[HN Gopher] U.S. unable to explain more than 140 unidentified fl...
___________________________________________________________________
U.S. unable to explain more than 140 unidentified flying objects,
but no aliens
Author : czottmann
Score : 24 points
Date : 2021-06-25 21:12 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.washingtonpost.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.washingtonpost.com)
| ALittleLight wrote:
| This is a poor title. What part of advanced technology and flying
| at considerable speed without discernable means of propulsion
| rules out aliens? Aliens weren't confirmed, or even mentioned,
| but my reading of the report is that aliens are more likely an
| explanation than I thought them to be yesterday, not less.
| sjg007 wrote:
| Why would aliens only fly drones? Why not land them or do other
| stuff.
| hn8788 wrote:
| That's how I felt after reading it as well. Plus the part where
| it says that it's possible that we aren't getting any readings
| from them because they have advanced technology that we don't
| know how to create sensors for.
| viraptor wrote:
| There are at least two possible ideas when you are something
| that doesn't show on the radar: 1. A technology so advanced
| it doesn't show up on sensors. 2. Light / condensation / ...
| effect which makes you think you're looking at a solid object
| where the isn't any.
| eindiran wrote:
| Once you have decided that the UAPs are technological objects,
| sure, it starts to seem more plausible that aliens are
| involved. But nothing in the report [0] indicates to me that
| there is any degree of confidence that the weird, unexplainable
| UAPs are technological objects.
|
| [0] https://context-
| cdn.washingtonpost.com/notes/prod/default/do....
| SideburnsOfDoom wrote:
| > What part of... rules out aliens?
|
| Because
|
| 1) Ruling _in_ aliens requires proof. Insisting that this
| specific scenario be ruled out is classic "shifting the burden
| of proof"
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
|
| The train of thought that "we don't know what we saw, so ...
| aliens!" is somewhere between wishful and nutty. Extra-ordinary
| claims require extra-ordinary proof.
|
| 2) claiming that it's _definitely_ "technology and flying at
| considerable speed without discernible means of propulsion" is
| itself a stretch. Given the supposed behaviour, a _very_ big
| stretch. More likely it's equipment failure, lens flare,
| sundog, bug-on-the-lens, etc.
|
| 3) the strong argument against this being real is how it is
| "perpetually liminal"
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27354021
| blacksmith_tb wrote:
| I can't help but think of Clarke's "sufficiently advanced
| technology is indistinguishable from magic" - it seems like the
| Navy's reports could almost equally plausibly be attributed to
| dragons or spirits? I personally think the universe is probably
| packed with aliens, but it's a big place, so it'd be almost as
| improbable that they're flitting around Earth's atmosphere as
| dragons...
| spfzero wrote:
| You can read the report itself here:
| https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/press-...
| drewem wrote:
| I think the Wall Street Journal had the best lede on this:
|
| "U.S. intelligence officials have examined more than a dozen
| sightings of unexplained aerial objects that displayed no visible
| propulsion or that used technology beyond the known capabilities
| of the U.S. or its adversaries, according to a senior U.S.
| official describing a new report."
| chiefalchemist wrote:
| Not to get too far off topic but the intelligence community
| isn't exactly a benchmark for truth and transparency. Within
| its arsenal is misinformation, and it's not afraid to use it.
|
| Also, the recent reports I've watched and read all eventually
| mentioned "national security." Such mentions are euphemisms for
| more funding, more DOD budget, etc.
|
| Granted, it could be aliens. Nonetheless there are plenty of
| earthlings who benefit from a misinfomation based narratives.
| Some of those benefitees are the source of the narrative.
|
| Let's not lose track of the context. It matters.
| gameswithgo wrote:
| people are also just wrong, and crazy, all the time.
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| Intelligence Agencies are designed to deceive. That's their
| primary function. It is completely within the realm of
| possibility that this is some psyop, ploy for funding, or
| tool designed to throw off some foreign adversary about our
| technical capabilities.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Intelligence Agencies are designed to deceive.
|
| No, their primary function is to acquire information useful
| to decisions makers, including info others want to keep
| secret. Counterintelligence agencies, which are sometimes
| conjoined to intelligence agencies and sometimes separate
| have a primary function of preventing information that
| decisionmakers want to remain secret from being discovered.
| Deception is frequently an important technique in both
| intelligence and counterintelligence, and if understood
| broadly enough is integral to the purpose of _counter_
| intelligence.
| jmkni wrote:
| Paywalled
| jotato wrote:
| Does anyone have a link that isn't behind a paywall?
| drewem wrote:
| Stars and Stripes:
|
| https://www.stripes.com/theaters/us/2021-06-25/ufos-military...
| viraptor wrote:
| There are two things that just don't seem plausible at all for me
| in those stories:
|
| 1. Previous article mentions "For some Navy pilots, UFO sightings
| were an ordinary event: 'Every day for at least a couple years'"
| (https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/05/17/ufo-sightin...)
| Is DoD too cheap for a bunch of GoPros? If the incidents are that
| common and a potential security issue, why don't we have
| validated days worth of high quality video footage already?
|
| 2. Given how many non-military flights there are every single
| day, how do we not have people noticing the same objects from
| them? Where are the flights with multiple people taking
| independent videos of the same unidentified object on their
| phones? (Essentially this issue https://xkcd.com/1235/)
| issa wrote:
| I would love for it to be aliens, but it seems like one of the
| least likely explanations. Occam's razor doesn't magically give
| you an answer, but humans flying drones seems like it should be
| the obvious explanation.
| dheera wrote:
| If aliens showed up on Earth it would be FAR more likely to be
| observed and photographed by multiple civilians than the
| military. Civilian eyeballs outnumber the military by a couple
| orders of magnitude. You'd probably see it on Instagram first.
| tdfx wrote:
| Bypass paywall: https://archive.ph/v9mZM
| lurkmurk wrote:
| What is the goal of this campain to re-introduce aliens into the
| public discourse? Interestingly, it seems that the "smart" people
| are now falling for it (washington post, hn, certain subreddits
| and podcasts...).
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-06-25 23:01 UTC)