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

71–80 of 106 posts

Re: There Are Aliens, but Probably Not Here

#71

Post by minitoar »

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.

Yes, this “pilots are trained professionals and therefore they can accurately identify a meaningful anomaly” does not match my experience of being a pilot or the training I received. It is drilled into you that your senses basically can’t be trusted. Your eyes and your brain will try to make sense of what you are seeing and feeling and that’s fine but it’s up to your higher brain to remember that those systems are often wrong. Your eyes will trick you and you have to use other context to actually know what you are seeing — information that is not always available.

Re: There Are Aliens, but Probably Not Here

#73

Post by strathmeyer »

carapace wrote: post #54

I didn't see it mentioned here yet but this went by three days ago: "‘Something’s going on’: UFOs threaten national security, US politicians warn" > Some members of Congress were given advanced details about Pentagon report, which is scheduled to be released before 25 June > A group of senior American politicians have warned that UFOs pose “national security concerns” after getting a confidential briefing on a highly…

Corrupt governments pretend to have evidence of aliens in order to increase their legitimacy. At has always added up to this.

Re: There Are Aliens, but Probably Not Here

#75

Post by squidlogic »

thayne wrote: post #60
abnry wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Why is having aliens bad? If there really are extraterrestrial entities on earth, and they aren't making any acts of aggression, that seems like it could potentially be a good thing, although there is the big question of why they would hide from the general population but allow themselves to be seen by the occasional pilot...

One possible idea is that if they organize their civilization in any way then they may simply not have authorization to reveal themselves. The occasional pilot noticing them would be accidents.

As far as it being bad news — it’s never comforting to learn a different civilization has vastly superior technology, and may not share your values.

Re: There Are Aliens, but Probably Not Here

#76

Post by marc_io »

hooo wrote: post #40
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.

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

Luis Elizondo (which was at the time the senior official in the U.S. government responsible for the UAP program) explicitly said in a recent interview that there is actually more data “layers“ connected to the videos.

https://youtu.be/Eozxt_HnPu4 around 52min)

The issue is that the data is classified and it was not released yet, making it more difficult to independently prove those claims.

Re: There Are Aliens, but Probably Not Here

#77

Post by marc_io »

raverbashing wrote: post #63
zdyn5 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> No need for mystery or keeping things under wraps.

The government may need if there is other implications beyond flight security.

The fact that they explicitly said that there's more classified data about it, clearly shows that concern.

Re: There Are Aliens, but Probably Not Here

#78

Post by Supermancho »

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…

> it isn't totally crazy to imagine an AI that can self replicate it's frame, and use this ability to explore the galaxy

tinfoil hat If your AI is directed enough to replicate itself and "explore the galaxy" for some reason, I think it's safe to say that there would be failures and it would understand the implications of it's technology being adopted (by another intelligence, AI or not).

Re: There Are Aliens, but Probably Not Here

#79

Post by vehemenz »

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?

1. Are you suggesting eyewitness testimony is reliable? If this is your position, then why shouldn't we take ghosts and supposed religious phenomena seriously?

2. Your supposed "experts" are relying on equipment they do not understand that regularly produce phenomena they do not understand.

Ironically, I think you've made a good case that philosophers (experts) should be the ones tackling this issue.

Re: There Are Aliens, but Probably Not Here

#80

Post by vehemenz »

RobertoG wrote: post #57
jodrellblank wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

True, he doesn't even mention what the pilots say they saw, what is curious for the case that he is discussing. I don't blame him for his anti-alien position, but his "there is nothing weird here" position is kind of unsustainable. If instead, he would say: "there is no reason to explain this with aliens" and stopped there that would be a perfect rational position. But he solved the problem like this: >>"Utter incomp…

> So, a professor of epistemology solve the problem estimating his priors from how he feels about the issue, an argument from authority (because he didn't bother to check if Mr.West get his facts right) and selecting only the evidence that fits his theory. Wonderful.

If there were alternative explanations that were plausible, sure. But they tend to invoke conspiracy theories, aliens, or alternative physics. Maybe other explanations will come around that are plausible, but it is reasonable to settle on the boring, seemingly plausible explanations for now. That's not an argument from authority.

Post reply on HN