3 ms·
This is a fun paper. I wish they had done some work to acknowledge and/or dismiss other potential reasons for the appearance of the UAVs, like instrumental, env
by codezero 7y ago
This is a fun paper. I wish they had done some work to acknowledge and/or dismiss other potential reasons for the appearance of the UAVs, like instrumental, environmental, etc.
The section that implies that they can just assume they are flying physical objects because the observers are professionals is pretty weak.
- calibas 7y agoThey do acknowledge potential issues: "these observations are either fabricated or seriously in error, or that these craft exhibit technology far more advanced than any known craft on Earth." And their selection process: "These encounters were selected from a subset of cases for which there were multiple professional witnesses observing the craft in multiple modalities (including sight, radar, infrared imaging, etc.)." Some of the cases have multiple witnesses and video of the objects. You can look at it yourself.
- codezero 7y agoAs someone who has published a lot of peer reviewed physics papers none of how this is presented feels rigorous. It’s fine to muse about the “what if” here but they don’t present this work that way, in my opinion, as they appear to be reinforcing their work with witnesses and not science. Nothing really wrong with that in general but personally I’d rather see an attempt to dismiss as many other possibilities as possible. I would love to see a thorough analysis and understanding of how the sensor pod works, as well as the software it runs to see if it could be contributing to anomalous measurements in the HUD. An exploration of any local environmental data, astrological, optical, and chemical reasons something may appear the way it does in the sensor data. I’d much prefer a release of the entire data set of raw sensor information along with it.
- typeformer 7y agoIf you would like to know more about the technology tracking these crafts see this compiled list: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21013316 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21013316
- codezero 7y agoThanks. I am more interested in the data not the stated technology. Knowing the types of devices doesn’t give me much insight into how they function down to the hardware and software, nor does it show me or anyone the underlying raw data.
- saul_goodman 7y agoSo, basically all the stuff that's impossible to get 15 years after it happened. Yes it would be great to scientifically eliminate all other possibilities. But it's probably not going to happen. The paper is an attempt to treat the subject matter seriously with the limited amount of tangible information still available.
- codezero 7y agoWhy should that data be impossible to get? They seemed aware of the exceptional nature of what they were observing, I would be surprised if the data wasn’t archived somewhere.
- typeformer 7y agoNo, I'm sorry but your ideas don't line up with facts and data. It has less to do with the professionals and more to do with the sophistication of the multiple types of technology tracking the craft. Check out exactly how these crafts (and they are ET craft) were tracked over course of multiple days and then see if your comment still makes sense. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21013316 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21013316
- codezero 7y agoIs any of the data used in this paper other than the video? I haven’t seen the radar data or anything other than these videos. It is very curious and stunning if the corroborating data exists. I don’t even consider video on a HUD as sufficient to do real science on these encounters.