Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
the seed oil thing is so funny to me because, like, yeah. also, no. it's actually true. they cause serious inflammation which aggravates serious downstream health problems. like, you shouldn't be eating seed oils in any large quantity that you would get from regularly eating deep fried foods oh but wait, eating foods with beef tallow and other saturated fats also causes health problems. except, those problems only sh…
Windshield pitting incidents in Washington reach fever pitch on April 15, 1954 (2003)
151–160 of 325 posts
Re: Windshield pitting incidents in Washington reach fever pitch on April 15, 1954 (2003)
#152Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that people, on the whole, vastly underestimate the degree to which humans are animals.
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
... explained by(?)
> 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.
Re: Windshield pitting incidents in Washington reach fever pitch on April 15, 1954 (2003)
#153This 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…
There was also a call in to a 911 department on the 13th of a drone crashing in someones backyard and then being swarmed by 10 others. https://www.newsweek.com/drone-new-jersey-911-sighting-20002... But I haven't seen a follow up from anyone on it yet.
Again, with no proof and likely not real. If there was a crashed drone, you'd imagine that they'd release a photo or something. The reality is that law enforcement officers are just as susceptible to mass hysteria as everyone else.
Re: Windshield pitting incidents in Washington reach fever pitch on April 15, 1954 (2003)
#154Earlier quoted context omitted.
We already have a more neutral term than "collective delusion" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attentional_bias
What's the term for when people's attention and outrage is directed by an unreliable third party (let's say a partisan news channel) towards certain issues/threats, and away from other equally (or more) significant issues/threats? I'm not talking about editorial bias. I'm talking about deliberately manipulating audience attention in order to control the perception of reality. Another way of putting it is to create a…
Propaganda? Two Minutes Hate?
Re: Windshield pitting incidents in Washington reach fever pitch on April 15, 1954 (2003)
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't get why someone would see lights in the sky and jump to anything other than "domestic/commercial aircraft". Why would aliens or foreign powers light their vehicles up for easy spotting? I would really start to worry if I spotted an aircraft at dusk/night with no lights on it.
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’m kind of baffled how incredulous the response to this comment has been.
Do people think there are 0 drones out at night? Is it that hard to wrap one’s head around the idea that someone actually saw one?
I understand that many are misinterpreting. Official statements make it clear that at some are not. The criticism of my account boils down to “you can’t tell how far something is at night” tata-isms, but you can to a very limited extent - whether it is at an altitude where it would be audible, or not. Similarly, you can observe how quickly it moves from overhead to the horizon. It’s difficult to tell close from far, but it’s trivial to tell far from really far.
Regardless, I was able to see it from both the side and behind, and the latter view showed an aircraft with two red lights on the outside, and two green ones on the inside. It was not an FAA-approved plane, and it was not a civilian helicopter (no noise). At this point, the other possible explanations are less likely than it being a drone.
Re: Windshield pitting incidents in Washington reach fever pitch on April 15, 1954 (2003)
#156Are you saying the drones and planes have always been there and we are just noticing it now?
Re: Windshield pitting incidents in Washington reach fever pitch on April 15, 1954 (2003)
#157The story completely misses that this period coincides with a temporary expansion of the habitat of the Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus. https://zapatopi.net/treeoctopus/ The devil of the trees and terror of all loggers, forest rangers and apparently windshields.
A Tree Octopus Renku by Lyle Zapato [0]
wisteria on pine --
a tree octopus climbs
there's a spectacle!
[0] https://zapatopi.net/blog/?post=201104210388.a_tree_octopus_...
Re: Windshield pitting incidents in Washington reach fever pitch on April 15, 1954 (2003)
#158Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The conclusion is terrifying in my opinion. And this is why "conspiracy" theories exist. I prefer to call them Low Information High Satisfaction theories, as I fee that is a more accurate name. I am do not intend to pass judgement on this commentor or on people who believe in these theories; in fact, I think that if you tell yourself "I am too smart to believe in conspiracy theories", you are making yourself MORE l…
I was always down with Edgar Allan: “Believe nothing you hear, and only one half that you see” But now I think he was vastly over-optimistic.
I’ve heard a different version “believe nothing you hear, and only half of what you read”, variously attributed to Mark Twain, Einstein, Benjamin Franklin and Douglas Adams.
I guess that proves their point, whoever they were.
Re: Windshield pitting incidents in Washington reach fever pitch on April 15, 1954 (2003)
#159> Some thought that the Navy’s new million-watt radio transmitter at Jim Creek near Arlington was [absurd theory deleted]
There actually is a problem some Washington residents occasionally have from powerful navy transmitters.
Every so often in Bremerton many garage door opener remotes and car keyless entry systems become very unreliable for a few days to a week or two. This generally corresponds to when aircraft carriers visit the Bremerton naval shipyard.
There are often multiple kinds of use allowed on a given radio frequency band. The different allowed uses will be grouped into different priority classes and the general rule is that (1) lower priority uses are not allowed to interfere with higher priority uses, and (2) if a higher priority use interferes with a lower priority use it is up to the later to deal with it (move to another frequency, use better shielding to keep the interference out, etc).
Many garage door remotes and keyless entry systems use frequency bands that overlap with bands used for Navy radar and communications and as you can probably guess the Navy's uses are the higher priority.
So a carrier comes in to the shipyard for maintenance or upgrades, and as part of that they test the radar and communication systems and so for however long that takes you've got ridiculously powerful transmitters blasting out on the frequencies your stuff wants to use.
Re: Windshield pitting incidents in Washington reach fever pitch on April 15, 1954 (2003)
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
You absolutely cannot determine the size, distance, altitude, or speed of an unknown object in the sky at any significant distance. It’s not even rough, it’s completely impossible. You can determine the ratios of those quantities, but the best you can do is come up with a wide minimum and maximum of, let’s say, 500ft to 50 miles of distance (more if it’s just one light). If you saw an unknown object and it seemed clo…
An unlit one or one with blinking or few lights, sure. This had four constantly illuminated nav lights, and I was in a car so I was able to see the parallax relative to the clouds. I couldn’t tell if it was 500 feet or a mile, but I could tell that it was either close enough to be audible, or many times bigger than the largest jetliners. > If you saw an unknown object and it seemed closer to you than normal aircraft,…
Parallax relative to the clouds doesn’t tell you anything unless you know how fast it’s moving or how far away it is.
Given all the rest, I have to say I’m not super confident in your estimate of angular size.