6 ms·
As 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
by codezero 7y ago
As 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.