3 ms·
1) 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
by mannerheim 3y ago
1) 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.
- xorbax 3y agoThe people fighting for those recordings at this point have seen reasonable explanations and dismissed them It's like the Flat Earth documentary where a group crowdfunds an absurd laser and, when it demonstrates the Earth's curvature, reason that they need to "troubleshoot" that 'flawed' result. There is always a hand to wave.
- mannerheim 3y agoWhen you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not unicorns.