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

UFOs: What we learned from NASA's public meeting

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 37 posts

Re: UFOs: What we learned from NASA's public meeting

#11

Post by skissane »

Spk-17 wrote: post #8
thedangler wrote: post #4

I’m taking a different approach to disclosing UFOs If they did come out and say “ yeah we’ve known for a while” you have to realize that the world economy would crash. Eventually there would be Instant transportation for everyone and Free energy for everyone That is why disclosure will never happen until the powers that be all die off or something unimaginable happens. My two cents.

[flagged]

> The number of people you know who have already had close encounters is incredible, it cannot be that they are all crazy, something has to be true

How many people in this world claim to have had close encounters with supernatural entities-deities, spirits, angels, demons, ghosts, etc? It cannot be that they are all crazy, something has to be true

If you aren’t convinced by that argument, you shouldn’t be convinced by your own, because its logic is the same

Re: UFOs: What we learned from NASA's public meeting

#13

Post by Loquebantur »

Zetice wrote: post #9
Loquebantur wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kirkpatrick's slide notes of those UAP's typical characteristics: round , 1-4 meters diameter, white/silver/translucent, at 10K-30K feet altitude, up to Mach 2 , no thermal exhaust That is quite revealing in my book. Those are no conventionally powered "drones".

That's reported, not verified. It would say "tentacled oblong rectangle" if that's what got submitted.

Not quite true: it's what is reported typically.

You have to explain why so many people err in the same way, if you want to claim those reports to be counter-factual.

He shows a video of one of those "round" (rather spherical) objects. While not going at Mach 2 in that instance, it's clearly real and air-borne.

Re: UFOs: What we learned from NASA's public meeting

#14

Post by aaroninsf »

Idle comment: the popular UFO/UAP discourse, has a major new strand predicated on the hypothesis that the phenomena are associated not with ETs in the "these are the ships they flew here in, or away craft from their mothership parked elsewhere in the solar system,"

but rather with some civilization whose presence in the solar system and indeed on earth predates our own,

which shades over in one subset, into a set of hypotheses about panspermia or humanity being engineered.

Some with these views parse official statements from a different direction than most, believing they discern carefully chosen language which plays to consensus ideas about what might be being investigated and what might be known.

Re: UFOs: What we learned from NASA's public meeting

#16

Post by Loquebantur »

skissane wrote: post #11
Spk-17 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> The number of people you know who have already had close encounters is incredible, it cannot be that they are all crazy, something has to be true How many people in this world claim to have had close encounters with supernatural entities-deities, spirits, angels, demons, ghosts, etc? It cannot be that they are all crazy, something has to be true If you aren’t convinced by that argument, you shouldn’t be convinced b…

? No, it's not.

If you show "uneducated" people wild stuff, they will give even wilder recounts of that experience. That doesn't make the event unreal.

Religious or "esoteric" explanations are simply representations in a pre-scientific world view. That doesn't necessarily render the events represented "unscientific" (which people equate to "unreal").

Re: UFOs: What we learned from NASA's public meeting

#17

Post by Zetice »

Spk-17 wrote: post #12
Zetice wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why can't it be that all self reported close encounters are "crazy"?

[flagged]

Half the world isn't reporting UFO sightings, only 2%-5% of 50-100 (which is 1-5) monthly are considered "possibly really anomalous" (per the article).

Now if you think 1-5 monthly is "too many" to be considered "crazy" people, I've got some bad news...

Re: UFOs: What we learned from NASA's public meeting

#19

Post by Zetice »

Loquebantur wrote: post #13
Zetice wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's reported, not verified. It would say "tentacled oblong rectangle" if that's what got submitted.

Not quite true: it's what is reported typically . You have to explain why so many people err in the same way, if you want to claim those reports to be counter-factual. He shows a video of one of those "round" (rather spherical) objects. While not going at Mach 2 in that instance, it's clearly real and air-borne.

"So many"? I just quoted the part of the article that says it's 1-5 people per month with "possibly really anomalous" reports.

And no, it's neither clearly "real" nor "air-borne". What gets recorded on instruments, including video, is an imperfect reflection of what's happening, and to think that because something has been recorded means it's real is not accurate.

Re: UFOs: What we learned from NASA's public meeting

#20

Post by Loquebantur »

Zetice wrote: post #19
Loquebantur wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not quite true: it's what is reported typically . You have to explain why so many people err in the same way, if you want to claim those reports to be counter-factual. He shows a video of one of those "round" (rather spherical) objects. While not going at Mach 2 in that instance, it's clearly real and air-borne.

"So many"? I just quoted the part of the article that says it's 1-5 people per month with "possibly really anomalous" reports. And no, it's neither clearly "real" nor "air-borne". What gets recorded on instruments, including video, is an imperfect reflection of what's happening, and to think that because something has been recorded means it's real is not accurate.

Kirkpatrick doesn't count those flying spheres as "really anomalous". I don't know why...

Your "It's not clearly real or airborne" is interesting. Technically, you are correct, but it's a remarkably absurd stretch here.

The level-headed approach would clearly be, to assume it was real and attain better data.

Post reply on HN