Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Look at Flying Saucers?

lareviewofbooks.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 71 posts

Re: Why Look at Flying Saucers?

#21

Post by MicahKV »

ansible wrote: post #15
tgflynn wrote: post #5

To dismiss all evidence of UAP's out of hand as "illogical" is just as unscientific as to accept them as being proof of ET visitation. It may be that all these claimed observations are the product of some sort of collective psychosis, as this article appears to assume, but that's just one hypothesis among many others. Empirical questions require empirical investigation, not ignoring the question.

I did used to entertain the idea of aliens visiting this solar system. And then I better understood the stupendous energy requirements for a two-way trip to even the very closest neighboring solar system. And it is just not practical, even for a civilization at the end of the technology development tree. We might see one-way probes, but they are as likely to be a part of hegemonizing swarm, looking to convert all usa…

I like to think that advanced alien life may already be established in our solar system, and we just haven't detected it yet. Unlikely as that is, the solar system is a big place and we are still just scratching the surface in terms of exploring it.

Perhaps we have a highly advanced neighbor that values their privacy and has the technology to remain concealed from our "primitive" observation capabilities? Again, not likely but it's fun to think about.

Re: Why Look at Flying Saucers?

#22

Post by NikolaeVarius »

eitland wrote: post #18
TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything you have written is terrestrial speculation based on the same mistaken assumption - that human intelligence is as smart as it gets. If aliens exist they will be alien. They will not be a bit weird with our naive ideas of sort-of-better alien tech. They will be something entirely different, and very likely able to do entirely unexpected things. Imagine a species which has roughly the same intelligence advan…

To add to this: it is way less than 100 years since we learned to use fission and fusion. Until the two first bombs were dropped it was either unknown or, to those who realized the potential: considered impossible with the technology available at the time. I wonder what is just out of reach for us today, or what scientists are secretly working on today. Also, one step ahead, like you I also think what we are capable…

That really isn't a valid comparison.

The bombs were built specifically because scientists theorized that it would be possible to generate large bombs with their knowledge of atomic energy.

They underestimated the scale of the bombs.

Govt's dont pour billions of dollars into impossible technologies.

Re: Why Look at Flying Saucers?

#23

Post by prudhvis »

eitland wrote: post #17
tgflynn wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Four pilots in two different aircraft plus the radar operators all confused in the same way. What are the odds of that ?

> What are the odds of that ? Not good. My best alternative explanations is: top secret research project going out of their way to fool everyone, possibly with the help of a few pilots and radar operators :-)

Sure. Let's assume that there are top secret research programs. What this tells us is that the research had yeilded such results as

* Super High Density energy storage mechanism, that when being used actually cools down instead of heating up

* An energy source that isn't based around burning fossil fuels for propulsion, that is highly efficient.

* A device that could atleast in theory be using some kind of an inertial cancellation mechanism.

Any of this could be a solution to climate change. Why would our own governments lie and put the future of this planet in jeapordy?. Just so they can win the next war but lose a Future?.

The idea that this is some kind of a secret research project doesn't add up.

Re: Why Look at Flying Saucers?

#24

Post by jordwest »

It’s unfortunate that this topic has such stigma around it that many researchers are afraid to study it for fear it’ll delegitimise them or ruin their career.

You may be surprised at how many people you know have had experiences of their own, or know someone close who has, but don’t talk about it for fear of judgement.

For all the hundreds of thousands of anecdotal reports that exist, and documented cases involving hundreds of witnesses, there is so little research into the phenomenon. Most of it is dismissed as mass hysteria, rather than investigated to determine if that assumption is true.

That said, it’s not exactly a phenomenon that can easily be studied - the results are not repeatable. As Carl Sagan said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I think we need to stop calling it a conspiracy theory, and instead call it just a theory. Remember there was a time when it was considered a conspiracy to say the the earth revolves around the sun.

Re: Why Look at Flying Saucers?

#25

Post by ansible »

felixchan wrote: post #20
ansible wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did used to entertain the idea of aliens visiting this solar system. And then I better understood the stupendous energy requirements for a two-way trip to even the very closest neighboring solar system. And it is just not practical, even for a civilization at the end of the technology development tree. We might see one-way probes, but they are as likely to be a part of hegemonizing swarm, looking to convert all usa…

>And then I better understood the stupendous energy requirements for a two-way trip to even the very closest neighboring solar system. And it is just not practical, even for a civilization at the end of the technology development tree. This is blind arrogance.

Eh, no it isn't arrogance. It is math and physics.

Have a look at a few links. So first off, chemical propulsion is right out:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/life-unbounded/why-chem...

You really need something like anti-matter:

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

You're still looking at hundreds of years or more for a nearby two-way trip.

It is far more practical to send out probes one-way (which is quite slow), and then build the infrastructure at the destination to receive transmitted mind-states.

The initial probes take a long time to reach their destinations, because they have to have means to deaccelerate. The faster you accelerate, the more mass you have to carry with you to deaccelerate.

Re: Why Look at Flying Saucers?

#26

Post by thoughtsimple »

maxharris wrote: post #4
SiempreViernes wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLyEO0jNt6M

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HInaJxFxWs

David Fravor is the most credible eyewitness to a UFO that I’ve ever heard. There is no reason that I can come up with why anyone listening to his account should doubt what he saw.

The interview is long but the whole thing is worth a listen. I challenge anyone to listen to the whole thing and then deny something odd was happening in the Pacific.

Re: Why Look at Flying Saucers?

#27

Post by hindsightbias »

istorical wrote: post #13
SiempreViernes wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLyEO0jNt6M

The problem with using Mick West's possible explanation for these videos is that it doesn't address the other tools that were used to track these UAPs. Let's say we believe with confidence that this debunking is correct and that these videos show a bird or balloon or some explainable phenomena. The next step is to look at the eyewitness testimony and reports from the people involved in this case - several Navy fighte…

> speeds beyond what is possible

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. One of the transcripts was something akin to "you won't believe it, but it's back over there" - there's no claim by the radio operator that they "saw" a track move at speed X, it could just as well be taken as "it was here, and then it was back there". Unless the object was squawking an IFF or transponder code, how would they know it's the exact same object?

Since we don't have that evidence - guy claims before he could even lock up the E2C tapes a pair from the USAF appear on a Naval Carrier (like teleported or what?) to take them.

All the worlds most advanced collection systems, optical and radar and all we have are fuzzy videos no better than a bigfoot video. The only decent video is debunked by someone actually doing the math.

Re: Why Look at Flying Saucers?

#28

Post by shiftpgdn »

NikolaeVarius wrote: post #22
eitland wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To add to this: it is way less than 100 years since we learned to use fission and fusion. Until the two first bombs were dropped it was either unknown or, to those who realized the potential: considered impossible with the technology available at the time. I wonder what is just out of reach for us today, or what scientists are secretly working on today. Also, one step ahead, like you I also think what we are capable…

That really isn't a valid comparison. The bombs were built specifically because scientists theorized that it would be possible to generate large bombs with their knowledge of atomic energy. They underestimated the scale of the bombs. Govt's dont pour billions of dollars into impossible technologies.

How much have MK Ultra, MK demon, etc cost?

Re: Why Look at Flying Saucers?

#29

Post by istorical »

hindsightbias wrote: post #27
istorical wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with using Mick West's possible explanation for these videos is that it doesn't address the other tools that were used to track these UAPs. Let's say we believe with confidence that this debunking is correct and that these videos show a bird or balloon or some explainable phenomena. The next step is to look at the eyewitness testimony and reports from the people involved in this case - several Navy fighte…

> speeds beyond what is possible Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. One of the transcripts was something akin to "you won't believe it, but it's back over there" - there's no claim by the radio operator that they "saw" a track move at speed X, it could just as well be taken as "it was here, and then it was back there". Unless the object was squawking an IFF or transponder code, how would they know i…

My point is not that there is evidence or that we should believe their clams.

My point is that debunking the video is pretty pointless and the video really is almost a side note compared to the real judgment call one has to make which is whether a verbal anecdote about sensor data from a US Navy squadron commander on an aircraft with millions of dollars of sensor R&D working with radar operators in a fleet that is worth billions deserves more weight than the verbal anecdote of an Iowa farmer who saw a light moving in the sky.

If you're only interested in hard data and hard evidence then the entire thing is almost pointless as any UFO videos could just be doctored anyway.

Re: Why Look at Flying Saucers?

#30

Post by felixchan »

ansible wrote: post #25
felixchan wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>And then I better understood the stupendous energy requirements for a two-way trip to even the very closest neighboring solar system. And it is just not practical, even for a civilization at the end of the technology development tree. This is blind arrogance.

Eh, no it isn't arrogance. It is math and physics. Have a look at a few links. So first off, chemical propulsion is right out: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/life-unbounded/why-chem... You really need something like anti-matter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_travel You're still looking at hundreds of years or more for a nearby two-way trip. It is far more practical to send out probes one-way (which…

It's arrogance because you think that your current system of science is relevant. Civilization has been around for only 5000 years.

How do you know other planets do not have elements that have anti-matter properties?

Post reply on HN