941–950 of 978 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honestly the "it's aliens" explanation is so unlikely that I'd put "Wakanda is real" above it in my probability tables.
You can update your priors by looking into more cases. A pattern emerges. See UFOs: Generals, Pilots, and Government Officials Go on the Record by Leslie Kean.
All these UFO photographs, all of which are fuzzy smears. With the ubiquity of excellent cameras, why aren't there any in-focus, sharp photos of them? We all know the answer.
The easy answer is that they are all piloted by Bigfoot who is himself surrounded by a blurry cloud like Pigpen in Charlie Brown land thus blurring everything in his vicinity. The hard but most correct answer is that though many people routinely carry devices with cameras with them everywhere they go, when an event like many described occurs it takes time for someone to get the device into camera mode, focus the came…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If there were, they'd do it, but it doesn't help their business, so they don't.
Imaging and storage used to be much more expensive, so if this decision was to be reviewed today, I am pretty sure regulators would start requiring it. Just because things are as they are, doesn't mean that they couldn't be better.
But regulators do revisit existing rules all the time. If you really want this then feel free to file a formal petition for rulemaking. If you do that then they'll have to at least look at it.
https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/petition
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All of my credentials is that I learned a bit of physics and I read a bit of SF and I can tell one from the other. If it was about existence of leprechauns and effects of meeting them you'd have no problem dismissing it as well regardless of how accomplished people would be interested in the subject. And if it's UFO which has exactly the same amount of confirmed evidence as leprechauns suddenly there's a problem and…
You put that so wonderfully. The DoD and other scientists should absolutely stop investing things that are hovering over their naval ships and nuclear silos just because a man on hacker news would rather see other people investigating them. Your credentials having read a bit of physics are so, so helpful. Please, help the rest of the feeble planet with your intellect because you are truly the one person who knows wha…
https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/weird-news/2020/04/28/pe...
Third one is a goose:
Super solid evidence, no doubt.
Yeah, let's investigate. Tens of millions of dollars won't spend themselves. And we certainly wouldn't want to spend it on boring actual astronomy and astrophysics.
Btw the other video is just of loosing tracking of a plane:
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The observed behaviors do appear to contradict physical laws. My point is if we’re looking for an explanation, it’s either some natural phenomenon or illusion that we don’t understand, human technology, or alien technology. In either of the latter two options, we are either talking about new physics or very advanced spoofing tech that looks like new physics but isn’t really. For human tech, we’ve never seen anything…
The reverse of that is assuming our instruments (which eyes totally are) are perfect and therefore if they saw something it must be the first guess and not just an error or misinterpretation. You're basically saying "alien tech is un-understandable however we can still easily tell it is alien and not measurement error"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You really don't seem to be getting my argument. Indeed, you don't seem to be trying. I never said the possibility of aliens somewhere in the universe and somewhere in time was scientifically impossible. Indeed, I've said the opposite, something you seem dedicated to missing if you're still acting otherwise. I am specifically saying that there's no scientific justification for using aliens as an explanatory device fo…
What you are doing is rejecting a valid hypothesis based on emotion and bias rather than evidence. Aliens could be causing the UAP that have been extensively documented by the US military. You have put forth nothing to rule it out. You can’t, because no conclusive evidence has been found so far (or at least made public) that rules it out. We know intelligent aliens might exist. We know that if they did visit earth, i…
But my point is that there is exactly the same level of evidence for gods and aliens being behind these. I'm not saying either one's inconceivable. I'm just saying that I'm going to treat them both with the same level of seriousness. That is, approximately none.
I'm going to treat unexplained, poorly documented phenomena as unexplained, poorly documented phenomena. Does that mean I'm missing out on the Virgin Mary or aliens or ghosts or whatever? Possibly. But as a practical matter, a century's worth of paranormal hoohah shows I could waste my entire life on this stuff and never get anywhere. I am content that there are enough devoted skeptics out there that if any of the paranormal brigade comes up with some clear and repeatable evidence, I'll hear about it. Until then it goes in the bucket with dowsing and spirit guides and whatnot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The easy answer is that they are all piloted by Bigfoot who is himself surrounded by a blurry cloud like Pigpen in Charlie Brown land thus blurring everything in his vicinity. The hard but most correct answer is that though many people routinely carry devices with cameras with them everywhere they go, when an event like many described occurs it takes time for someone to get the device into camera mode, focus the came…
And yet, we have many sharp photos and videos of airplanes in the act of crashing, and meteors about to hit, etc. All taken by someone who was coincidentally carrying a camera.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What you are doing is rejecting a valid hypothesis based on emotion and bias rather than evidence. Aliens could be causing the UAP that have been extensively documented by the US military. You have put forth nothing to rule it out. You can’t, because no conclusive evidence has been found so far (or at least made public) that rules it out. We know intelligent aliens might exist. We know that if they did visit earth, i…
Sure. Gods could also be causing the UAP. I can't rule that out either. But my point is that there is exactly the same level of evidence for gods and aliens being behind these. I'm not saying either one's inconceivable. I'm just saying that I'm going to treat them both with the same level of seriousness. That is, approximately none. I'm going to treat unexplained, poorly documented phenomena as unexplained, poorly do…
You can rule it out because we've never found evidence of gods existing in the universe, and there's never been a scientific theory put forward for how they could exist that is consistent with our understanding of biology, astronomy, and physics. This obviously doesn't apply to intelligent life, but something tells me you aren't going to concede that. Thanks for the discussion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure. Gods could also be causing the UAP. I can't rule that out either. But my point is that there is exactly the same level of evidence for gods and aliens being behind these. I'm not saying either one's inconceivable. I'm just saying that I'm going to treat them both with the same level of seriousness. That is, approximately none. I'm going to treat unexplained, poorly documented phenomena as unexplained, poorly do…
"Gods could also be causing the UAP. I can't rule that out either." You can rule it out because we've never found evidence of gods existing in the universe, and there's never been a scientific theory put forward for how they could exist that is consistent with our understanding of biology, astronomy, and physics. This obviously doesn't apply to intelligent life, but something tells me you aren't going to concede that…
Indeed, the god-believers have a lot more "evidence" than the alien-believers do, even if I think it's all pretty specious. And I'll note that the god-believers don't have to prove consistency with biology, etc, in that in their view, that's god-created. Plus, there are things that the god hypothesis explains that the alien hypothesis doesn't, like why we have universe at all.
Again, I think it's all claptrap. I get that you're mad that I see them as the same. Most religious people would be insulted in the opposite direction. But from my perspective, religious people are like that. So yes, you're very welcome for the discussion, and I hope you find it helpful down the road.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes exactly its a bit arrogant to think that we know it all or that we can know it all.
There's a big difference between claiming we know it all and that our understanding is incomplete. There's also a big difference between claiming something is incomplete and that something has to be rewritten from the ground up. I believe our knowledge is incomplete, I do not believe there is something out there that requires us to rewrite everything. The problem here is that to go down this path you need to violate…