The great thing about perception is that "Objects demonstrating extreme capabilities routinely fly over our military facilities and training ranges. We don’t know what they are, and we are unable to mitigate their presence." uses one word (fly) in a way which can be read as implying they are there. Sorry. You saw something. your sensors reported something. Was it there? Good question. it IS a question.
Really what I think a good editor would have done is intrude like this: "Objects demonstrating extreme capabilities are routinely perceived to fly over our military facilities and training ranges. We don’t know what they are, and we are unable to mitigate their presence.
You could add (if any) at the end if you wanted to maintain the skepticism.
There are so many reasons why these things are routinely perceived: CCD errors. Optical in-lens problems. Wind shear effects. Differential lighting and occultation. Mis-attribution of large distant objects to smaller fast moving near objects and vice-versa. Bugs on the windscreen.
Being a "US Navy fighter pilot" doesn't somehow insulate you from perceptual problems in the system, or systemic bias. I would suggest that the certainty of decision making vested in a fighter pilot might very well actually re-inforce the "I know what I saw" aspect here.
Here's an example of receiver bias: Why are they seen flying over the military bases? Let me ask, if this is the predominant place that US Fighter Pilots would expect to see anything: Why yes, it is. Thats their main focus of alertness in take off and landing, performing their job.
Remember, the objects display "impossible" nonlinear flight trajectories. So I hardly think "which way is up" matters at this point.
CCDs aren't used much these days. But the principle is the same: if you think any kind of digital sensor behind a camera is an error-free input source, I have a UFO detector to sell you..
I never said it was an error-free input source, I'm asking for an explanation of how the sensor creates the kind of alleged artifact that you see in these videos. It's extremely low-effort to say "well it's probably <random component>", I expect a higher standard on HN.
Really what I think a good editor would have done is intrude like this: "Objects demonstrating extreme capabilities are routinely perceived to fly over our military facilities and training ranges. We don’t know what they are, and we are unable to mitigate their presence.
You could add (if any) at the end if you wanted to maintain the skepticism.
There are so many reasons why these things are routinely perceived: CCD errors. Optical in-lens problems. Wind shear effects. Differential lighting and occultation. Mis-attribution of large distant objects to smaller fast moving near objects and vice-versa. Bugs on the windscreen.
Being a "US Navy fighter pilot" doesn't somehow insulate you from perceptual problems in the system, or systemic bias. I would suggest that the certainty of decision making vested in a fighter pilot might very well actually re-inforce the "I know what I saw" aspect here.
Here's an example of receiver bias: Why are they seen flying over the military bases? Let me ask, if this is the predominant place that US Fighter Pilots would expect to see anything: Why yes, it is. Thats their main focus of alertness in take off and landing, performing their job.