The problem is that there isn't really this clean discrete sense of 'a law'. There is the federal code, and the federal register, and bills or rules enacted over time which amend those things. Often times those bills are collections of amendments which do things like add a phrase or swap out a word or add a bullet point to a list. They're like diffs. You can't just have those things sunset individually or you end up with a incoherent code and you end up creating a state of the code which is not what was intended by anyone, at any point along the way. And these can be significant things, like a substantial bill which makes a significant change to federal law may be just like adding a bullet point to a couple lists, or adding a parenthetical to a paragraph.
If you make it so all of the federal code and register has to be voted on every 1-10 years, then you'll just make it so everyone always votes to pass all of it, because no one is sitting down and reading all of it, because almost no one even sits down to read all the bills proposed in a year, which are much smaller in text volume.
The real underlying problem is that legislators are not responsive to the demands of their constituents. Ideas which have supermajority support among the public are not valued or prioritized. And none of the legislators suffer for it, because the elections are not generally competitive among candidates who understand policymaking, and there is a strong incumbency bias where people just vote for the person they recognize as long as they don't have major complaints and as long as they can't explicitly identify a reason that another candidate is clearly better across all measures.
That's just federal permission saying they're allowed to even proceed with the process. Nuclear projects cannot begin at all unless they get federal permission. Now that they have permission to do a project related to nuclear energy, I think they will still need to go through all the normal design, planning, permitting processes at federal/state/local levels. Unless they're building on federal land that is exempt from state/local oversight.
> It has gotten to a point that all code I generate with Opus or Codex if there as iterator or reference in the argument, I start a fresh context, with a sort of `remove unnecessary clones, collections, and copies from the following code: {{code}}`
What does it do if you put "Avoid unnecessary clones, collections, and copies" in your CLAUDE.md/AGENTS.md?
Convenient and good infrared video for all these scenarios is hard to come by but would be useful. I think if the DoD was willing to put some money into the budget for practical recreations of UAP scenarios that they then make public, they could do a lot of good. But there'd probably be pushback about wasting money and also risks of leaking information about military sensor capabilities.
But here is a paper showing penguins photographed with a temperature-sensing IR camera, showing the majority of the surface of their body being around -21ºC thanks to the highly insulating plumage.
It was just a joke. You linked a thread about one particular camera artifact but missed the fact that there was another thread about this specific case. I've read all of those threads.
There's not really much ambiguity here regarding these factors now:
- it's a small bright infrared light source attached to a parachute
You are not getting the point here. Cases get talked about as UAP cases merely because they were initially catalogued as unidentified and have not yet had a conclusive resolution attached to them. It doesn't mean they are not resolvable. It just means it hasn't happened yet. It also doesn't mean that a ton of qualified people with access to all the appropriate information have put in deep investigative work into trying to figure out what it is. You are just assuming that anything released that is not resolved has to have gone through intense rigorous investigation, such that it means there is no known explanation for it, therefore it must be something truly anomalous. This is not how it works.
The UAP Task Force in the example I described above actually did so some analysis on the "green triangle" Navy UFO video but they still failed to identify the fact that their screengrab they presented to Congress was literally just stars with a bokeh artifact making them appear as triangles.
You are vastly overestimating how much analytical work gets put into investigating the original context and flight modeling for videos like these before they are released.
The UAP Task Force did a presentation to Congress in which the head of the office showed a frame of the now-viral “green triangles” UFO video filmed with night vision camera on the deck of a US Navy vessel. The UAP Task Force was staffed with UFO believers and they believed the green triangles shown in the sky were pyramid shaped aircraft. They failed to realize the triangles were merely an artifact of the focus and the triangle shaped camera aperture and that in that frame of video, all of the triangles were known bright stars in that region of sky at that time of year. They could have figured all this out. People on the ship that day would of course know that those points of light in the sky were stars, and that the triangles in the video were just camera artifacts, not in the real world. But years later, the UAP Task Force looked at the video, and didn’t know that.
AARO has been doing a better analytical job than the UAP Task Force did. They fired everyone and hired people who weren’t predisposed to paranormal beliefs. (Jay Stratton staffed the UAP Task Force with people he knew would help bolster his preexisting paranormal beliefs). But this latest data dump was not done because AARO had finished evaluating these cases and done extensive work to narrow down possibilities. This data dump (and the ones coming next) was forced on an accelerated timeline by a handful of paranormal activists in Congress who just like the media attention and want to promote all kinds of fringe religious and paranormal ideas.
This is not about “the US military cannot identify”.
These case reports happen often because one person filmed something and perhaps that one person didn’t know what it was. The video then gets saved and catalogued as unidentified. The video is then so lacking in information and context that it is literally impossible for people to later figure out exactly what object it was. AARO (and before them the UAP Task Force) has been investigating a lot of these case reports and many of them get resolved as “balloon-like objects” or “objects consistent with a balloon”, because the video is consistent with it being a balloon but they want to avoid stating definitively that they know the object was a balloon. If I recall correctly something half of the imagery that gets reported as UAP in the US military ends up falling into the “likely/definitely birds and balloons” bucket.
It is foolish to dismiss this, it’s simply a fact that balloons and birds are a common underlying cause for sightings which are reported to AARO as UAP. There have also been other cases where videos recorded of airplanes have been reported to AARO and they were able to figure out that it was airplanes. It’s not that “the US military doesn’t know what airplanes look like”, it’s that one person operating an IR camera in the military recorded a video and didn’t know what it was, so they reported it as being an unidentified aerial sighting. And then it gets put in this bucket of reports called “UAP sightings”. And maybe never gets resolved because there’s not enough information there to do anything with it.
Birds tend to be well insulated so when they fly at altitude in cold weather they don’t lose all their body heat.
The color it appears on infrared footage depends on the other pixels in frame. It uses dynamic ranges to map infrared values to a visible light spectrum. If the rest of the frame was ice, or you were looking up into space, a bird would probably be rendered as very warm.
If the rest of the frame is a warm ocean surface and warm wind turbines, then a flying bird may be rendered as cold relative to those pixels.
Balloons can also show up as a different temperature than the background of the frame depending on what the balloon is made of, altitude differences (ambient temp at high altitude is colder than at the surface), etc.
I think it is very likely a parachute. It moves in a swinging relation to the heat source because the heat source is hanging from it. It doesn’t exhibit reflection across the center of frame like you’d expect from a lens flare, and you can see frames in the video when the partially IR-translucent parachute overlaps itself showing that it’s a physical material moving around and which IR light can partially pass through.
It is black hot. We know this for sure because someone in the DoD previously leaked a single screenshot of the video, which did not have the on-screen data elements redacted, and you can see the BLK indicator. That person believed the star shape was the physical shape of the object, not a lens artifact, and told this to the UFO influencer they leaked it to. That’s how this particular video eventually ended up included in this data dump.
The smoke trail must cool rapidly and be colder in temperature than the flare itself and the parachute above it. The ambient air temp and time of day may be relevant to this (direct sun could contribute to warming the parachute). Since it is infrared footage, the colors are all based on a dynamic range, so the smoke only needs to be slightly colder than the parachute in order to appear lighter in color.
That's interesting but that's not what this video is. The star shape in the DoD video is a camera artifact. Just a really bright source of infrared light.
I'll add that I had the impression that the star-shaped one resembles a distant missile but could even be something even less interesting than a missile, given that at a few points later in the video, a parachute is visible and the heat source appears to be attached to it, suggesting that it could be a parachute flare.
What do you mean by "encounter lasted maybe 5 minutes"? Where did the lights go after the 5 minutes? From your description these could potentially be military grade illumination flares, which fall very slowly and can burn for several minutes.
From the photos alone it's also hard to rule out distant airplanes with their bright forward landing lights on. When planes are flying towards you they appear to move very slowly and at a distance they appear as single bright orange/yellow glowing spots. Take this example showing 3 airplanes a few miles away:
> - there exist technologies on our planet that human engineers and physicists do not know the underlying principles of their operation
> - there exist unknown physical principles and forces that a party other than the USG has harnessed and implemented for advanced flight capability
These certainly have not been shown to be true. People have told stories alleging these are true, but they have for decades failed to substantiate them with evidence. All they've been able to do is tell wild fantasy stories and occasionally get a video or photo released that is laughably bad and does not support the story at all.
Which keeps happening, but the people who believe in alien visitation to Earth never seem to care that the alleged "evidence" keeps falling apart when it's actually released and scrutinized. They just move on to hyping up the next alleged evidence. It's honestly a cult dynamic at play here. Always reference to secret evidence and no epistemic adjustment after repeated cases of what they believed was evidence for their belief turning out to not be evidence for their belief. They never learn from all the past times they got scammed.
"NASA, ESA, and Roscosmos all confirm definitive concrete proof, and publish this proof, for the presence of organisms, or technology created by organisms, which originated from outside Earth's atmosphere, and was present within Earth's hill sphere at some point since 1900."
Two of them have already leaked before. Both of those are missiles being viewed with an infrared camera. One of them shows a missile passing through the field of view rapidly with a motion blur streak behind it. The other shows a missile performing maneuvers and a camera artifact showing a star-like diffraction+aperture artifact around the bright IR light source.
None of these pieces of imagery look like something doing something particularly interesting. What happens is a military personnel records a video. They don't know what it is in the moment. It gets labeled "unknown" and put on a DoD file server, and then either they or someone else who stumbles across it clips out part of it and starts to spread rumors about this amazing video of a UAP they saw. There are people who work for the DoD who appear to spend a great deal of their free time scrolling around internal DoD file servers looking for anything they can portray as proof of aliens, and sometimes they leak their stories and even clips to public UFO influencers like Jeremy Corbell.
The problem is that there isn't really this clean discrete sense of 'a law'. There is the federal code, and the federal register, and bills or rules enacted over time which amend those things. Often times those bills are collections of amendments which do things like add a phrase or swap out a word or add a bullet point to a list. They're like diffs. You can't just have those things sunset individually or you end up with a incoherent code and you end up creating a state of the code which is not what was intended by anyone, at any point along the way. And these can be significant things, like a substantial bill which makes a significant change to federal law may be just like adding a bullet point to a couple lists, or adding a parenthetical to a paragraph.
If you make it so all of the federal code and register has to be voted on every 1-10 years, then you'll just make it so everyone always votes to pass all of it, because no one is sitting down and reading all of it, because almost no one even sits down to read all the bills proposed in a year, which are much smaller in text volume.
The real underlying problem is that legislators are not responsive to the demands of their constituents. Ideas which have supermajority support among the public are not valued or prioritized. And none of the legislators suffer for it, because the elections are not generally competitive among candidates who understand policymaking, and there is a strong incumbency bias where people just vote for the person they recognize as long as they don't have major complaints and as long as they can't explicitly identify a reason that another candidate is clearly better across all measures.