this was filmed during Eurofighter's practice display at 2005 RIAT (Royal International Air Tattoo), Fairford airfield. this is what I managed to find about the incident - from an aviation photographer, who was present at the practice: "during the Eurofighter Typhoon practice display the pilot (a Sqn Leader) made a serious misjudgement which caused the tower to call an immediate halt to his display (STOP STOP STOP heard on radio) and land. As he was only 1.5 minutes into his 10+ minute display he flew to high altitude with afterburners on to burn off the fuel before landing. Apparently later that evening he re-did his practice but removing one of the sequences and got approval for displaying on the Saturday/Sunday." (read more)
here's the same event filmed from the other side of the runway: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwEAr5MtCbA

Wikipedia:

1983 incident

Stanislav Petrov, an Air Defence lieutenant colonel, was the officer on duty at the Serpukhov-15 bunker near Moscow on September 26, 1983.[4] Petrov's responsibilities included observing the satellite early warning network and notifying his superiors of any impending nuclear missile attack against the Soviet Union. If notification was received from the early-warning systems that inbound missiles had been detected, the Soviet Union's strategy was an immediate nuclear counter-attack against the United States (launch on warning), specified in the doctrine of mutual assured destruction.[1]

Shortly after midnight, the bunker's computers reported that an intercontinental ballistic missile was heading toward the Soviet Union from the US.[5] Petrov considered the detection a computer error, since a United States first-strike nuclear attack would be likely to involve hundreds of simultaneous missile launches, in order to disable any Soviet means for a counterattack. Furthermore, the satellite system's reliability had been questioned in the past.[6] Petrov dismissed the warning as a false alarm, though accounts of the event differ as to whether he notified his superiors[7] or not[5] after he concluded that the computer detections were false and that no missile had been launched. Later, the computers identified four additional missiles in the air, all directed towards the Soviet Union. Petrov again suspected that the computer system was malfunctioning, despite having no other source of information to confirm his suspicions. The Soviet Union's land radar was incapable of detecting missiles beyond the horizon, and waiting for it to positively identify the threat would limit the Soviet Union's response time to minutes.
Had Petrov reported incoming American missiles, his superiors might have launched an assault against the United States, precipitating a corresponding nuclear response from the United States. Petrov declared the system's indications a false alarm. Later, it was apparent that he was right: no missiles were approaching and the computer detection system was malfunctioning. It was subsequently determined that the false alarms had been created by a rare alignment of sunlight on high-altitude clouds and the satellites' Molniya orbits, an error later corrected with cross-reference to a geostationary satellite.[8]

Petrov later indicated the influences in this decision included: that he had been told a US strike would be all-out, so that five missiles seemed an illogical start;[1] that the launch detection system was new and, in his view, not yet wholly trustworthy;[citation needed] and that ground radars were still failing to pick up any corroborative evidence, even after minutes of delay.[citation needed]

I don't understand why people are so surprised that this worked. Some guys got together and tied road flares to high altitude balloons.

Don't get me wrong I'm not saying there isn't alien life but I can't really prove there IS either. But who thinks someone would tie a bunch of road flares to a balloon and launch them? There will always be two groups, one who thinks it's a prank and the other who thinks its UFOs. Both groups are looking for SOMETHING and will argue one way or the other.

It's like lighting a bush on fire, some people will see a miracle other people will just assume it's because it was very dry, and very hot.

All these two guys did is waste a lot of peoples time. Skeptics and Believers. Downvote from me.

About the Speaker
Walter Lewin

Professor of Physics

Walter H. G. Lewin is well-known at MIT for his lectures on both Newtonian mechanics and electricity and magnetism. Videos of his lectures can be viewed on the web via the Open CourseWare and Pivot links below.

Lewin received his Ph.D. in Nuclear Physics in 1965 at the Technical University of Delft, The Netherlands, and has been a member of the MIT Physics faculty since 1966. During his MIT career, Lewin's investigations in astrophysics have included satellite and high-altitude balloon X-ray observations, world-wide coordinated observations of optical and X-ray bursts, and international collaborations observing X-ray sources. In addition, Lewin has collaborated over the years with various artists on sky art events. From 1998 to 2000, Lewin worked with MIT's Center for Advanced Educational Services on creating the Physics Interactive Video Tutor project -- video help sessions for freshman physics students.

>> ^ElJardinero:
>> ^charliem:
Looks like a high altitude scientific balloon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_altitude_balloon
They get really elongated like is shown in the video when they reach near their ceiling height.

Sorry to burst your bubble but that thing is no where near it's "ceiling height". If it was, that man would not be able to get it on his camera.
Airplanes fly at 30.000, these things are around 60,000 - 120,000 feet.
From the page you linked to;
"These balloons are launched into what is termed "near space" - the area of Earth's atmosphere where there is very little air,"
I'm not saying it's an alien spacecraft, but your explenation falls a bit short, or low if you prefer.


So downvote the comment for giving a plausible explanation ?
How do you know what the focal length of the camera that hes using is ?

Its an explanation, it may not be THE explanation, but its certainly more believable than an alien spaceship.

>> ^charliem:
Looks like a high altitude scientific balloon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_altitude_balloon
They get really elongated like is shown in the video when they reach near their ceiling height.


Sorry to burst your bubble but that thing is no where near it's "ceiling height". If it was, that man would not be able to get it on his camera.
Airplanes fly at 30.000, these things are around 60,000 - 120,000 feet.

From the page you linked to;
"These balloons are launched into what is termed "near space" - the area of Earth's atmosphere where there is very little air,"

I'm not saying it's an alien spacecraft, but your explenation falls a bit short, or low if you prefer.

Looks like a high altitude scientific balloon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_altitude_balloon

They get really elongated like is shown in the video when they reach near their ceiling height.

Completely. This was not insane, merely comparatively dangerous to any high altitude jump. >> ^Payback:
Anyone else disappointed he had a chute?


Completely. This was not insane, merely comparatively dangerous to any high altitude jump.

^
If the question posed was not "how should we deal with trolls" and instead was "how should we cope with ice buildup on aircraft wings at high altitude?" do you think intelligence has a role in that argument? How about if the question was "how should we route the plumbing in this house" would knowledge be important there? This is a clear example of Parkinson's Law of Triviality, which has become one of my favorite laws, and is something I had not heard of before this site and only learned through reading dgandhi's comments. Here is the explanation from wiki:

"Parkinson dramatizes his Law of Triviality with a committee's deliberations on a nuclear power plant, compared to deliberation on a bicycle shed. While discussing the bikeshed, debate emerges over whether the best choice of roofing is aluminium, asbestos or galvanised iron, then over whether the shed is a good idea or not. The committee then moves on to coffee purchasing, a discussion that results in the biggest waste of time and the most acrimony.

A nuclear reactor is so vastly expensive and complicated that people cannot understand it, so they assume that those working on it understand it. Even those with strong opinions might withhold them for fear of being shown to be insufficiently informed. On the other hand, everyone understands a bicycle shed (or thinks he does), so building one can result in endless discussions: everyone involved wants to add his touch and show that he is there."

You think that intellect or knowledge is irrelevant in discussion yet you would not say this is true for the building of a nuclear power plant, so how can you justify it for seemingly mundane discussions such as the creation of regulatory policy to inhibit trolling? Or any other topic that is discussed.

It is quite frustrating for people to consider intelligence as some kind of taboo like religion, that intelligence is somehow different than artistic or athletic ability. Do you think michael jordan is a snob because he is better than everyone at basketball? Do you think mozart was a snob because he is gifted with a piano? If you lined up jordan with joe six-pack and stated that one was good and one was bad at basketball would that make you a snob? How about if you stated that 85% of people are average or worse at basketball, while only 2% or less are NBA caliber?

You have perverted the usage of the word snob; being a snob is essentially being prejudiced. Its riding around on a high horse thinking you are better than others because you are better at a particular quality--it is not merely thinking that you are better than others at that quality. Subtle? Yes. Going around claiming you are smarter than others is not snobbery (its confidence or lunacy), going around claiming you are better than others because you are smarter than others is snobbery.

If you think that pointing out an inequality is snobbery, then it is your prejudice that is showing. Nobody should apologize for their intelligence just as nobody should apologize for their lack of intelligence. If you think that intelligence is somehow more important than musical talent, athletic ability, comedic presence, or any other human quality you have an inherent bias or prejudice towards others. Are you upset that other people can hula hoop 1000 times longer than you, if not, why are you upset that other people are smarter than you? How is a nuclear engineer any more gifted than a master carpenter, unless you value one quality over the other?

How do you feel about racial prejudice? Then you understand how I feel about all prejudice, including prejudice against intellect. What motivates people to force other races to drink from separate water fountains is the same thing which motivates people to force other people to a certain salary. You don't limit an artist or NBA player to a salary, so why do you think it is okay to limit a CEO to such? The principle is the same when holding contempt for someone because of a quality, such as intelligence.

Am I saying I'm smart? No, I never made that claim. All I pointed out was that burdtugler wasn't following a clear line of reasoning. Why am I chastised for pointing out the flaws in others arguments, especially if they are making a direct attack against me? Why am I chastised for asserting that others claims are false or bad, if they are not chastised for asserting that they are true or good? If joe big-mac calls nasa and suggest they duct tape blow dryers to the side of the space shuttle to clear wing ice, what would their reply be? There may not be stupid questions, but there are stupid answers. Remember stupid is a relative term. Monkeys are stupid when compared to humans, but smart when compared to slugs. Humans are only stupid in comparison to other humans. If there are 10 suggestions on how to deal with trolls, some of them have to be stupid(er) unless they are all the same idea.

If you deny the existence of inequality, you are living with either your eyes or mind shut. If everyone was equal, this life would be so boring you'd have to stand in line to jump off the nearest bridge.

As I understand it, the decision to switch to fire-bombing came about because of the complete and utter ineffectiveness of high altitude bombing. They started out trying to bomb legitimate military targets like munitions factories and realized that the high altitude bombs simply weren't precise enough to hit the targets due to severe cross-winds. The decision then came to fly lower and drop a napalm payload that, even if it missed the intended target, would start a fire that would likely consume the target anyway. Unfortunately the fires, once started, continued to burn indiscriminately.

The argument has also been made that since the Japanese civilians basically supplied the manpower for the Japanese armies and the workforce for the War Machine itself that technically they were valid military targets.

It should also be noted that the Japanese tried to firebomb the U.S. by using high altitude balloons filled with napalm that floated on the jet stream to the West Coast (do a google search for FUGO balloon bombs). Fortunately, only a few of the balloons released actually landed on U.S. shores. At the time, the government covered it up because the idea that the U.S. mainland was vulnerable to attack was simply to terrifying a prospect to consider.

Flies fast, handles like a slug (by today's standards). Interesting design, but not very environmentally friendly The sucker leaks fuel out of its seams on the tarmac. Only once it takes off and starts to fly at speed for a while does the metal expand and start to seal the thing up. I saw one of these at the Air and Space museum. Beautiful plane for sure.

SR did its job.. reconnaissance. I wouldn't want to be in one in combat... its best defense is flying at very high altitude and high speed. Spy satellites and long range unmanned drones do the same job these days.

they're definitely walking around on the ground, looking through infrared goggles, which collect and display ambient light of higher wavelengths than our eyes can collect. Some of the lights do seem to be associate with areas of ground light (city areas).


brainstorming a few ideas
-spotlights and high altitude water vapor/ice? hell of a lot of them; soldiers have never seen them before
-aurora-like sun-related phenomenon? pretty far south
-rockets/contrails? they all appear to be vertical
-lens flair/optical noise? seem to stay vertical while the scope turns; soldiers have never seen them
-mystery military weapon? doesn't seem to be doing anything

Well this idiot thinks that sounds like a diesel in the background and I don't know of many airplanes with such an engine. The sound of dirt underfoot would seem to negate it being on a boat. They are filming through a light enhancing scope or other device, which would be particularly sensitive to the above mentioned atmospheric phenomina of high altitude ice crystals, Mr. Dirt.

In reply to this comment by joedirt:
idiots. This is shot out of an airplane window, correct? It is probably the effects of the plexiglass or whatever and/or the micro-scratches. Just like when you look through glasses or a car windshield you can see effects like this.

Well this idiot thinks that sounds like a diesel in the background and I don't know of many airplanes with such an engine. The sound of dirt underfoot would seem to negate it being on a boat. They are filming through a light enhancing scope or other device, which would be particularly sensitive to the above mentioned atmospheric phenomina of high altitude ice crystals, Mr. Dirt.

High altitude ice crystals, most likely...

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060305.html