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

61–70 of 106 posts

Re: There Are Aliens, but Probably Not Here

#61

Post by WJW »

RobertoG wrote: post #51
IAmGraydon wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I have this feeling too, not so much about the pilots testimony, as about the way the videos came to light. If I put my conspiracy theorist hat, this "To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science" smells to me to a "Intelligence Community" front.

For people with conspiracy theorist hats, any name can smells like an intelligence community front. Too weird and it's obviously fake, too normal and it just shows you that the intelligence community is Very Tricky Indeed and almost managed to fool us by choosing such a normal name. But luckily, due to our Advanced Conspiracy Theorist Hat Technology advantage we knew upfront that anything we look at is an intelligence community front and therefore they can never fool us with their devious naming choices.

Re: There Are Aliens, but Probably Not Here

#62

Post by raverbashing »

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…

Yes

The planes might also (I mean, yes, they have, but we don't know what it is exactly) classified capabilities and sensors. And "black boxes" (not exactly that, but more like FOQA probably).

It is also likely someone took data from those flights and tried to plot the possible object paths. Did any (unclassified) conclusion come from that?

Re: There Are Aliens, but Probably Not Here

#63

Post by raverbashing »

zdyn5 wrote: post #43
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 h…

Yes, obviously

I mean, if this is explainable phenomenon (let's say, atmospheric) it would be in the interest of the aviation community to know it.

Upper Atmospheric lightning is known at this point. No need for mystery or keeping things under wraps.

Re: There Are Aliens, but Probably Not Here

#64

Post by protoax »

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…

Many "government approved" and "pentagon verified" videos have been consistently debunked and proven to be common visual phenomena and physical illusions. While steering clear of any hardcore conspiracies, I don't doubt that the government wheels this same package out time and time again when needed as a distraction or to provide a weak reason for additional defense funding seeing as it is always so effective in capturing attention.

Re: There Are Aliens, but Probably Not Here

#65

Post by dane-pgp »

the__alchemist wrote: post #10
throwawaygal7 wrote: post #5

Aliens are like angels and demons in 12 century Europe- they're everywhere but you'll never see them.

Carl Sagan wrote a book based on this premise: The Demon-Haunted World .

The fact that the phenomenon has endured across centuries (and across cultures) either suggests that both demons and aliens are products of the human mind, or that demons and aliens are the same phenomenon, and they usually don't want to be seen.

Re: There Are Aliens, but Probably Not Here

#66

Post by arcanon »

dahfizz wrote: post #49
ec109685 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Nothing is scarce in space. There is limitless energy in the atom’s nucleus. We just dont have an effective power plant yet.

Re: There Are Aliens, but Probably Not Here

#67

Post by driverdan »

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…

> claimed to have seen these things with their own eyes

Human observations are the least reliable form of evidence. There are countless ways you can incorrectly interpret what you see.

For example, it's very hard to correctly estimate the distance or size of an object in the sky. Pilots are no better at this than anyone else. If you think something is closer than it actually is you'll also incorrectly interpret its speed and size.

Re: There Are Aliens, but Probably Not Here

#68

Post by RobertoG »

WJW wrote: post #61
RobertoG wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have this feeling too, not so much about the pilots testimony, as about the way the videos came to light. If I put my conspiracy theorist hat, this "To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science" smells to me to a "Intelligence Community" front.

For people with conspiracy theorist hats, any name can smells like an intelligence community front. Too weird and it's obviously fake, too normal and it just shows you that the intelligence community is Very Tricky Indeed and almost managed to fool us by choosing such a normal name. But luckily, due to our Advanced Conspiracy Theorist Hat Technology advantage we knew upfront that anything we look at is an intelligenc…

Oh, but it's not the name what smells like a "intelligence community" front.

It's that if you check the founders they are related to the "intelligence community", and the way the video was "leaked" to the NYT feels kind of funny too. This guy Luís Elizondo (1) is clearly from the "community", what it's not so clear is that he was in charge of investigating UFOs as he is claiming. I don't know, maybe they just want to make money or they are legitimate and just want the truth.

Of course, this is just a "feeling" that I have, so, I'm not claiming is falsifiable or it's the true, for now it's only something to have an eye on that I wanted to share.

(1) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Elizondo

Re: There Are Aliens, but Probably Not Here

#69

Post by hliyan »

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…

Agreed. This is the most credible article on the subject I've seen to date. The last one I came across [1] was written by what looked like a smart and dedicated person going through some impressive mental gymnastics to arrive at this gem: "As derived above, UAPs create distortions in spacetime to create geodesics along which they move free of accelerations."

[1] https://www.uaptheory.com

Re: There Are Aliens, but Probably Not Here

#70

Post by ctvo »

mellosouls wrote: post #28
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 pilots are expert in flying and no doubt in-the-moment aerial observation; but its not clear why we need to take their opinion as final and impartial in post-event video analysis.

> The pilots are expert in flying and no doubt in-the-moment aerial observation;

And the pilots say it's something they can't explain, and have never seen before, on the record. More than one account.

The problem is the writer dismisses all of this, and takes the explanation of people who saw only the video. How dismissive the writer is of other's lived experience and expertise in their own domain is what I have trouble with.

Post reply on HN