3 ms·

I thought all of these cases, like the tic-tac, flir, gimbal ufo's had already been debunked

jodrellblank 5y ago
I tried linking the debunk videos to someone in a HN thread, and they dismissed them and did the "do your research like I did ;) ;)" thing. I asked for any research links and read the single one they offered and argued it, but they preferred to take the authority of trained Navy Pilots to some internet rando. Neither of our opinions changed. Their position is roughly "it has been seen by competent people, and mechanisms speculated about by competent people, so it exists, so there must be holes in our understanding of physics / future tech which makes it possible to exist, just imagine what they might be". My position is "I as a layperson can't imagine how it could work, therefore it can't work even though I have no qualifications to declare that. Instead just imagine the ways qualified people are wrong about things all the time".
- skinkestek 5y ago
  > but they preferred to take the authority of trained Navy Pilots to some internet rando. That is the only reasonable thing to do IMO. Besides some of them are verified by multiple independent sensor systems. Does this mean I think we are visited by extraterrestrials? No. Edit: Or rather, I don't have any strong opinion on it but I that would not be my best guess. Only that I find some "debunking" claims as convincing as the end of a Scooby-Doo episode: The monster on chicken legs turns out to be not the prime suspect but someone else and there is no way he could have fit into that costume.
- hackerNoose 5y ago
  Have you actually listened to the interviews with the pilots? The debunking videos offered do not explain what they saw or experienced. Choosing the debunking guys explanation means that you basically have to believe in a conspiracy involving the pilots. So you're back to square one.
  - mannykannot 5y ago
    Unless the interviews with the pilots - or statements by anyone else, for that matter - present facts or other arguments which render the debunking unsound, then this approach merely avoids the issues raised by the debunkers, and their specific arguments remain uncontested. I would be interested in any counter-debunking that specifically addresses the arguments of the debunkers.
thom 5y ago
You're getting downvoted, but I too thought all this had fairly plausible explanations, to the point I was surprised it was still rumbling on: https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2021/05/26/ufo-sightings-why-federal-reports-probably-wont-point-aliens/7426795002/ https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2021/05/26/ufo-sightin... https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/military/story/2021-05-29/navy-ufo-videos-skeptics https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/military/story/202... Not really possible to remove 100% of doubt, and I don't know if there are some cases buried in this latest stuff that are more compelling.
spywaregorilla 5y ago
I find the gimbal one to be funny. The effect is in the video name, but there's still debate.
- zugi 5y ago
  The same is true of the other two. The video named "FLIR1" shows pixel blooming effects common on FLIR infrared cameras. The video named "Go Fast" shows the effects of imaging a slow-moving balloon from a very fast-moving sensor. I suspect there are a few Navy pilots sitting around a break room having a good laugh at all this.

I tried linking the debunk videos to someone in a HN thread, and they dismissed them and did the "do your research like I did ;) ;)" thing. I asked for any research links and read the single one they offered and argued it, but they preferred to take the authority of trained Navy Pilots to some internet rando. Neither of our opinions changed. Their position is roughly "it has been seen by competent people, and mechanisms speculated about by competent people, so it exists, so there must be holes in our understanding of physics / future tech which makes it possible to exist, just imagine what they might be". My position is "I as a layperson can't imagine how it could work, therefore it can't work even though I have no qualifications to declare that. Instead just imagine the ways qualified people are wrong about things all the time".

skinkestek 5y ago
> but they preferred to take the authority of trained Navy Pilots to some internet rando. That is the only reasonable thing to do IMO. Besides some of them are verified by multiple independent sensor systems. Does this mean I think we are visited by extraterrestrials? No. Edit: Or rather, I don't have any strong opinion on it but I that would not be my best guess. Only that I find some "debunking" claims as convincing as the end of a Scooby-Doo episode: The monster on chicken legs turns out to be not the prime suspect but someone else and there is no way he could have fit into that costume.
hackerNoose 5y ago
Have you actually listened to the interviews with the pilots? The debunking videos offered do not explain what they saw or experienced. Choosing the debunking guys explanation means that you basically have to believe in a conspiracy involving the pilots. So you're back to square one.
- mannykannot 5y ago
  Unless the interviews with the pilots - or statements by anyone else, for that matter - present facts or other arguments which render the debunking unsound, then this approach merely avoids the issues raised by the debunkers, and their specific arguments remain uncontested. I would be interested in any counter-debunking that specifically addresses the arguments of the debunkers.

thom 5y ago

You're getting downvoted, but I too thought all this had fairly plausible explanations, to the point I was surprised it was still rumbling on: https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2021/05/26/ufo-sightings-why-federal-reports-probably-wont-point-aliens/7426795002/ https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2021/05/26/ufo-sightin... https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/military/story/2021-05-29/navy-ufo-videos-skeptics https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/military/story/202... Not really possible to remove 100% of doubt, and I don't know if there are some cases buried in this latest stuff that are more compelling.

spywaregorilla 5y ago

I find the gimbal one to be funny. The effect is in the video name, but there's still debate.

zugi 5y ago
The same is true of the other two. The video named "FLIR1" shows pixel blooming effects common on FLIR infrared cameras. The video named "Go Fast" shows the effects of imaging a slow-moving balloon from a very fast-moving sensor. I suspect there are a few Navy pilots sitting around a break room having a good laugh at all this.