3 ms·

I'm a fan of military aircraft theories. Both videos are off the US coast in waters patrolled by military. The perfect place to test something you don't want a

I'm a fan of military aircraft theories. Both videos are off the US coast in waters patrolled by military. The perfect place to test something you don't want anyone else to find if it crashes. And over the ocean, the best place to test something radioactive. I think nuclear drones could have this kind of physics defying performance. It's funny to think the US would build thousands of nuclear reactors, weapons, boats, but no planes. Especially when they were proven viable in the 60's. There's nuclear planes out there. Probably drones. I'm sure of it

blincoln 6y ago
The objects in the Navy footage behave basically the same as the WWII-era "foo fighters" that the article mentions. Seems me that this eliminates the "advanced aircraft built by humans" explanation. I also think it's extremely unlikely that any hypothetical aliens would have the technology to send vehicles to the Earth, but be unable to do better than semi-randomly swarm around warplanes for decades. IMO, it's an obscure natural phenomenon, like red sprites, and we just haven't figured out what it is about the environments whete they've been encountered that makes them more likely to be seen by military aviators and less so by civilian aircraft. I'm far from the first person to suggest this, but one of the recurring problems with imagining alien encounters is that we tend to base it on encounters between different branches of the human race, e.g. the First Nations meeting European colonists for the first time. But statistically, what are the chances of intelligent life evolving on another planet and developing spacecraft at anything close to the same time as we did? Basically zero. Either they haven't even developed electrical systems yet, or they did so hundreds of thousands or millions of years ago. If we ever run into spacefaring aliens, they won't have vehicles that are the equivalent of an F-22 to our Sopwith Camel or even an ancient Chinese warship. They'll have technology that's so far beyond our own that we may not even be able to understand why someone would want to accomplish what it does. i.e. as Alastair Reynolds once put it, the equivalent of trying to explain to a stone-age proto-human what ETERNAL BLUE is. We won't even have the context to understand.
- postalrat 6y ago
  I think you can view biology as an advance technology that is far beyond our understanding and capability to reproduce. We don't have any of the problems you claim we would when trying to understand it.

blincoln 6y ago

The objects in the Navy footage behave basically the same as the WWII-era "foo fighters" that the article mentions. Seems me that this eliminates the "advanced aircraft built by humans" explanation. I also think it's extremely unlikely that any hypothetical aliens would have the technology to send vehicles to the Earth, but be unable to do better than semi-randomly swarm around warplanes for decades. IMO, it's an obscure natural phenomenon, like red sprites, and we just haven't figured out what it is about the environments whete they've been encountered that makes them more likely to be seen by military aviators and less so by civilian aircraft. I'm far from the first person to suggest this, but one of the recurring problems with imagining alien encounters is that we tend to base it on encounters between different branches of the human race, e.g. the First Nations meeting European colonists for the first time. But statistically, what are the chances of intelligent life evolving on another planet and developing spacecraft at anything close to the same time as we did? Basically zero. Either they haven't even developed electrical systems yet, or they did so hundreds of thousands or millions of years ago. If we ever run into spacefaring aliens, they won't have vehicles that are the equivalent of an F-22 to our Sopwith Camel or even an ancient Chinese warship. They'll have technology that's so far beyond our own that we may not even be able to understand why someone would want to accomplish what it does. i.e. as Alastair Reynolds once put it, the equivalent of trying to explain to a stone-age proto-human what ETERNAL BLUE is. We won't even have the context to understand.

postalrat 6y ago
I think you can view biology as an advance technology that is far beyond our understanding and capability to reproduce. We don't have any of the problems you claim we would when trying to understand it.