American Pilots Were Tracking Soviet Weapons Development. They Saw Something Completely Inexplicable. 4%

By Darren Orf35%

7/10/2026, 6:00:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Hasty Generalization, and Confirmation Bias, with Post Hoc (False Cause) as the most egregious example at 18.6% saturation with 139 hits. Analysis detected 932 faulty-reasoning hits from 747 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 17.9% and a BS Rank of 4% (21,075 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 96.30% of the article peer group.

Matt Watson // Getty Images 
Here’s what you’ll learn when you read this story: 
In the fall of 1988, a U.S. spy plane recorded a strange light phenomenon—known as the “Dome of Light”—following the launch of a Soviet SS-20 Saber intermediate-range ballistic missile. 
Initially, experts wondered if the fuel used for the rocket created the unexplainable aurora, or if it was an ion cloud of some sort. 
A more accepted theory was that the Dome of Light was a countermeasure designed for overcoming anti-missile defenses in the U.S. and Europe. 
If there’s one thing that the Soviet Union was good at, it was keeping secrets. 
The U.S.’s Cold War adversary gained valuable information through espionage efforts in order to develop its first atomic bomb in extreme secrecy, and the launch of Sputnik in 1957 similarly caught the world by surprise. 
It even took the world days to discern that something was terribly wrong after the meltdown of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in 1986. 
Because of the USSR’s predilection for concealment, the U.S. developed various ways to snoop on its rival— high-flying aircraft like the U-2 , innovative spy satellites , and deep-sea contraptions purpose-built to scoop up destroyed Soviet submarines from ocean’s watery depths. 
But the U.S. had another reconnaissance trick up its sleeve stationed at Shemya Air Force Base in the Aleutian Islands. 
The aircraft was known as the Boeing RC-135S Cobra Ball , which was a modified Boeing C-135 Stratolifter airframe (complete with an array of optical and electronic sensors) tricked out for just one mission in mind: tracking Soviet missile launches. 
In the fall of 1988, U.S. 
Air Force pilot Robert Hopkins was on just such a mission. 
Nestled in the cockpit of the RC-135S Cobra Ball, he observed a missile launch that was part of a shoot-to-destruction provision in the 1987 Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty between the U.S. and the Soviet Union . 
The treaty allowed countries to dispose of now-illegal munitions by launching them to known impact sites, reported TWZ back in 2019 . 
The Soviet Union planned to fire a SS-20 Saber intermediate-range ballistic missile, and Hopkins and his copilot were on hand to observe, with instruments trained to gather speed and telemetry data. 
But then something strange happened. 
As Hopkins told TWZ: 
As we looked for traffic, we noticed what appeared to be a translucent, milky white wall moving from the left, over the USSR, to the right, toward the Northern Pacific Ocean . 
It covered the entire sky from ground level to as far up as we could see looking out the front windows of the airplane. 
It moved very quickly—far faster than crossing airplane traffic—and rapidly approached us. 
The wall of light passed across our flight path and then continued eastward, leaving the empty and dark night sky in its wake. 
The ‘wall’ received the nickname “Dome of Light”—an unexplained phenomenon that Hopkins and the same co-pilot saw just one more time, also following an SS-20 missile launch. 
Initially, the pilots chalked up the experience to a hallucination or an “auroral event neither of us had ever seen,” Hopkins told TWZ. 
But Air Force scientists weren’t convinced. 
Was it possible that the SS-20 used a special fuel that caused this strange light, or was it perhaps a type of ion cloud for measuring aspects of the upper atmosphere ? 
The more sinister explanation was that the Dome of Light was specifically designed as a countermeasure to confound U.S. and European anti-missile defense. 
As TWZ reports, whether such a system actually worked remains unknown. 
But today, alongside Russia’s hypersonic missiles capable of overwhelming U.S. defenses, such a technology could prove quite deadly indeed. 
Darren lives in Portland, has a cat, and writes/edits about sci-fi and how our world works. 
You can find his previous stuff at Gizmodo and Paste if you look hard enough. 
Why Four Submarines Disappeared in 1968 
How the CIA Read 100 Nations’ Secrets 
How the U.S. 
Army Stole a Soviet Superweapon 
He Found a Sunken WWII Submarine Full of Gold 
Inside the CIA’s Most Daring Underwater Heist 
This German Sub Lies off the New Jersey Coast 
Mysterious Fireballs Stalked Confused WWII Pilots 
The Story of the Last American Sub Lost at Sea 
1,000s of UFOs Are Spotted Near U.S. 
Coastlines 
The Titanic Discovery Was a Navy Cover-Up 
Debunking the 9/11 Myths: The World Trade Center 
A Chronological History of U.S. 
Fighter Jets 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 8.4%Darren Orf: 4.6%Popular Mechanics: 4.4%Confirmation Bias8.4%This article: 2.9%Darren Orf: 1.7%Popular Mechanics: 1.1%Anchoring Bias2.9%This article: 7.0%Darren Orf: 4.3%Popular Mechanics: 3.1%Availability Heuristic7.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 1.9%Popular Mechanics: 1.5%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 2.7%Popular Mechanics: 1.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 2.7%Popular Mechanics: 2.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 4.0%Popular Mechanics: 3.6%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.9%Popular Mechanics: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.1%Popular Mechanics: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 3.5%Popular Mechanics: 3.3%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 5.6%Darren Orf: 1.1%Popular Mechanics: 1.1%Pessimism Bias5.6%This article: 5.9%Darren Orf: 6.2%Popular Mechanics: 5.3%Negativity Bias5.9%This article: 3.1%Darren Orf: 0.4%Popular Mechanics: 0.6%Self-Serving Bias3.1%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.2%Popular Mechanics: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.1%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 7.5%Darren Orf: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias7.5%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 2.1%Popular Mechanics: 1.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 7.2%Darren Orf: 1.2%Popular Mechanics: 1.2%Recency Bias7.2%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.7%Popular Mechanics: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.1%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.2%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 6.8%Darren Orf: 7.7%Popular Mechanics: 5.5%Appeal to Authority6.8%This article: 4.3%Darren Orf: 1.1%Popular Mechanics: 1.6%False Dilemma4.3%This article: 5.6%Darren Orf: 0.5%Popular Mechanics: 0.4%Slippery Slope5.6%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.1%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 8.8%Darren Orf: 4.5%Popular Mechanics: 4.2%Hasty Generalization8.8%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.2%Popular Mechanics: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 4.0%Darren Orf: 3.7%Popular Mechanics: 3.3%Appeal to Emotion4.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.5%Popular Mechanics: 0.8%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 18.6%Darren Orf: 3.7%Popular Mechanics: 2.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)18.6%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 1.5%Darren Orf: 0.6%Popular Mechanics: 0.6%Burden of Proof1.5%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.8%Popular Mechanics: 0.5%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 2.0%Darren Orf: 0.4%Popular Mechanics: 0.4%Composition/Division2.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 3.3%Popular Mechanics: 2.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 5.0%Darren Orf: 2.3%Popular Mechanics: 2.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)5.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.2%Popular Mechanics: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.1%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.3%Darren Orf: 2.4%Popular Mechanics: 1.4%Unattributed Quote4.3%This article: 0.7%Darren Orf: 1.1%Popular Mechanics: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.7%This article: 10.2%Darren Orf: 8.0%Popular Mechanics: 5.9%Biased Writer Voice10.2%This article: 1.2%Darren Orf: 1.6%Popular Mechanics: 1.1%Indoctrination1.2%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.3%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 4.1%Darren Orf: 0.4%Popular Mechanics: 3.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…4.1%

747 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker17%attributed speech618writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageRobert Hopkins • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageRobert Hopkins • 4 words • 0.0% coverageRobert Hopkins • 32 words • 100.0% coverageRobert Hopkins • 24 words • 0.0% coverageRobert Hopkins • 12 words • 0.0% coverageRobert Hopkins • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageRobert Hopkins • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Robert Hopkins

70%flagged-word coverage
129 attributed words100% of attributed speech70% writer coverage
0%12.5%25.0%Unattributed Quote+24.8 ptsWriter: 0.0%Robert Hopkins: 24.8%24.8%Biased Writer Voice-12.3 ptsWriter: 12.3%Robert Hopkins: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -5.0 ptsWriter: 5.0%Robert Hopkins: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-1.5 ptsWriter: 1.5%Robert Hopkins: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-0.8 ptsWriter: 0.8%Robert Hopkins: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.