Hacker News Reader

Comment by oldstrangers | Hacker News Reader

I get the point, but it just doesn't solve anything as much as it just dismisses it. "It's a UFO because its hard to see, if we could see it, we'd know it was a helicopter that moves in 4 dimensions."

View on HN

I don’t think you get the point.

That UFOs always are outside the identifiable camera range even as that range expands suggests that they are nothing special. It’s actual good (indirect) evidence for UFOs being nothing special.

It seems telling that as camera and detection equipment has gotten better, presumed "alien" UFO elusiveness has advanced precisely in lockstep: not too much to stop being detected altogether, but not so little as to be definitively identifiable.

As our sensors got better, objects which would previously be UFOs turned into "oh, it's a balloon" and forgotten. Objects that previously wouldn't be visible at all, but are now marginally visible, turn into UFOs.

We've actually gotten more UAPs than ever as our detection capabilities have increased. We are picking up more things than ever that we can't explain. You'd think that would be the opposite, implying that previously unknown objects became known with better optics, radar and detection systems, but that's not the case.

Well, they're different objects. The lost weather balloon that would have been unidentified before is now identified. You don't hear about those though, since they're boring.

The weather balloon that would not be detected at all before can now be detected as a UFO. As the range of sensors expands the LIV probably gets bigger too just because the radius is larger. The more sensitive and numerous the sensors, the more false positives you get.

I don't think you get the point of applying the entirety of the evidence together outside of just saying "well its still blurry, case dismissed." There is hard, credible evidence from reputable eye witnesses. There is hard, credible evidence of these objects moving in a manner that's inconsistent with any known technology we have.

That evidence is utterly unconvincing.

Please pull yourself out of this mirage and away from falling prey to disinformation.

Disinformation? That would imply we're being intentionally misled about what the objects are. In which case, nothing I've said contradicts that, regardless if it's terrestrial based or otherwise.

I’ve never seen this framed as a disinformation campaign. It seems like the opposite, with all of the agencies now taking it seriously: a “get information” campaign.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com