5 ms·

If that's the case, why not read the pilots into the test, even at a summary level? If the Navy had told the pilots, "You just experienced an advanced technolo

If that's the case, why not read the pilots into the test, even at a summary level? If the Navy had told the pilots, "You just experienced an advanced technology test. Nothing to worry about" then they would have undoubtedly kept their mouths shut and not talked to the media.

therein 7y ago
I agree that would have prevented a lot of misunderstandings but Navy operates this way all the time. They prefer a somewhat "blinded" subject.
- lamontcg 7y ago
  Or someone just screwed up the human side of it.
- ALittleLight 7y ago
  The subject would still be blinded though. You could tell them after the fact. Then you get the real experience of a pilot encountering your system plus you get the added benefit that they won't tell people about the "UFO" they saw.
  - hinkley 7y ago
    But what about the next experiment? How are you going to keep the other pilots from figuring out they're test subjects? Especially if any word about the experiment got out. Swearing another pilot to secrecy versus letting them think you're nuts for the rest of your lives, I think they're gonna pick door #1.
    - maxharris 7y ago
      Isn't that a bit paranoid?
- thelittleone 7y ago
  Say this was some new aircraft or FLIR spoofing secret test and the US knows that (insert adversary country) intelligence is aware of the program. How would seeing this video affect the adversary? I guess what I'm saying is (whether real or fake) this could be a controlled leak for strategic benefit.
- typeformer 7y ago
  I think you know nothing about the Navy
kube-system 7y ago
Procedure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Need_to_know https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Need_to_know
dragonwriter 7y ago
> If that's the case, why not read the pilots into the test, even at a summary level? Because (1) need to know, and (2) fueling conspiracy theories to keep an appropriate background level helps when you want to dismiss actual conspiracy as a conspiracy theory, which the government periodically needs to do, and people can play their role in that best when they believe what they are saying.

therein 7y ago

I agree that would have prevented a lot of misunderstandings but Navy operates this way all the time. They prefer a somewhat "blinded" subject.

lamontcg 7y ago
Or someone just screwed up the human side of it.
ALittleLight 7y ago
The subject would still be blinded though. You could tell them after the fact. Then you get the real experience of a pilot encountering your system plus you get the added benefit that they won't tell people about the "UFO" they saw.
- hinkley 7y ago
  But what about the next experiment? How are you going to keep the other pilots from figuring out they're test subjects? Especially if any word about the experiment got out. Swearing another pilot to secrecy versus letting them think you're nuts for the rest of your lives, I think they're gonna pick door #1.
  - maxharris 7y ago
    Isn't that a bit paranoid?
thelittleone 7y ago
Say this was some new aircraft or FLIR spoofing secret test and the US knows that (insert adversary country) intelligence is aware of the program. How would seeing this video affect the adversary? I guess what I'm saying is (whether real or fake) this could be a controlled leak for strategic benefit.
typeformer 7y ago
I think you know nothing about the Navy

kube-system 7y ago

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

dragonwriter 7y ago

> If that's the case, why not read the pilots into the test, even at a summary level? Because (1) need to know, and (2) fueling conspiracy theories to keep an appropriate background level helps when you want to dismiss actual conspiracy as a conspiracy theory, which the government periodically needs to do, and people can play their role in that best when they believe what they are saying.