3 ms·
This isn't the most unreasonable idea, are their movements really consistent with balloons, though?
by aalleavitch 7y ago
This isn't the most unreasonable idea, are their movements really consistent with balloons, though?
- js8 7y agoThey flew towards it, it was static, and then it rapidly shifted to the left as they overtook it close from the right.
- aalleavitch 7y agoIt wasn’t static, though, it was traveling at Mach 0.5
- klatuu 7y agoThere is more than one incident. In one incident (2004 Nimitz FLIR1, west coast), the object is static and then initiates non-newtonian acceleration. In the next (GIMBAL, undated, east coast), the same behavior of static hovering with non-newtonian motion. In another, your example (2015 GOFAST, west coast) a slightly different elongated object is cruising at Mach 0.5 at low altitude, close to the water.
- tomatotomato37 7y agoThe upper atmosphere is a mess of violent winds, so it wouldn't be out of the ordinary. Don't forget a weightless balloon is a lot more sensitive to turbulence than a multi-ton computer-stabilized fighter jet, and those winds can already drop a multi-hundred-ton 747 by tens of feet.
- aalleavitch 7y agoBut they’ve been seen traveling against the wind at high speeds