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

41–50 of 106 posts

Re: There Are Aliens, but Probably Not Here

#41

Post by gfodor »

api wrote: post #22
SerLava wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't feel like it can be much of a coincidence that there is a new branch of the US military with a currently low yearly expenditure compared to the other branches, which could potentially be the source of incredibly lucrative private contracts to corporations with former generals sitting on their boards.

Bingo. There have been anomalous radar tapes, sightings, and videos since the 50s. Why is this suddenly an issue?

The sequence of events began in 2017 - the idea we would all be talking about UFOs again at some point was evident to anyone paying attention then.

Re: There Are Aliens, but Probably Not Here

#42

Post by gfodor »

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…

If you presume there are aliens in the galaxy it seems logical to assume we would find a deployed system to cut off risks (external to them) of galaxy-wide destruction or invasion.

Re: There Are Aliens, but Probably Not Here

#43

Post by zdyn5 »

RobertoG wrote: post #12

The thing about those videos are not the videos themselves, but the testimonies that come with them and the additional information, specially the "tic tac" video. I don't know what is really going on in those videos, but, in my opinion, this gentleman, that it seems is a professor of epistemology!, is not following the scientific method. You don't start with the solution and then fix the evidence to it. It's very eas…

Also, if the films could be so simply explained away (like IR of airplanes from far away) this would’ve been put down way earlier at multiple levels of the Navy, probably starting from the pilots themselves since they would see these things multiple times every day. Mick West also has an incentive to come up with explanations to debunk these films since that’s his job, even if they’re low quality explanations since he has to… whereas it’s far more taboo and reputation-risking in the Navy for the pilots to come out and say what they saw.

Re: There Are Aliens, but Probably Not Here

#44

Post by abnry »

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.

All the scenarios in my mind are bad. Either (1) we have actual aliens, which in bad inasmuch it is freaking crazy and novel; (2) the government is incompetent in identifying the physical effects manifesting in the sensors and is okay in exposing their incompetence; (3) a non-US nation-state has superior technology, which suggests a potential bad future geopolitical outcome; or (4) the government is running a psych-op on its people and deliberately pushing misleading information for some purpose, such as to subtly signal to other nation-states that they have advanced technology.

Re: There Are Aliens, but Probably Not Here

#45

Post by lgl »

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

I think the main issue with this argument isn't really whether it's a post scarcity civilization or not, but the implying that any alien civilization, especially an advanced one, would also develop into an almost exclusively capitalistic society like us. It's going way too much into anthropomorphizing territory.

Re: There Are Aliens, but Probably Not Here

#46

Post by IAmGraydon »

abnry wrote: post #44
soared wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

All the scenarios in my mind are bad. Either (1) we have actual aliens, which in bad inasmuch it is freaking crazy and novel; (2) the government is incompetent in identifying the physical effects manifesting in the sensors and is okay in exposing their incompetence; (3) a non-US nation-state has superior technology, which suggests a potential bad future geopolitical outcome; or (4) the government is running a psych-o…

Judging by the way the UFO rhetoric was suddenly ratcheted up several years ago by the US Govt, I feel that #4 is probably the most likely. My gut is telling me something isn’t right.

Re: There Are Aliens, but Probably Not Here

#47

Post by jamesdmiller »

dau wrote: post #36
RobertoG wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, if it's aliens or a 1 in 10,000 glitch it's the glitch. But if it's either aliens or three such independent glitches, it's likely aliens.

Re: There Are Aliens, but Probably Not Here

#48

Post by RobertoG »

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.

There is radar data from the ships too. The reason they send the jets there in the first place is because they can't explain the radar data. So, we have radar data, a video and the testimony of several professionals. We don't have to believe in aliens to accept that something very surprising is going on.

The writer of the article is dismissing evidence to fit his theory. And the guy is a professor of epistemology.

Re: There Are Aliens, but Probably Not Here

#49

Post by dahfizz »

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?

Resources are always scarce. Energy and raw materials will always be expensive, and the demand for energy and materials both increases as they become more available (keeping the price high).

Re: There Are Aliens, but Probably Not Here

#50

Post by RobertoG »

abnry wrote: post #44
soared wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

All the scenarios in my mind are bad. Either (1) we have actual aliens, which in bad inasmuch it is freaking crazy and novel; (2) the government is incompetent in identifying the physical effects manifesting in the sensors and is okay in exposing their incompetence; (3) a non-US nation-state has superior technology, which suggests a potential bad future geopolitical outcome; or (4) the government is running a psych-o…

I watched some interview with some congressman saying that the aliens explanation is not so bad, the problem is if they are Chinese or Russian.

I don't know if laughing or crying about that statement and what it says about humans.

Post reply on HN