8 ms·
They (1) claim not to know what the craft are, which somebody told him contained (2) nonhuman biological whatever It could be a Chinese drone with rat-cell-on-
by xorbax 3y ago
They (1) claim not to know what the craft are, which somebody told him contained (2) nonhuman biological whatever
It could be a Chinese drone with rat-cell-on-a-chip inside it
The guy's testimony was that somebody told him stuff and it seemed scary. Congress made a dog and pony show that a significant chunk of people attended.
Parse the details, not the overarching fantasy.
The government admitted to doing this in the 70s-90s to keep not-so-strange technology hidden behind The Strange. Trim with Occam.
The ticTac videos aren't interesting if you look at the limitations of perspective and remember that Air Force pilots aren't supreme authorities for objectively assessing parallax and assigning airspeed to all moving objects while flying a fucking cracker attached to a rocket.
- tanseydavid 3y ago>> and remember that Air Force pilots aren't supreme authorities for objectively assessing parallax and assigning airspeed to all moving objects while flying a fucking cracker attached to a rocket. They don't need to be "supreme authorities" on anything -- they have insane technology acting as their eyes and as their objective measuring and tracking systems.
- mannerheim 3y agoThe technology itself in the 'Go Fast' video shows the object isn't moving fast. The distance from the object and the direction of the camera are available in the video, and using this you can calculate the altitude and speed of the object in question. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLyEO0jNt6M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLyEO0jNt6M
- postalrat 3y agoYou can calculate it to go many speeds depending on what assumptions are made. Just because mick west shows something is possible doesn't prove what's in the video.
- mannerheim 3y ago1) There's a range of speeds that are possible depending on what you assume the turning angle of the jet was. That range doesn't go anywhere close to the speed of sound. 2) The burden of proof is on those who make an extraordinary claim. There is a perfectly mundane explanation of the cause of apparently fast-moving object which is supported by available evidence. Even if that depends on some assumptions, you would have to demonstrate those assumptions to be false before a less likely alternative, i.e., that it was an extraterrestrial spacecraft, should be adopted.
- postalrat 3y agoA perfectly mundane explanation isn't proof. There isn't enough evidence in this case to prove it one way or another. That should be acceptable but for many people it isn't.
- ceejayoz 3y agoIn that situation, though, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot applies, as we can’t prove the negative.
- postalrat 3y agoYou are making the assertions here. You claim to know the speed of the object, the distance to it, the size, etc etc.
- ceejayoz 3y agoNo, the assertion being made is that there are mundane possibilities for each of those values that have not been ruled out by the data/video we have. To make the extraordinary claim more plausible, you have to rule out the more mundane possibilities. Prove it's doing something unusual. Until then, "we can't prove it either way" doesn't mean there's a 50/50 chance.