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

21–30 of 37 posts

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

#21

Post by Zetice »

Loquebantur wrote: post #20
Zetice wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

The level headed approach is to handle an extraordinary claim with skepticism until an extraordinary level of evidence is presented.

Why are these videos always so grainy, out of focus, and otherwise unclear? Perhaps when clear and unambiguous video is captured there is no mystery…

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

#22

Post by jerojero »

Loquebantur wrote: post #5

So there are sizable objects in Earth's atmosphere that do not belong to any known actor and display superior technological capability. DoD, NASA & Co react with pointedly blasé attitude, pretending there was nothing remarkable about that. Does HN buy into that?

I imagine they're blasé about it precisely because they know these belong to no known actor, so far, they haven't shown any kind of signs of aggression towards anyone.

So, I think, these are viewed more like animals than anything else. Is that the right approach? Maybe? But maybe if anyone tried to touch them, shoot them down or whatever, we don't know what kind of reaction we'd get from them.

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

#24

Post by etrautmann »

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…

You could use this argument to either support or refute all world religions. I don’t understand how you could argue that large numbers of people can’t be wrong (see most of history)

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

#26

Post by NotACop182 »

Loquebantur wrote: post #20
Zetice wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

You never assume a claim as just real. You take the approach of a skeptic and attain all information before coming to a factual conclusion. If no conclusion is reached it is put in the pile of I don’t know.

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

#27

Post by vlovich123 »

hashstring wrote: post #7

I dislike that the article is filled with the false positive (FP) anecdotes. It’s important to state that there are many false positives, there must be. However, the focus should be on minimizing these FPs while maximizing true signal, and investigating these in depth. Everything that is potentially true signal, is what I want to read about, not something something microwaves during lunchtime.

True signal meaning aliens?

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

#28

Post by pixelbash »

vlovich123 wrote: post #27
hashstring wrote: post #7

I dislike that the article is filled with the false positive (FP) anecdotes. It’s important to state that there are many false positives, there must be. However, the focus should be on minimizing these FPs while maximizing true signal, and investigating these in depth. Everything that is potentially true signal, is what I want to read about, not something something microwaves during lunchtime.

True signal meaning aliens?

True signal meaning something that invites further research I guess

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

#29

Post by Sai_ »

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]

What is this gibberish and how are people replying to it as if it is a serious comment that makes complete sense to them?

FWIW, I checked spk-17's profile - there's no key or trick mentioned to help the clueless like me decipher this.

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

#30

Post by xk_id »

Sai_ wrote: post #29
Spk-17 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

What is this gibberish and how are people replying to it as if it is a serious comment that makes complete sense to them? FWIW, I checked spk-17's profile - there's no key or trick mentioned to help the clueless like me decipher this.

I don't understand, this particular comment doesn't even show up in the comment page for that use profile? It's so bizarre haha. somebody should @ dang and ask

edit: I think the sequence of events was this:

- user posted a genuine comment

- people replied to the original comment

- user edited the comment and changed it to that random sequence of letters and digits

- replies now appeared out of context

- the edited post was flagged in the short time span between me seeing it, and checking the comments page on the user profile (which is why I couldn't see it)

Post reply on HN