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

There Are Aliens, but Probably Not Here

fakenous.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 106 posts

Re: There Are Aliens, but Probably Not Here

#31

Post by grp000 »

gdubs wrote: post #26
jlkuester7 wrote: post #9

It is nice to see some more rational explanations for these videos (instead of the constant alien/ufo drivel from most media outlets). The thing that still confuses me, though, is how these videos became a thing in the first place. We are not talking about some random civilians with a Polaroid trying to get pics of a lake monster. The Navy has (presumably high-tech) equipment for finding and tracking airborne phenome…

I’ve always been more on the skeptic side, FWIW — but the two pilots on 60 Minutes came across as very credible. And they — and others — claimed to have seen these things with their own eyes. The one pilot described the object as being around the same size as their fighter jet. I’m not arguing it’s “aliens” — just saying that while we’ve only seen grainy weapons-tracking footage, there seems to be a decent number of…

I believe fighter pilots (maybe all pilots?) are required to have very good eyesight as well.

Re: There Are Aliens, but Probably Not Here

#32

Post by ec109685 »

cyberbanjo wrote: post #24
tamaharbor wrote: post #17

It would cost a lot of money for Earthlings to send an occasional mission to the relatively nearby Moon or Mars. There must be a lot of really affluent civilizations in the universes.

One of my favorite sci-fi tropes is post scarcity

Once you have sufficiently advanced robots, doesn’t the cost of most goods dramatically reduce since the labor is taken out of the entire supply chain?

Re: There Are Aliens, but Probably Not Here

#33

Post by SerLava »

dau wrote: post #19
SerLava wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, the Pentagon sent us a video of a blurry dot. So it must have been an alien space ship moving 16,000 miles per hour through atmosphere but not heating the air at all

The Pentagon didn't send or release anything. They confirmed the publication of an - at least perhaps initially - unidentified object to be a genuine recording.

It's also the video they had previously fumbled, and spooks are well known to fraudulently "leak" information to get it selectively picked up

Re: There Are Aliens, but Probably Not Here

#34

Post by jodrellblank »

ctvo wrote: post #13

A person without actual expertise dismisses numerous accounts by trained pilots who saw this first hand by Googling for YouTube explanations and calling these witnesses liars or incompetents. Does this person happen to work in tech?

The author is a professor of philosophy at Colorado University, no he doesn't work in tech.

The people he is calling liars and incompetents are journalists and news media, not pilots.

Re: There Are Aliens, but Probably Not Here

#36

Post by dau »

RobertoG wrote: post #20
jlkuester7 wrote: post #9

It is nice to see some more rational explanations for these videos (instead of the constant alien/ufo drivel from most media outlets). The thing that still confuses me, though, is how these videos became a thing in the first place. We are not talking about some random civilians with a Polaroid trying to get pics of a lake monster. The Navy has (presumably high-tech) equipment for finding and tracking airborne phenome…

You should check the interviews (there are several, including a 60 minutes) with the pilot David Fravor (1). There are two pilots and two wizards that saw the same with their own eyes (even I have only see the other pilot confirming it). That's an UFO. That doesn't mean that it's extraterrestrial. To say that it's extraterrestrial at this point, is, in my opinion, so ridiculous like to say that there is nothing to ex…

How ridiculous the ET assumption is depends on the amount of plausible alternatives. And for the Nimitz encounter to be something mundane, several very different things must have glitched or been missinterpreted and one has to put how ridiculous THAT would be into perspective.

Re: There Are Aliens, but Probably Not Here

#37

Post by hooande »

jlkuester7 wrote: post #9

It is nice to see some more rational explanations for these videos (instead of the constant alien/ufo drivel from most media outlets). The thing that still confuses me, though, is how these videos became a thing in the first place. We are not talking about some random civilians with a Polaroid trying to get pics of a lake monster. The Navy has (presumably high-tech) equipment for finding and tracking airborne phenome…

I think the answer is the Law of Large Numbers. Think about the total number of air missions that the US military conducts on a daily basis. If only 1% of those are anomalous in a way that's difficult to explain, that's a lot of odd occurrences every year. No matter how high tech the equipment or how skilled the operators, there will always be events that sync up in a way that defies explanation. Even if it's only 1% of 1% that fall into this category, that's still several instances every few years.

I don't question the pilots or radar operators who report seeing things they believe to be extraterrestrial in origin. But with enough missions, sooner or later the radar data will synch up with human eyes in a way that seems to indicate almost anything.

Re: There Are Aliens, but Probably Not Here

#38

Post by rowanG077 »

zikzak wrote: post #11

Time for me to sound crazy. I won't comment on the debunking. I am sure there's a logical explanation but I am not qualified to make decisions using the evidence I have (which is often true of people on both sides of the discussion, here, generally). I terms of "are they here", it isn't totally crazy to imagine an AI that can self replicate it's frame, and use this ability to explore the galaxy. When it finds places…

I agree with you. An AI also seems much more likely because it doesn't suffer from the weaknesses of organic(as we know it) life. It takes 100k years to go to that star system? No problem just powerdown with a simple watchdog. Radiation? No problem just replace sensitive parts every x years. I mean if you accept that aliens with this level of advancement exist then it's almost certain they must also have created true AI.

Anyway I don't think intelligent aliens have visited us. I think the physics just makes it an improbability even if there is intelligent life in the universe.

Re: There Are Aliens, but Probably Not Here

#39

Post by mynameisvlad »

ec109685 wrote: post #32
cyberbanjo wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of my favorite sci-fi tropes is post scarcity

Once you have sufficiently advanced robots, doesn’t the cost of most goods dramatically reduce since the labor is taken out of the entire supply chain?

Usually, post-scarcity as an element deals with matter replicators/molecular assemblers that can build anything out of raw materials.

See Diamond Age, Accelerando, etc.

Re: There Are Aliens, but Probably Not Here

#40

Post by hooo »

soared wrote: post #30
gdubs wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve always been more on the skeptic side, FWIW — but the two pilots on 60 Minutes came across as very credible. And they — and others — claimed to have seen these things with their own eyes. The one pilot described the object as being around the same size as their fighter jet. I’m not arguing it’s “aliens” — just saying that while we’ve only seen grainy weapons-tracking footage, there seems to be a decent number of…

OP's point is in that situation the government should/would have data gathered from onboard sensors about the UFOs. A fighter jet costs hundreds of millions of dollars, so we'd expect there to be various sensors with recordings of these objects, rather than just pilot's eyesight and memory.

Why do you think they don't have more data on these events?
Post reply on HN