3 ms·
Sensor artifacts don't account for first-person eyewitness testimony from airforce pilots so they're out. Either the pilots are telling the truth or they're ly
by creamytaco 5y ago
Sensor artifacts don't account for first-person eyewitness testimony from airforce pilots so they're out.
Either the pilots are telling the truth or they're lying. Sensor artifacts are totally implausible in both cases.
- giantrobot 5y agoEyewitness testimony isn't actually worth all that much, even from pilots. At any given time there's thousands of planes in the air at a variety of altitudes. There's also bright satellites, stars, and astral bodies. Between any given pilot and those things is a lot of turbulent atmosphere (even in the clearest weather), a canopy, and often sunglasses or a helmet visor. Even for a trained pilot the reference-free venue that is the sky is a bit mind bending. Even something the size of an airliner looks like an indistinct pill from a few km away. Atmospheric ducting [0] can make a plane too distant to pick up on radar visible to the eye or an EO/FLIR sensor. There's also the pesky habit of "eyewitness" accounts being absolutely terrible. Someone can claim to have "seen" an object while they only did so through their plane's cameras. They think they remember "seeing" the thing so that's their story. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_duct https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_duct
- creamytaco 5y agoI suggest you familiarize yourself with some of that eyewitness testimony because everything you wrote simply does not apply: https://youtu.be/ZBtMbBPzqHY?t=459 https://youtu.be/ZBtMbBPzqHY?t=459 If you have more to say that you'd also want me to address, it better be directly relevant to the events described in this video.