Live data from Hacker News

Why Look at Flying Saucers?

lareviewofbooks.org

41–50 of 71 posts

Re: Why Look at Flying Saucers?

#41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As Carl Sagan said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. After seeing the declassified Navy videos [0] I'm not sure how much more extraordinary evidence we can get. [0] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/28/pentagon-declassifies-ufo-vi...

I don't think the videos really show much. To me the real evidence is the public testimony of the 4 pilots and others.

Absolutely, David Fravor’s (the pilot who actually chased the thing) interview with Joe Rogan[1] was one of the most compelling eyewitness accounts I’ve seen, and with that the associated video has a lot more context.

If these things really do behave in the way he’s described, ET or not it suggests a fundamental leap in technology - it baffles me that there isn’t more interest.

[1] https://youtu.be/Eco2s3-0zsQ

Re: Why Look at Flying Saucers?

#42
post #39
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's our current understanding of physics. Those limitations might be impassable. Or it might be possible that there is a higher physics where things like the speed of light are bypassed. Like discovering that quantum entanglement is based on some mechanism that can be manipulated to communicate faster than light, or one can skip over distances through higher dimensions, or we decode the source code of the automata t…

> The point is it's arrogant to say what's impossible for all time, because nearly everything we do today was impossible a short thousand years ago. I never said impossible , I said impractical . If you are content with really long travel times (thousands or tens of thousands of years one-way), then of course you can travel to other stars. By the time such means are available, I doubt that entities will bother with s…

That seems likely from our perspective, but it's pretty arrogant to think we understand the limitations and desires of civilizations millions or even billions of years ahead of us.

Certainly we would have failed at that task of predicting our own limits and desires just hundreds of years ago, nevermind an alien race.

Re: Why Look at Flying Saucers?

#43
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's arrogance because you think that your current system of science is relevant. Civilization has been around for only 5000 years. So, if magic exists, there also might be aliens. Got it. > How do you know other planets do not have elements that have anti-matter properties? Well, we haven't observed anything that gives even a hint that something like that exists. The matter / antimatter disparity is still quite a…

Sounds like you sure know how aliens make things.

And it sounds like you are sure the laws of physics don't apply to aliens.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Re: Why Look at Flying Saucers?

#44

It’s unfortunate that this topic has such stigma around it that many researchers are afraid to study it for fear it’ll delegitimise them or ruin their career. You may be surprised at how many people you know have had experiences of their own, or know someone close who has, but don’t talk about it for fear of judgement. For all the hundreds of thousands of anecdotal reports that exist, and documented cases involving h…

The thing is, when people talk about UFOs, we always think "aliens", when in fact, it is just as the acronym suggests: unidentified flying objects. They wouldn't be unidentified if we knew they were aliens.

Aliens are an extraordinary claim, we need to check out a lot of things before we start considering them. Take the "life on Venus" recent claim. There was a lot of work done to even consider it. They used results from several observatories, analyzed every known explanations to rule them out one after the other, and even now they still consider it unlikely compared to other currently unknown chemistry. So if you see a scientist and tell him, I saw a flying saucer, it was aliens, he will laugh at you because there are thousands of other explanations to look for first.

On the other hand "mass hysteria" is also a lousy explanation. In reality, I think they are usually optical illusions. For example, the moon may appear like something else in unusual atmospheric conditions, and if you cross-reference the position of the moon with some UFO sightings, you get a lot of correlations. Other cases include small, close objects like insects appear like large, fast objects, this is common among pilots who are trained to look for other planes. There are also many psychological effects that aren't hysteria, for example it is common for people to "remember" things that never happened, which is also a big problem in a court of law: our memories are unreliable. Add to that defective equipment, pranks, etc... and you can probably cover most of the sightings.

Then there is a small minority of true mass hysteria, secret programs, unexplained physical phenomena, etc... and only then you can start to consider aliens.

And to make thing worse, more often than not, there is very little data.

Re: Why Look at Flying Saucers?

#45
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To add to this: it is way less than 100 years since we learned to use fission and fusion. Until the two first bombs were dropped it was either unknown or, to those who realized the potential: considered impossible with the technology available at the time. I wonder what is just out of reach for us today, or what scientists are secretly working on today. Also, one step ahead, like you I also think what we are capable…

That really isn't a valid comparison. The bombs were built specifically because scientists theorized that it would be possible to generate large bombs with their knowledge of atomic energy. They underestimated the scale of the bombs. Govt's dont pour billions of dollars into impossible technologies.

> The bombs were built specifically because scientists theorized that it would be possible to generate large bombs with their knowledge of atomic energy.

Below is my attempt to add a little more detail so it doesn't sound unrealistically straightforward:

...because a few scientists theorized that it could be possible to generate large bombs with their knowledge of atomic energy and because politicians became desperate enough to give it a chance.

Re: Why Look at Flying Saucers?

#46
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>And then I better understood the stupendous energy requirements for a two-way trip to even the very closest neighboring solar system. And it is just not practical, even for a civilization at the end of the technology development tree. This is blind arrogance.

Eh, no it isn't arrogance. It is math and physics. Have a look at a few links. So first off, chemical propulsion is right out: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/life-unbounded/why-chem... You really need something like anti-matter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_travel You're still looking at hundreds of years or more for a nearby two-way trip. It is far more practical to send out probes one-way (which…

[deleted]

Re: Why Look at Flying Saucers?

#47
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What are the odds of that ? Not good. My best alternative explanations is: top secret research project going out of their way to fool everyone, possibly with the help of a few pilots and radar operators :-)

Sure. Let's assume that there are top secret research programs. What this tells us is that the research had yeilded such results as * Super High Density energy storage mechanism, that when being used actually cools down instead of heating up * An energy source that isn't based around burning fossil fuels for propulsion, that is highly efficient. * A device that could atleast in theory be using some kind of an inertia…

> What this tells us is that the research had yeilded such results as

Personally, if I was tasked with making sure everyone respected the American Army I'd make sure to hire a magician and keep that hire very very secret.

I'm not saying there aren't any serious technical breakthroughs.

But I'd still hire the best reliable magician I could get.

After all, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic and my bet is that it goes the other way too. (Some replace "magic" with "rigged demo" and that too is true - and possibly relevant.)

Also, I think it is Penn or Teller who says something along the lines of: there's one thing people constantly underestimate when it comes to magic and that is how incredibly far magicians are willing to go to conceal their tricks.

Re: Why Look at Flying Saucers?

#48
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like you sure know how aliens make things.

And it sounds like you are sure the laws of physics don't apply to aliens. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Even Isaac Arthur did a video on the Navy's videos, and he's more open to this than you. Please give this a rest -

Re: Why Look at Flying Saucers?

#49
post #44

It’s unfortunate that this topic has such stigma around it that many researchers are afraid to study it for fear it’ll delegitimise them or ruin their career. You may be surprised at how many people you know have had experiences of their own, or know someone close who has, but don’t talk about it for fear of judgement. For all the hundreds of thousands of anecdotal reports that exist, and documented cases involving h…

The thing is, when people talk about UFOs, we always think "aliens", when in fact, it is just as the acronym suggests: unidentified flying objects. They wouldn't be unidentified if we knew they were aliens. Aliens are an extraordinary claim, we need to check out a lot of things before we start considering them. Take the "life on Venus" recent claim. There was a lot of work done to even consider it. They used results…

For sure, the data is a big problem. But I think to compare with your Venus example - that’s an area where there’d probably be hundreds of astrophysicists around the world who’d jump at the chance to work on that publicly.

With this phenomenon however, it’s like the polar opposite. Nobody wants to associate themselves with it, so even if there is something worth studying, we’re not studying it.

Re: Why Look at Flying Saucers?

#50
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like you sure know how aliens make things.

And it sounds like you are sure the laws of physics don't apply to aliens. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

You've already proven when present with extraordinary evidence your reply will remain "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Post reply on HN