Live data from Hacker News

Windshield pitting incidents in Washington reach fever pitch on April 15, 1954 (2003)

historylink.org

121–130 of 325 posts

Re: Windshield pitting incidents in Washington reach fever pitch on April 15, 1954 (2003)

#121
post #9

The conclusion is terrifying in my opinion. A not yet explained phenomenon or even something as far fetched as "aliens" would have been a more comforting answer than "essentially we can all start losing our mind at once, and it takes very little to trigger it".

This happens all the time. See: drone sightings right now. Previously: Havana syndrome.

[flagged]

Re: Windshield pitting incidents in Washington reach fever pitch on April 15, 1954 (2003)

#122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t understand how people underestimate it so badly when we have so much history we are taught that demonstrates it. History makes it abundantly clear that it is a regular occurrence for large groups of people to collectively believe things for which there is little evidence, and furthermore, to take extreme actions based on such beliefs. This applies to you too, reader. Many would read the above and fully agree…

> I don’t understand how people underestimate it so badly when we have so much history we are taught that demonstrates it. It is the tendency to think that people in the past were dumb, and we aren't. Like, there always has to be some explanation involved when we learn that people did something unintuitive in the past -- people learned how to make beer by accidentally leaving leftover bread in liquid and then drank i…

> People may have had less access to information and technology, but that didn't make them any dumber than we are now.

There's probably an aspect to people confusing "knowledge" with "brainpower". People in the past were just as good at figuring stuff out as we are today.

We have the advantage of Millenia of stuff figured out and documented. So we know on average more about how the universe works than people in the distant past.

Re: Windshield pitting incidents in Washington reach fever pitch on April 15, 1954 (2003)

#123
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m aware of that, and I tried to think that was what was happening. But the motion apart from speed was nothing like a typical plane, and the other factors led me to conclude it was a drone. When I say the FAA light patterns were off, what I mean is that it had two red lights on the outside, and two green lights on the inside. AFAIK, the only type of aircraft that might have that configuration is a trans-wing drone.

> When I say the FAA light patterns were off, what I mean is that it had two red lights on the outside, and two green lights on the inside. AFAIK, the only type of aircraft that might have that configuration is a trans-wing drone. What? How do you get from a specific kind of lighting to „trans-wing drone“? What prevents me from lighting a regular-wing RC plane with the same lighting configuration?

> What prevents me from lighting a regular-wing RC plane with the same lighting configuration?

If I’m not mistaken, the FAA does (unless RC planes aren’t covered?). Are you really positing that I saw an intentionally misconfigured RC plane flying in the middle of nowhere at 2 AM?

You’re right that I’m making a leap with the trans-wing part. I said that because it’s my understanding that some of the sightings have included airfoil and transforming drones, that a trans-wing drone would exhibit the light pattern I saw, and that the military (Navy I believe) does own trans-wing drones that match other the descriptions of other sightings. So to me the lights were the final nail that this wasn’t a plane, but I held on to it being a plane for a while.

Re: Windshield pitting incidents in Washington reach fever pitch on April 15, 1954 (2003)

#124
post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don’t understand how people underestimate it so badly when we have so much history we are taught that demonstrates it. It is the tendency to think that people in the past were dumb, and we aren't. Like, there always has to be some explanation involved when we learn that people did something unintuitive in the past -- people learned how to make beer by accidentally leaving leftover bread in liquid and then drank i…

> People may have had less access to information and technology, but that didn't make them any dumber than we are now. There's probably an aspect to people confusing "knowledge" with "brainpower". People in the past were just as good at figuring stuff out as we are today. We have the advantage of Millenia of stuff figured out and documented. So we know on average more about how the universe works than people in the d…

I’d say it: we know that some people currently know more, but, the average person mostly knows something about what is known, rather than knowing it directly.

Re: Windshield pitting incidents in Washington reach fever pitch on April 15, 1954 (2003)

#125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> maybe those are targeting drones and the rocket missed. but then why are they dripping? They're balloons carrying flares for target practice. You can see lots of falling embers in https://youtu.be/XHDXk9THJZM?si=CKSBB3AuslBizXxh&t=179 from a military flare. > if they're flares why does the second one seem to fly away when the first is struck? Because that's the maneuvering target drone (something like a QF-16, prob…

And what I'm saying is I understand that perspective. I think you can do that song and dance going back 80 years. You can watch all these people, all these witnesses, all these videos and pictures (and a complete and stunning absence of military radar data) and you can explain to them, each and every single one of them how they're wrong, how its swamp gas reflected off Venus, and in each individual case you might be…

> pilots, of lifetime military officers, of people as a whole, that they're all incompetent or crazy or hoaxers.

You don't have to be incompetent, crazy or a hoaxer to be confused, fooled or mistaken.

Re: Windshield pitting incidents in Washington reach fever pitch on April 15, 1954 (2003)

#126
post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 100% of the ones I looked into have been debunked, helicopters, planes, out of focus stars, fireworks A lot of videos are bunk, I have seen at least one video that is certainly drones. > At night you have absolutely no way to tell I agree, but I’ve seen plenty of other aircraft at night and it appeared to be much closer than any of those. And you can get a rough guess based on apparent size of the lights, though of…

> It’s almost certain that they are military drones, and if I had to guess they’re searching for something that would cause real mass hysteria if told to the public. Why is that almost certain?

Well almost is doing a lot of heavy lifting, the case is all circumstantial. But I say that both because of a Reddit post that makes a strong case that at least some portion of sightings are a specific model of navy drone, and more so because their being military is the only situation where the government response makes sense to me.

If they were an enemy’s, one would expect them to be shot down. If they were an ally’s, they would need a damn good reason to be here and an even better reason why people can’t know. Maybe they’re a private citizen’s, but I struggle to imagine why a private entity would have a fleet of large drones that they covertly deploy along the coasts, and why our government would abide that. So as I see it, the two options that make sense are that they’re an enemy’s that we can’t shoot down for some terrifying reason, or they’re ours.

Re: Windshield pitting incidents in Washington reach fever pitch on April 15, 1954 (2003)

#127

This was literally my first thought for the anomalous drones like 2 weeks ago, and it was immediately obvious that the entire NJ police department should not be incompetent enough to fall for something so obvious. The mayors and governor should not be dumb enough to stake their reputations on this when the null hypothesis of "mass hysteria" is easier and safer. Even back then, we knew the sightings do not appear on f…

Lots of smart guys in this comment thread who already know what this stuff is. No need to panic folks, the armchair critics say everything is ok.

Re: Windshield pitting incidents in Washington reach fever pitch on April 15, 1954 (2003)

#128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I'm more optimistic. Is it our animal nature? Or is it that science is hard, and most people don't have enough formal education in the relevant subjects to know they're out of their depth, let alone to understand these things.

[flagged]

Right back at you.

Re: Windshield pitting incidents in Washington reach fever pitch on April 15, 1954 (2003)

#129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what I'm saying is I understand that perspective. I think you can do that song and dance going back 80 years. You can watch all these people, all these witnesses, all these videos and pictures (and a complete and stunning absence of military radar data) and you can explain to them, each and every single one of them how they're wrong, how its swamp gas reflected off Venus, and in each individual case you might be…

> pilots, of lifetime military officers, of people as a whole, that they're all incompetent or crazy or hoaxers. You don't have to be incompetent, crazy or a hoaxer to be confused, fooled or mistaken.

Or "haven't slept in 24 hours taking amphetamines to stay awake in combat". https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7661838/

Re: Windshield pitting incidents in Washington reach fever pitch on April 15, 1954 (2003)

#130
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are without a doubt large drones with nav lights flying around multiple states at night now. There are a lot of people seeing drones where they aren’t, too, and it would be odd if that weren’t happening. But to take that and say “nothing to see here” is ignoring the mass of solid video and official non-statement evidence to the contrary. I myself saw a drone, and tried to paint it as a plane or helicopter at fi…

> I myself saw a drone, and tried to paint it as a plane or helicopter at first, but it was too close to the ground (seemed a few hundred feet up at most), had the mismatched light pattern characteristic of trans-wing drones, and moved too slowly for other types of aircraft. And most damningly it didn’t make any noise audible from the ground, something not even stealth bombers can accomplish. That’s exactly what you…

You can gauge rough distance/height pretty well by the angles and relative distances between the nav lights. If it is was high enough to be silent, it was at least 10x the size of a 747.
Post reply on HN