5 ms·

> It makes perfect sense- in the same way that your reflection in a mirror "demonstrates awareness of your presence." The commander in the video did not descri

> It makes perfect sense- in the same way that your reflection in a mirror "demonstrates awareness of your presence." The commander in the video did not describe it as being like a reflection. Why don't you watch his 6-minute testimony and then offer an informed opinion? > flight computers tracking the glitch would plausibly show it "performing maneuvers" that make no sense for physical objects, such as the ones you describe. This is an example of "coming up with less-extraordinary theories that contradict the evidence," as gfodor said[1], because you have asserted "glitches" in "flight computers" and ignored the pilots' eyeballs, which corroborated the radar contacts that had been observed over several days. 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20072598 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20072598

maxander 7y ago
I didn't say it was a reflection; that was an analogy. Obviously I don't think a bunch of qualified military personnel would be fooled by something that trivial. I think you're reading opposing viewpoints with an agenda. :) As for pilots' eyeballs- nothing I've read about this clearly states that anyone got close enough to get direct-eye-contact; most mentions of "visual" confirmation are talking about via cameras (and to me, the footage I've seen of it looks precisely like a camera artifact.) Also I wouldn't discount the possibility of a pilot, squinting to see a small distant object that his expensive flight equipment is insisting is there, simply hallucinating- humans are suggestible, and just as vulnerable to "sensor fusion" errors as prototype military hardware.
- noetic_techy 7y ago
  Watch the recreation, it buzzed more than one aircraft: https://youtu.be/PRgoisHRmUE https://youtu.be/PRgoisHRmUE Radar Contact + FLIR Contact (videos) + Human Eyeball confirmation by two types aircraft + multiple eyewitness testimony != a technical anomaly nor a hallucination

maxander 7y ago

I didn't say it was a reflection; that was an analogy. Obviously I don't think a bunch of qualified military personnel would be fooled by something that trivial. I think you're reading opposing viewpoints with an agenda. :) As for pilots' eyeballs- nothing I've read about this clearly states that anyone got close enough to get direct-eye-contact; most mentions of "visual" confirmation are talking about via cameras (and to me, the footage I've seen of it looks precisely like a camera artifact.) Also I wouldn't discount the possibility of a pilot, squinting to see a small distant object that his expensive flight equipment is insisting is there, simply hallucinating- humans are suggestible, and just as vulnerable to "sensor fusion" errors as prototype military hardware.

noetic_techy 7y ago
Watch the recreation, it buzzed more than one aircraft: https://youtu.be/PRgoisHRmUE https://youtu.be/PRgoisHRmUE Radar Contact + FLIR Contact (videos) + Human Eyeball confirmation by two types aircraft + multiple eyewitness testimony != a technical anomaly nor a hallucination