5 ms·
They do, in fact all the time. You just don't hear about it because of stigma. See this NARCAP (civilian flight safety) report https://www.narcap.org/blog/nar
by stevenhuang 4y ago
They do, in fact all the time.
You just don't hear about it because of stigma.
See this NARCAP (civilian flight safety) report https://www.narcap.org/blog/narcaptr20 https://www.narcap.org/blog/narcaptr20 for a case where a FedEx flight crew documented an encounter with the commonly reported pulsating orb type anomaly. There is a video.
Observed behavior:
> The UAP/Light came from above and stopped/hovered near FL37, about the same altitude as the aircraft, shone a light on the 767 and briefly approached the aircraft. Then it instantly matched the speed, and heading of the aircraft and maintained a consistent separation.
a. The light descended vertically, stopped abruptly, and shone a light on the 767 causing the crew to believe that there was another airliner on a collision heading with its landing lights on.
b. It changed direction from vertical descent to a sudden stop/hover, to approaching the aircraft briefly, to taking the same heading and speed of the aircraft at about the same altitude and an estimated distance of 1-2k ft.
c. It matched the altitude, speed, and heading of the aircraft, 575mph and at 37,000ft for over 32 minutes.
d. The UAP/Light changed colors and turned away from the aircraft on a perpendicular heading, West, just inside the Mexico/US border.
e. The UAP/light did not have wings or running lights. It was a new and unique observation to the experienced air crew.
> It seems very, very unlikely aliens would have any interest in our military capability
And in fact, apparently they do here too. It's been documented these UAPs have an interest in our nuclear capabilities. There has been many testimonies from people in the military these UAPs buzz around nuclear silos and apparently are able to disable them. See this well researched video for information on Robert Hastings https://youtu.be/l4EXL7jgqns https://youtu.be/l4EXL7jgqns
- MichaelZuo 4y agoI find the Alaska case to be the most interesting. As the visual report of an object was supported by detections from the Soviet facing long range radar that were state of the art at the time.
- mr_sturd 4y agoThe pulsating in the NARCAP video looks like the camera trying and failing to find focus on anything that it's looking at. Interesting though.
- stevenhuang 4y agoCamera autofocus is commonly brought up but in this case the crewmen were able to attest to the pulsating with their eyeballs, in addition to the other strange behaviour as noted in their testimony.
- giantrobot 4y agoGood thing human eyes don't have irises that open and close to let in different amounts of light.
- LarryMullins 4y agoI get that same pulsing with my eyeballs when I'm tired and having trouble focusing on things.
- rcme 4y agoWere their eyes failing to auto-focus? Did you watch the video with sound? They're talking about it pulsating as they film it.
- actionfromafar 4y agoThey talk about it pulsating on the camera.
- shortcake27 4y agoHere’s the thing that gets me. A 767 costs hundreds of millions of dollars and yet I’ve filmed better videos with a potato. Why is the pilot filming with his smartphone? Why does the plane not have a sophisticated high-quality purpose-built camera system that can record phenomena like this?
- yunohn 4y agoHuh? Are you seriously asking why commercial airliners don’t have 4K GoPros to record UAP/UFOs?
- gizmodo59 4y agoMany commercial airlines at least international (like emirates) have cameras all over. You can even watch it from your seat.
- yunohn 4y agoThey’re not 4K and they’re not meant to be aimed at UAPs. IME they don’t have long term storage either.
- edgyquant 4y agoYes. Why is that unreasonable?
- nradov 4y agoIt's unreasonable because installing and maintaining aviation qualified cameras is expensive. You can't just strap a consumer action camera to the wing and expect the FAA to approve. Airlines have no incentive to pay for extra cameras.
- actually_a_dog 4y agoYep. It’s the same reason why a lot of planes still have a “no smoking” light even though smoking hasn’t been allowed on planes for years. If they took them out, they’d have to recertify the electronics. It’s much easier and cheaper to have a useless light that always stays on than to go through that process to remove it.
- jvanderbot 4y agoThat video looks like a distant light / laser that's tracking the airplane, going on and off target.
- picture 4y agoThe "going on and off target" effect seen here is likely the camera's autofocus.
- jvanderbot 4y agoThey were referring to that as the pulsing effect?