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

Famous Navy UFO video was camera glare, evidence suggests

petapixel.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 401 posts

Re: Famous Navy UFO video was camera glare, evidence suggests

#391

Post by oblib »

stouset wrote: post #93
oblib wrote: post #63

Sitting here knowing we have a helicopter and a land rover on Mars it doesn't feel like it's entirely impossible for an alien craft to be here, looking at us. I can't make the leap to believe without doubt there is, or even to believe there probably is. But it is not impossible. We've already proved it's not, and we're not really all that smart.

Space is really big. The difference in effort between getting an oversized RC car to Mars and getting a huge supermaneuverable space-and-aircraft to the nearest habitable planet is about the same as walking down tree driveway to get your paper and… well, getting a huge supermaneuverable space-and-aircraft to the nearest habitable planet. Then doing it over and over just to play mind games with the primitive apes on t…

"Space is really big"

And Time is really long, and what we don't know is still far greater than what we do know.

I agree it's not plausible within the scope of what we know.

Re: Famous Navy UFO video was camera glare, evidence suggests

#392

Post by russdpale »

vo2maxer wrote: post #178
russdpale wrote: post #167

Im pretty suspicious, why does an MIT AI researcher have a youtube channel? Does he not get paid enough with his salary? Also, this is a four hour video, what is the timestamp of the comments you refer to?

> Im pretty suspicious, why does an MIT AI researcher have a youtube channel? Does he not get paid enough with his salary? Could you please elaborate on why you think that an MIT researcher having a YouTube channel where is had some very interesting interviews somehow makes it suspicious?

Because he would be busy doing researcher things and making money and not worried about something like youtube?

Re: Famous Navy UFO video was camera glare, evidence suggests

#393

Post by russdpale »

prawn wrote: post #251
russdpale wrote: post #167

Im pretty suspicious, why does an MIT AI researcher have a youtube channel? Does he not get paid enough with his salary? Also, this is a four hour video, what is the timestamp of the comments you refer to?

How much can someone earn before them having a YouTube channel or podcast make you suspicious?

What?

Re: Famous Navy UFO video was camera glare, evidence suggests

#394

Post by russdpale »

anothernewdude wrote: post #188
russdpale wrote: post #167

Im pretty suspicious, why does an MIT AI researcher have a youtube channel? Does he not get paid enough with his salary? Also, this is a four hour video, what is the timestamp of the comments you refer to?

> Im pretty suspicious, why does an MIT AI researcher have a youtube channel? Are you serious?

Yes I'm serious. Rich people don't need youtube channels. People don't do youtube as a hobby, they do it to make money, so thus I must question his motives, since I assume he has enough money.

There is a lot of quackery on youtube, not everyone has good intentions.

Re: Famous Navy UFO video was camera glare, evidence suggests

#395

Post by russdpale »

drc500free wrote: post #179
russdpale wrote: post #167

Im pretty suspicious, why does an MIT AI researcher have a youtube channel? Does he not get paid enough with his salary? Also, this is a four hour video, what is the timestamp of the comments you refer to?

removed needlessly snarky comment

As if youtube isn't filled with quackery. A youtuber is not beyond reproach by any means.

Re: Famous Navy UFO video was camera glare, evidence suggests

#396

Post by prawn »

russdpale wrote: post #393
prawn wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much can someone earn before them having a YouTube channel or podcast make you suspicious?

What?

You suggested that someone adequately compensated was suspicious if they had some other media angle on the side. I asked what the cut off was. Would it be OK if they were poorly compensated?

Re: Famous Navy UFO video was camera glare, evidence suggests

#397

Post by water8 »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #294
rootusrootus wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How long would an all-out war with Russia last? Couple hours?

I have heard that, in case of all-out war, the life expectancy of a carrier in the middle of a battle group was 21 minutes. (This was decades ago - it may be less with hypersonic missiles.) But they could launch all the planes in 19 minutes, so it could launch its entire attack before being killed. That was considered to be good enough.

https://www.quora.com/Can-an-ICBM-hit-a-moving-target-say-an...

Re: Famous Navy UFO video was camera glare, evidence suggests

#398

Post by cma »

bostonsre wrote: post #221
RobertMiller wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Known prankster pulls another prank" vs "Known prankster says aliens are here and you should believe him because he's a professional." Hmm.

Have you listened to the joe rogan episode where he talks about it? It seems a little ridiculous to compare the one where he turned his engine off and on one time at night over a couple campers to the episode where multiple pilots see it, with multiple sensors seeing it from planes and from ships. He engaged in horseplay once, therefor anything he ever says should not be believed seems lame.

>to compare the one where he turned his engine off and on one time at night over a couple campers

The camper incident caused a UFO report.

Re: Famous Navy UFO video was camera glare, evidence suggests

#399

Post by stonemetal12 »

bostonsre wrote: post #205
stonemetal12 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why close all those doors without sufficient evidence to close them? Because there isn't sufficient evidence to open them in the first place. Might as well claim it is unicorns and dragons, you don't have any evidence it isn't.

How are you supposed to discover something new about the universe if all doors are closed from the start? How do you go from zero evidence where something isn't worth being investigated further because there isnt sufficient evidence to there being sufficient evidence for it to be considered acceptable to investigate? The seems like a feedback loop that will result in nothing new ever being discovered unless something…

We have an observation. What do we do with it? First we check to see if it fits with the current model. If it doesn't fit the current model we then purpose a hypothesis and purpose a test that would prove the hypothesis there by expanding the current model.

The process isn't hey look at that, must be aliens.

Re: Famous Navy UFO video was camera glare, evidence suggests

#400

Post by russdpale »

prawn wrote: post #396
russdpale wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What?

You suggested that someone adequately compensated was suspicious if they had some other media angle on the side. I asked what the cut off was. Would it be OK if they were poorly compensated?

If you have a degree and a job that would provide you a pretty affluent life, then I question the motive of your youtube channel. What that is for every person is different and doesn't disqualify them from being legitimate but I will always start with being skeptical of these people.

I learned to beware the guy trying to sell you some incredible financial advice. If it was so incredible, he wouldn't have to sell it now would he?

Post reply on HN