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

Intelligence Officials Say U.S. Has Retrieved Craft of Non-Human Origin

thedebrief.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 157 posts

Re: Intelligence Officials Say U.S. Has Retrieved Craft of Non-Human Origin

#121

Post by PKop »

Loquebantur wrote: post #46
PKop wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He could simply be lying, pushing a propaganda message of the state. Why would you without evidence believe he is being truthful whatsoever? There is geopolitical advantage to making the world think you have advanced weapons tech, or that it exists and has to be found somewhere.

I do not "believe" anything if I can help it. Here, the guy has supporting testimony from a whole array of decorated people in important positions. The context checks out. To assume he was "lying" is what is preposterous. You frame the events as if some noname-guy came up in a vacuum claiming incredible stuff. That is not at all what is happening. You not knowing about all that and not even recognizing that this circ…

I'm sorry, are you under the impression that high level government agents don't lie?

That he isn't no-name makes the lie more plausible of course. We're talking hypothetical and possibilities here, that you're completely rejecting the possibility of a government lie is pretty silly.

>supporting testimony from a whole array of decorated people in important positions

C'mon man lol.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destr...

Re: Intelligence Officials Say U.S. Has Retrieved Craft of Non-Human Origin

#122

Post by LargeWu »

Loquebantur wrote: post #31
nradov wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of that constitutes actual evidence. Let's see some artifacts.

Evidence in real life is accumulative, not "holy grail style", like in the movies. You build a case step by step, systematically establishing a context. Here you already missed all the prior foundational work. On top of it you pretend to be able to judge the validity of "artifacts". That is mere posturing. You miss the slightly more important point of having been lied to your entire life by the government about funda…

To be fair, though, the claim here is "intact vehicles". That's as holy grail as it gets.

Re: Intelligence Officials Say U.S. Has Retrieved Craft of Non-Human Origin

#123

Post by kevinwang »

phyalow wrote: post #120
lisasays wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not evidence. That's hearsay. Fragments, please. Or photos, or at least reasonably credible scientific reports describing these fragments. Or at least something resembling, you know -- first-hand evidence . Otherwise there's nothing to talk about here. Can't believe I have to explain this on HN.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7nzkq/stanford-professor-ga... There, is a Stanford Professor good enough for you? This is also referenced in the article: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237309319_On_Events...

Thanks for the links, the interview was a good read! I guess if the findings are just like little chunks of metal with some weird isotopes I'm not very convinced that they're like alien technology or anything.

The original article seems to be implying that there's like some extraordinary clear evidence of a vehicle or something, which would be much more shocking.

Re: Intelligence Officials Say U.S. Has Retrieved Craft of Non-Human Origin

#124

Post by [deleted] »

phyalow wrote: post #120
lisasays wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not evidence. That's hearsay. Fragments, please. Or photos, or at least reasonably credible scientific reports describing these fragments. Or at least something resembling, you know -- first-hand evidence . Otherwise there's nothing to talk about here. Can't believe I have to explain this on HN.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7nzkq/stanford-professor-ga... There, is a Stanford Professor good enough for you? This is also referenced in the article: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237309319_On_Events...

[deleted]

Re: Intelligence Officials Say U.S. Has Retrieved Craft of Non-Human Origin

#125

Post by lisasays »

phyalow wrote: post #120
lisasays wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not evidence. That's hearsay. Fragments, please. Or photos, or at least reasonably credible scientific reports describing these fragments. Or at least something resembling, you know -- first-hand evidence . Otherwise there's nothing to talk about here. Can't believe I have to explain this on HN.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7nzkq/stanford-professor-ga... There, is a Stanford Professor good enough for you? This is also referenced in the article: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237309319_On_Events...

(1) Different guy, different story

(2) By my reading, the stuff he's talking about doesn't constitute (or even suggest) dispositive evidence of alien craft. Nor this guy even claiming that they are. All he's saying basically, is "Here's some fragments / MRI scans we don't understand, let's explore further".

(3) Even so, this stuff is many orders of magnitude weaker than the claims in the original article (literally "intact craft of alien origin"). So there's not even an analogy to be made here.

Re: Intelligence Officials Say U.S. Has Retrieved Craft of Non-Human Origin

#126

Post by Loquebantur »

PKop wrote: post #121
Loquebantur wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not "believe" anything if I can help it. Here, the guy has supporting testimony from a whole array of decorated people in important positions. The context checks out. To assume he was "lying" is what is preposterous. You frame the events as if some noname-guy came up in a vacuum claiming incredible stuff. That is not at all what is happening. You not knowing about all that and not even recognizing that this circ…

I'm sorry, are you under the impression that high level government agents don't lie? That he isn't no-name makes the lie more plausible of course. We're talking hypothetical and possibilities here, that you're completely rejecting the possibility of a government lie is pretty silly. >supporting testimony from a whole array of decorated people in important positions C'mon man lol. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_an…

I don't think you understand in the slightest what is being said here.

If you assume, this guy was lying on behalf of the government you might want to try to rationalize that, because it doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

That idea about the US wanting to impress other nations with bogus UFO tech is ridiculously stupid. You completely underestimate other countries for instance.

Re: Intelligence Officials Say U.S. Has Retrieved Craft of Non-Human Origin

#127

Post by kevinwang »

lisasays wrote: post #125
phyalow wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7nzkq/stanford-professor-ga... There, is a Stanford Professor good enough for you? This is also referenced in the article: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237309319_On_Events...

(1) Different guy, different story (2) By my reading, the stuff he's talking about doesn't constitute (or even suggest) dispositive evidence of alien craft. Nor this guy even claiming that they are. All he's saying basically, is "Here's some fragments / MRI scans we don't understand, let's explore further". (3) Even so, this stuff is many orders of magnitude weaker than the claims in the original article (literally "…

re (1), that guy (Dr. Garry Nolan) is quoted in the OP article, although upon reading the OP article again, it doesn't seem that the guy has first-hand knowledge of the supposed evidence, so it doesn't mean much.

Although I guess for (2), his quote in the OP article does imply that he believes that these could be alien craft.

Re: Intelligence Officials Say U.S. Has Retrieved Craft of Non-Human Origin

#128

Post by Loquebantur »

RyanCavanaugh wrote: post #78
Loquebantur wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Hearsay" is a derogatory term used to disparage evidence. It is entirely unscientific, as evidence is not ignored solely based on the messenger. You have to thoroughly evaluate the context, regardless of your personal preconceptions. The guy has done a seven hour interview with Ross Coulthart, that is due to come out this week. He is reported to have such photos, documents, etc. This story is bigger than Watergate b…

This story is bigger than Watergate by orders of magnitude, if it's true. There have been "Retired intelligence officer says he has evidence of aliens" stories floating in fringe media for decades, and all of them have turned out to be cranks. Bob Lazar has been working this beat since 1989; where's the evidence? Maybe eventually one of these times it'll all be true, but skepticism -- extreme skepticism -- should abs…

What is "extreme skepticism" other than ignorance?

A real skeptic actually looks at the data and isn't content simply by ignoring it.

Here, you simply imply this guy was a "crank". Maybe you should take a closer look first?

Re: Intelligence Officials Say U.S. Has Retrieved Craft of Non-Human Origin

#129

Post by nradov »

phyalow wrote: post #120
lisasays wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not evidence. That's hearsay. Fragments, please. Or photos, or at least reasonably credible scientific reports describing these fragments. Or at least something resembling, you know -- first-hand evidence . Otherwise there's nothing to talk about here. Can't believe I have to explain this on HN.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7nzkq/stanford-professor-ga... There, is a Stanford Professor good enough for you? This is also referenced in the article: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237309319_On_Events...

Nope, not good enough. Stanford Professor Garry Nolan only has some secondhand stories and odd bits of metal that could have come from anywhere. No real evidence, no chain of custody, no provenance.

Re: Intelligence Officials Say U.S. Has Retrieved Craft of Non-Human Origin

#130

Post by lisasays »

kevinwang wrote: post #127
lisasays wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(1) Different guy, different story (2) By my reading, the stuff he's talking about doesn't constitute (or even suggest) dispositive evidence of alien craft. Nor this guy even claiming that they are. All he's saying basically, is "Here's some fragments / MRI scans we don't understand, let's explore further". (3) Even so, this stuff is many orders of magnitude weaker than the claims in the original article (literally "…

re (1), that guy (Dr. Garry Nolan) is quoted in the OP article, although upon reading the OP article again, it doesn't seem that the guy has first-hand knowledge of the supposed evidence, so it doesn't mean much. Although I guess for (2), his quote in the OP article does imply that he believes that these could be alien craft.

(2) - Mmm, no, he doesn't say that. He just mutters a bit of innuendo about "Human civilization being utterly transformed by ...", without any explanation of what he's driving at specifically.

Weird. Definitely less reason to take this guy seriously. And really irresponsible and stupid of Vox to put an out of context quote like that out there, as if it says anything useful about anything.

Post reply on HN