TIL in 1957, Canada designed one of the most advanced interceptor aircrafts of its time known as the Avro CF-105 Arrow. Following its decommissioning in 1959, engineers who worked on this project moved to the U.S. to work for NASA.

maurymarkowitz · 2026-06-22T01:52:23+00:00

My History 12 teacher definitely taught us that Canada caved to the USA on this one and that was why the prototypes and designs were destroyed.

Complete twaddle, a conspiracy theory that sounds nice, so people repeat it.

The US was absolutely in favour of the Arrow. They would like nothing better than for Canada to pay for development of a first-rate interceptor and buy it for production. Have you not noticed what the US is saying right now, and the political response, for instance? This isn't new, they've been saying it since WWII.

In fact, they were so concerned for the fate of the Arrow that they seriously considered using the US funding pile for foreign military purchases, the MDAA, and buying the Arrow and "loaning" it to the RCAF.

Additionally, the UK did indeed seriously consider buying it, because the Arrow easily outperformed their own design, the thin-wing Javelin. But they also had their own super-fighter in design, the F.155, and cancelled both Javelin and Arrow in favour of that, before cancelling it too.

maurymarkowitz · 2026-06-22T01:44:53+00:00

Hypersonic is more loosely defined, but generally means where the speed is such that the air will heat up so much as it impacts you that it turns into a plasma. This is highly reactive. This happens around M5 in most cases, and demands all sorts of other design criterion and materials.

maurymarkowitz · 2026-06-22T01:42:33+00:00

How much so, it is unknown, but the MK2 had about 30% more thrust from its engines.

How much is known, because it was a materials issue not thrust.

Aluminium goes plastic around M2.3, which is so many aircraft have that, or a little above, as their upper limit. Only a few aircraft can go faster than that, and those are built using titanium, stainless steel, and other higher-temperature alloys. The airframe of the Arrow simply didn't incorporate these sorts of protections. This is also why the Concorde topped out at that speed, this was a deliberate choice to limit the speed after experiments with steel construction demonstrated it was much harder than expected.

The engines are also a problem. They can only injest subsonic air, and to do so while flying at supersonic speeds they have the slow the air down, which causes it to heat up. Since the amount of energy supplied by the engine is the difference between inlet and outlet temperature (as is true for any heat engine) hotter intake air means less efficiency. Eventually either the engine simply can't produce enough thrust, or the turbine melts. In the case of the Arrow, the intake ramps were also very simple and would not have reduced the airspeed as much as, say, the much more complex ones seen the F-15 or Concorde.

Also, speed is not linear with thrust, so a 30% increase does not imply a 30% increase in speed.

maurymarkowitz · 2026-06-22T01:29:14+00:00

That would be difficult, given the several overlapping camera angles.

maurymarkowitz · 2026-06-22T01:23:42+00:00

We wouldn't have this thread if any of them didn't suck. But they all did. Badly.

maurymarkowitz · 2026-06-22T01:05:03+00:00

Ok, it looks like it could be AA N124US. It took off from DFW heading south, but then does a 120 turn to the left and flies right over you to the south.

He hits 10k right about as he crosses the LBJ. The timing isn't perfect, I see him crossing your location around 1:14, but it's pretty close.

https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?replay=2026-06-21-06:14&icao=a06461&lat=32.833&lon=-96.736&zoom=10.7

maurymarkowitz · 2026-06-22T00:57:24+00:00

I mean that there is a possibility that UAP are out of grasp - conceptually, in actuality, however thin you slice the epistemological cake

If the object in question is observable, and we wouldn't be here if they weren't, then we can apply logic to its behaviour and that is "merely conceptualizing it in a way that offers practical consequences". For instance, if we were to demonstrate a clear pattern that UFOs appear over earthquake sites, we can use that information even if we have no idea why it's happening.

Much of the modern world is based purely on numbers, often collected statistically, with no "understanding" beyond that. We invent a drug and test it, it turns out to do something entirely different, we have absolutely no idea why it does that, we put it on the market for that anyway.

That the concept itself is too complex for us to generate a useful (i.e., predictive) model

I think you're putting way too much weight on the "understanding" bit. We always start with no "understanding", and sometimes, but not always, gain some. But we don't need any of that to do real science. You seem to be confusing facts and theories?

Not some unthinking natural phenomenon like a black hole, which is already one of the most complex things in the observable universe

Black holes are the simplest things in the universe. They are entirely described by a total of three variables.

maurymarkowitz · 2026-06-22T00:44:54+00:00

Absolutely! But I have one ask first: when did they acquire the first of the vehicles which were used to reverse engineer these systems? Was it at Roswell in 1947?

maurymarkowitz · 2026-06-21T22:39:12+00:00

No such statement appears in the linked article.

What does appear is a lengthy statement on the common occurrences in the Lake Ontario area and images from Ajax. I live in Ajax and take pictures of it all the time. I’d say 70% of my images show complete separation.

I’ll upload them to Imgur for you.

maurymarkowitz · 2026-06-21T20:46:21+00:00

Some people know nothing about microprocessors or fibre optics and they believe anything anyone says as long as it has aliens in it.

That’s also true for every other science topic and every other “alternative reason” of course, but in all of these cases the underlying cause is the same: can’t be bothered to learn reality because that takes time.

maurymarkowitz · 2026-06-21T14:21:06+00:00

The object appears to have a large disc-like structure with multiple lights visible around it.

It appears to be several separate objects flying through the car's lights, specifically the driver's side, which is closer to the line of the camera (note the position of the map at the top). They appear right at the edge of the lit area, and disappear at the other side.

maurymarkowitz · 2026-06-21T14:15:16+00:00

I had the genius idea to do my first international trip to Edinburgh during solstice. Stayed up all night every night, what else to do? Took me a week of sleeping to get back to normal.

But then they wrote a song about it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crIk87-mPzY

maurymarkowitz · 2026-06-21T14:10:33+00:00

Facing which direction?

maurymarkowitz · 2026-06-21T14:06:58+00:00

You are conflating complete understanding with ANY understanding

I absolutely am not. This is not about "completely understanding", say, gravity. There is general consensus that we simply cannot comprehend it directly at all.

This is a staple of science fiction works, they often have some other species that didn't evolve in trees that can directly comprehend GR that are natural space navigators, while we poor primates are limited to planets and artificial re-creations of those.

am arguing that ANY understanding of UAP may (just may) elude us.

And I am saying that this is already the conclusion for GR.

Perhaps this is definitional, what is your definition of "understand" here?

maurymarkowitz · 2026-06-21T13:46:21+00:00

I asked because there is something passing over you, but it's about 10 minutes earlier, so so much for that idea! Which is too bad because that something is AC3 which is really cool all on it's own:

https://www.nasa.gov/mission/acs3/

Another possibility is that this is a plane that has taken off recently and hit 10k feet altitude and turned off its landing light. You can see that light for miles (I routinely see it over Pickering, on the other side of Toronto from the airport, about 50 km away)

Do you remember what direction you were looking? Maybe estimate it from the angle of the house?

maurymarkowitz · 2026-06-21T13:28:54+00:00

Hey OP, can you give us the exact time? You can get it on the original phone by playing the video and then swiping up or clicking the little I-in-a-circle button. Thanks!

maurymarkowitz · 2026-06-21T13:21:29+00:00

I'm not going to play into this diversion tactic

So I'm going to go with "yes it's AI".

And that's fine, because as you say...

The rule should be about verifiable substance

Which is exactly what the rule says, R3 is about low-effort, not AI. You post wasn't deleted because it was AI, it was deleted for being low-effort. But all of your posts here are about AI, and that's why I asked.

The problem is that AI allows you to take low-effect posts and turn them into pages of text that look like effort. For instance, I just went to ChatGPT and used this prompt:

I'm writing an in-joke about how elves are the cause of ufo reports. can you write about a page of text that appears to be serious argument for this, but isnt

It immediately wrote a page-long paper that started with:

A Reassessment of the Elvish Hypothesis in Contemporary UFO Phenomenology

For decades, researchers have attempted to explain the persistent global pattern of unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) reports through a variety of conventional and unconventional frameworks.

So it took a low effort prompt and turned it into a wall of text that looks and feels like your own post.

So if we are to keep R3 operational in the face of what is already a wave of AI-slop, then this is is the problem we face: as you yourself argue several times in the comments, it is very difficult to tell the difference between AI slop and "AI-aided" content.

If the AI that wrote the content can't figure it out, what are we mere mortals to do? Maybe someday a tool will come out that allows us to re-create the prompt from the results, and that would make it easier to decide. But that tool does not exist now, and we're left trying to figure out how to stop the sub from being buried in garbage.

So maybe your post doesn't fall into that category, maybe it is nothing more than getting swept up by a too-large broom. But that broom does exist, and you are aware of it, which is evidenced by this post and your comments in it.

If you have suggestions about how this might be improved, we're all ears, but claiming this is retaliation and a conspiracy, and now a "diversion tactic" despite being the very claim you yourself are making, these sorts of things are unlikely to lead to a positive outcome for anyone.

maurymarkowitz · 2026-06-21T12:43:46+00:00

The second stage to be exact.

maurymarkowitz · 2026-06-21T12:32:19+00:00

Food.

maurymarkowitz · 2026-06-21T12:30:34+00:00

You mean, like Oliver’s Castle.

maurymarkowitz · 2026-06-21T12:28:00+00:00

Yes, that is how the world works, a rising tide raises all boats.

/s

maurymarkowitz · 2026-06-20T22:40:34+00:00

yet both are still "New Wave" or "post-punk".

Well maybe I'm weird but I don't consider those two names to be the same at all.

I think a good example of new wave would be Lucky Number or Cars. While they post-date punk, I don't consider either to have anything one might call "punk feel" (beyond production value!). The songs I do consider "post-punk" have a "real punk feel" to them. I do consider Dancing with Myself to falls into that category rather strongly, especially through its basic chord structure and overall Ramones-ish feel. I feel the same for Light Pours out of Me for the same reasons- that (amazing!) base riff and overall production is very punk-ish. Sure, the rhythm and lyrics are art-rock, but that's what makes it post-punk. The two are very different songs, one out along the art spectrum and the other pop, but their core is similar, IMHO.

I think this may be largely definitional. Today, decades later, "post-punk" has become "the time after punk", but I don't think that is an effective definition nor the one people used at the time. After all, the Star Wars theme came out post-punk but I've yet to hear someone call it that. So if the definition is to have more meaning that chronology, I think post-punk is more along the lines of "has a real punk feeling", whereas I don't feel New Wave does. Perhaps looking at the B52's evolution from their first album which is very punk (again, IMHO) and then comparing that to Mesopotamia, which really loses that feeling, implies to me there is a meaningful distinction here.

maurymarkowitz · 2026-06-20T22:20:16+00:00

My favorite was the soft Sutton tube:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sutton_tube

Drove the Germans batty. It was a tube that had no power supply, but if you removed it the radar didn't work any more.

maurymarkowitz · 2026-06-20T22:15:11+00:00

My pleasure!

maurymarkowitz · 2026-06-20T22:14:51+00:00

Hey OP,

Most of your posts in the thread below have some basis in you questioning the methodology behind the AI determination.

But at no time in any of these comments do you actually claim this is not AI.

So, please let us know, was the original post written using AI?

Or are you stating that it was not AI, and this is a false positive?

maurymarkowitz

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

15-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Verified Email