Previous discussion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26245419

When a professional pilot reports what he says looked like a cruise missile, the first thing to think is that it probably was a cruise missile.

Three links deep into their "we'll make you click through for updates" methodology, no photo or video is currently available from this source anyways.

>no photo or video is currently available from this source anyways.

Commercial flights don't generally have dashcams

The disturbing thing about this report is there’s no fuzzy out of focus shakycam image.

What could it mean?

It means that these UFO claims get sillier by the day.

https://xkcd.com/1235/

Are more of them being reported of late?

It's a little hard to see how this is relevant to HN

Really? It seems obvious to me that the kinds of people on HN would have interesting thoughts about this. There's often a commenter with first hand experience who gives great context that's hard to find elsewhere, e.g. somebody who knows about missiles or the government presence in the region or who is/was a commercial pilot.

You mean like -

https://www.defcon.org/html/defcon-3/defcon-3.html "Glenn Campbell: Q & A, overview of Governmental activities and stuff surrounding Area-51."

Or on the other side, people find it interesting pilots regularly get optical errors.

I would expect this was just a cloud, but some people think it's a Learjet - https://twitter.com/MickWest/status/1364649745759621120 which is a bit complex as an explanation but possible. Also not what I would have thought a cruise missile looks like.

The rules of HN are clear ... this is definitely allowed.