4 ms·

I would have left a very similar comment a few years ago. As you said, it's human nature to hold on to beliefs, especially when those beliefs strongly define th

I would have left a very similar comment a few years ago. As you said, it's human nature to hold on to beliefs, especially when those beliefs strongly define their worldview. Read the wiki link -- it isn't just a video, and the sensor that took it is ~$3mm a pop. I could direct you to find some links describing how many other "potentially life-friendly" systems are thought to exist in the galaxy, let alone the observable universe, and then do some math on the odds of us being the most advanced. Once receptive to the idea of there likely being at least one more-advanced space-faring civilization in our galaxy, then what? Should we blindly bow down to alien overlords whenever we can't explain something? No, but we should certainly investigate it with an open mind when there is credibility (e.g. the most advanced military on Earth releases a WTF video and sailor/pilot testimony) and the null hypothesis ("we are alone and this phenomena is something we can explain with existing science.") can't be proven. In my case, I have some family anecdata which is worthless to you, but which I had dismissed until this video came out along with a similar one from the Chilean Navy, and I decided I lean toward these being intelligent phenomena not from this system. I consider most of the examples in the following video to be on the credible side, and I'm fascinated by the implications of it all: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaSY2Zc0goQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaSY2Zc0goQ It saddens me that science-oriented folks would shut themselves out from something so interesting (and statistically probable by mainstream estimates), but again, just human nature.

olliej 7y ago
What? The null hypothesis is not “we are alone”. Nor is it particularly relevant here. We have a small object over a short period of time with an expensive sensor - which does not mean high quality: FLIR systems are expensive at low resolution. The options are: * it is a terrestrial object that we have never seen before * it is a terrestrial object we have seen before, just not in this environment * it is a monitoring device from another system Instead of doing the sensible thing and saying what terrestrial things could this be and demonstrating it is not them, you have gone straight to “someone with lots of money couldn’t determine what it was, so it must be aliens”. You then go another step of evidenceless assertions: that it is here to “monitor” us. Let’s take a hypothetical position that you are correct on the first count, the object comes from an intelligent species outside of the system: what is your evidence it is sent to monitor us? Why not be a probe along the lines of the various interplanetary probes we’ve sent out? That is a one way video camera to see what’s there, with no significant advance knowledge.
- lend000 7y ago
  > Instead of doing the sensible thing and saying what terrestrial things could this be and demonstrating it is not them That was already done by the Navy before releasing this, not to mention many other skeptics. Do you have a new idea? I read some on another HN thread active on this topic. The most credible one seems like advanced EW jammers to produce a bogie on the atflir video, but it doesn't explain the visual sightings or simultaneous passive radar sightings with atflir readings. And to my knowledge, EW is used on lower frequencies where long distance radar typically operates; not sure if it even works on IR. If you've ever worked on defense projects, you may know they aren't exactly hotbeds of innovation these days, so while it is possible that they could have independently come up with a propulsion based on new physics and misdirected other branches of the government about it, that seems as unlikely to me as extraterrestrials do to you. Nonetheless, this being a domestic highly-classified craft is another option you can choose to believe. As I already said, the monitoring part is just my guess -- and there were plenty of steps in between seeing this video and coming to that conclusion. The only thing I would try to persuade anyone of is that it wasn't made by humans. Which has pretty profound implications as it is. I do encourage you to do your own research (the two links I posted are a good place to start). Don't nitpick just so you can stick your head back in the sand (you're clearly aware of human nature, now fight it!). I'm no expert and I'm no more qualified to decipher the likely incomprehensible intentions of an advanced civilization than you are. However, I do try to be open minded and I'm fascinated by this, and compelled by the amount of evidence that already exists.

olliej 7y ago

What? The null hypothesis is not “we are alone”. Nor is it particularly relevant here. We have a small object over a short period of time with an expensive sensor - which does not mean high quality: FLIR systems are expensive at low resolution. The options are: * it is a terrestrial object that we have never seen before * it is a terrestrial object we have seen before, just not in this environment * it is a monitoring device from another system Instead of doing the sensible thing and saying what terrestrial things could this be and demonstrating it is not them, you have gone straight to “someone with lots of money couldn’t determine what it was, so it must be aliens”. You then go another step of evidenceless assertions: that it is here to “monitor” us. Let’s take a hypothetical position that you are correct on the first count, the object comes from an intelligent species outside of the system: what is your evidence it is sent to monitor us? Why not be a probe along the lines of the various interplanetary probes we’ve sent out? That is a one way video camera to see what’s there, with no significant advance knowledge.

lend000 7y ago
> Instead of doing the sensible thing and saying what terrestrial things could this be and demonstrating it is not them That was already done by the Navy before releasing this, not to mention many other skeptics. Do you have a new idea? I read some on another HN thread active on this topic. The most credible one seems like advanced EW jammers to produce a bogie on the atflir video, but it doesn't explain the visual sightings or simultaneous passive radar sightings with atflir readings. And to my knowledge, EW is used on lower frequencies where long distance radar typically operates; not sure if it even works on IR. If you've ever worked on defense projects, you may know they aren't exactly hotbeds of innovation these days, so while it is possible that they could have independently come up with a propulsion based on new physics and misdirected other branches of the government about it, that seems as unlikely to me as extraterrestrials do to you. Nonetheless, this being a domestic highly-classified craft is another option you can choose to believe. As I already said, the monitoring part is just my guess -- and there were plenty of steps in between seeing this video and coming to that conclusion. The only thing I would try to persuade anyone of is that it wasn't made by humans. Which has pretty profound implications as it is. I do encourage you to do your own research (the two links I posted are a good place to start). Don't nitpick just so you can stick your head back in the sand (you're clearly aware of human nature, now fight it!). I'm no expert and I'm no more qualified to decipher the likely incomprehensible intentions of an advanced civilization than you are. However, I do try to be open minded and I'm fascinated by this, and compelled by the amount of evidence that already exists.