3 ms·

Try filming an airplane from the ground. Most cameras used by people can only do proper 1x zoom. Everything more becomes a blurry video.

ithkuil 3y ago
The point is that no matter how better imaging technology gets, sightings have been always been at the edge of the resolution
- david-gpu 3y ago
  When the images are clear we dismiss them as fake. The root of the problem is one of trust. Ask yourself: which person or institution do you trust enough that you would accept an image from them as proof of the NHI hypothesis? Because I've been called a crackpot multiple times in this HN post and yet I don't trust any source enough to accept any image they could provide as proof of NHIs.
  - ithkuil 3y ago
    Can you point to some images that you think may be real but have been dismissed as fakes because they were too detailed? Is there consistency in the models of those objects or each detailed sighting is a different "model" of the vehicle (which may suggest that each may have been designed by a different artist)?
    - david-gpu 3y ago
      > Can you point to some images that you think may be real but have been dismissed as fakes because they were too detailed? I can't, for several reasons. First, if NHI UAPs did exist, we have no idea what they would look like. I may be able to tell you with some certainty whether a picture of an airplane is fake because I've seen many airplanes; no such luck with UAPs. We don't know what we don't know. Second, there is the problem of trust. There are many people who claim having witnesseed UAPs in the sky over the decades, and among those sightings there are some shapes that appear frequently, such as dark equilateral triangles one whitish light on each corner and a fourth light (often red/amber) in the middle; no blinking lights like an airplane. But are these witnesses lying? Did they misidentify some ordinary phenomenon? Did they dream or hallucinate it? All plausible options. But even when you are presented with an image of an object that matches this rather common description you have no way of knowing whether it is fake unless you really trust the source of that image, so much so that it overcomes your general disbelief of the nature of UAPs. That hasn't remotely happened to me yet, so I remain neutral on the subject of UAPs.

ithkuil 3y ago

The point is that no matter how better imaging technology gets, sightings have been always been at the edge of the resolution

david-gpu 3y ago
When the images are clear we dismiss them as fake. The root of the problem is one of trust. Ask yourself: which person or institution do you trust enough that you would accept an image from them as proof of the NHI hypothesis? Because I've been called a crackpot multiple times in this HN post and yet I don't trust any source enough to accept any image they could provide as proof of NHIs.
- ithkuil 3y ago
  Can you point to some images that you think may be real but have been dismissed as fakes because they were too detailed? Is there consistency in the models of those objects or each detailed sighting is a different "model" of the vehicle (which may suggest that each may have been designed by a different artist)?
  - david-gpu 3y ago
    > Can you point to some images that you think may be real but have been dismissed as fakes because they were too detailed? I can't, for several reasons. First, if NHI UAPs did exist, we have no idea what they would look like. I may be able to tell you with some certainty whether a picture of an airplane is fake because I've seen many airplanes; no such luck with UAPs. We don't know what we don't know. Second, there is the problem of trust. There are many people who claim having witnesseed UAPs in the sky over the decades, and among those sightings there are some shapes that appear frequently, such as dark equilateral triangles one whitish light on each corner and a fourth light (often red/amber) in the middle; no blinking lights like an airplane. But are these witnesses lying? Did they misidentify some ordinary phenomenon? Did they dream or hallucinate it? All plausible options. But even when you are presented with an image of an object that matches this rather common description you have no way of knowing whether it is fake unless you really trust the source of that image, so much so that it overcomes your general disbelief of the nature of UAPs. That hasn't remotely happened to me yet, so I remain neutral on the subject of UAPs.