> Look, I love the idea of aliens, but try to apply Occam's Razor here. What's less complicated? I said nothing about aliens--you did. In fact, the only inter

> Look, I love the idea of aliens, but try to apply Occam's Razor here. What's less complicated? I said nothing about aliens--you did. In fact, the only interpretation I offered was that the object appeared to demonstrate awareness of the aircraft sent to intercept it. Everything else I wrote was simply reporting the observations of the pilots and naval radar. > An uncommon, but natural phenomenon in which a ball of plasma (or similar) is temporarily attracted to fast-moving, metallic aircraft. Did you watch the video I linked? Your explanation bears no resemblance to the phenomenon observed by the Navy: Radar contacts were observed over several days demonstrating bizarre yet consistent behavior. When an aircraft was sent to intercept, the pilot made visual contact with two objects, one beneath the ocean surface and one maneuvering erratically 20,000 feet in the air. The airborne object began mirroring the pilot's movements and then retreated when the pilot flew at it. Radar contact with the object was then established 60 miles away at the position the pilot was returning to, as if the object was anticipating the pilot's intended movement. In no way does the reported phenomenon bear any resemblance to "a ball of plasma attracted to fast-moving, metallic aircraft." > An advanced, spacefaring race (or races) travel to Earth and spend over 70 years pulling pranks on military pilots. I have not speculated on the provenance of the phenomenon--you have. > Again, I'm no physicist, but consider something like walking through a cloud of flying dandelion seeds. The air currents created by the person walking through the cloud create little vortices that tend to pull the seeds in their "wake" toward them. That doesn't mean the dandelion seeds are "aware" of the person they're being pulled toward. The charitable interpretation of your comments is that you haven't watched the video and listened to the commander's testimony--and why not? Alternatively, you have, but you're still posting these interpretations that bear no relation to the reported observations--and why would you do that?