdot so gung ho on pushing her and insistent that Russians inserted mind control slugs into all Americans and remote controlled them from Siberia or whatever the conspiracy was?

You guys are great. The Blue team sucks! No, the Red team sucks! No, the Blue team sucks! America is going down the tubes because all you can be concerned with is cheering for your team and shitting on the other one.

How about we remember that we're all Americans? How about we come together and work on the stuff we agree on? You know what? You can find people in both parties that have "ties" or "links" to the KKK. I could point out that the KKK enthusiastically supports Donald Trump. So the fuck what?

Targeting drone for calibrating tracking systems..

[Anonymous Coward]

Dumbass. The excitement is about his the tracking performs... But the object being tracked.

Levels of evidence [Re:Wow!]

[Tablizer]

"Solid, irrefutable proof" is not necessary to establish a legitimate mystery. There's a difference between the evidence threshold needed to establish "legitimate mystery" and "they are space aliens". The second indeed requires a very high level of evidence.

The witness evidence is incredible, I'd note. In the 1950's there was a military plane with a skeleton crew who watched a flying metallic disk in broad daylight roughly 40 feet from the plane. It looked clearly metallic and clearly like a manufactured/artificial item. The crew never sought publicity, and if anything, were freaked out by it.

The military being this open about military sightings is rather unusual. They usually are much more wiggly. This would normally trigger big news and a rush of talking heads, but that orange dude overshadows news interest. Coincidence? I'm just asking.

Re:Ahh Parallax

[Tablizer]

Somebody is a bag of hot air

HUD/targeting/tracking system artifact

[mnemotronic]

Don't assume the software is perfect just because it has "US Government" stamped on it.

Fast?

[s0lar]

Impossible speeds they say? Didn't Putin mention hypersonic weapons in his speech?

Run! Hide!

[Anonymous Coward]

The smooshed bugs are coming! The smooshed bugs are coming!

Re:Thanks for the autoplay clickbait, Miss Mash!

[lgw]

Somebody needs to shadow-ban you and all other off-topic trolls.

This is Slashdot. We started with trolls and they're part of the culture, from appy apps to cows to GNAA. You seem to be looking for Reddit.

2 Year old repost

[drrck]

This video has been on Vimeo for two years already. Apparently posted by a SFX guy... https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Looked like a drone to me...

[PortHaven]

Not at all UFO in behavior IMHO.

In fact, my first thought was either a drone, or the testing of a new "ground effect" torpedo, which glides just above the surface of the water allowing it to travel significantly faster than a traditional torpedo, while simultaneously be very difficult to target and take out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Why we don't have these already I will never know. Sure, they won't be as effective in 30ft swells. But still would be a great tool to have available.

Re:What's the deal with the weak old news?

[Anonymous Coward]

Beep, boop.

No Alien Feet

[Anonymous Coward]

The Aliens don't have feet, they have pseudopods. Everyone knows that!

Re:Thanks for the autoplay clickbait, Miss Mash!

[Swave An deBwoner]

Thank you for an informative link (quoted from below).

Before his death, in 2010, Byrd was the longest-serving senator in the country’s history. Throughout his career he made many attempts to amend for drawing in 150 members to the Klan, and for attaining the position of “Exalted Cyclops.”

Those attempts led the National Associated for the Advancement of Colored People to issue a statement in praise of Byrd upon his death, and for Clinton, when she was secretary of state at the time, to comment on his passing. She started the video commemoration by saying, “Today our country has lost a true American original, my friend and mentor Robert C. Byrd.” Clinton also said that Byrd had been “the heart” of the U.S. Senate.

Still, unlike white supremacist and former Klan leader David Duke—who praised Trump following the president's press conference Tuesday—Byrd renounced his experience with the hate group.

Well, there was this several years ago going MACH6

[jkg2]

https://www.extremetech.com/ex...

Induction

[psone]

From data collected by a sensor at th edge of its specs we make a handful of inductive inferences: it travels, by flight, fast, at a low altitude, with little to no observable turbulence. Thatâ(TM)s still far from solid proof that itâ(TM)s actually an aircraft with unseen capabilities. It might be a UFO, at best it may be a UAP.

Re: Thanks for the autoplay clickbait, Miss Mash!

[Anonymous Coward]

Your getting it backwards.

Clinton loving a klan member. Candidate, evil.

David Duke liking Trump. Evil, candidate.

See the difference?

Re: Thanks for the autoplay clickbait, Miss Mash!

[Swave An deBwoner]

Donald Trump's timeline on David Duke indicates that DT is either DT a cowardly liar (not a cowardly lion - that's from a different movie) or had some serious memory problems:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/03/01/donald-trump-and-david-duke-for-the-record

1991: David Duke: Bad man.
2000: David Duke: Bad man.
2015: David Duke: "I don’t know anything about him."

Shadow

[Anonymous Coward]

Object is shadow of a Jetliner at 37,000 feet. Stupid 10 million dollar sensor!

Re:Thanks for the autoplay clickbait, Miss Mash!

[Anonymous Coward]

ah, GNAA... that takes me back