Comment by ceckGrad | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ceckGrad | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

>If UFOs were actually real we would have have a lot of footage of them like we have for everything else that's actually real.

Who is the "we" with access to everyone's video recording footage? I don't have access to anyone's camera footage. If I ask a big organization with lots of cameras for unfettered access to their camera footage they will probably tell me to take a long walk off a short pier.

If a large military organization has suspicious footage of unidentified objects, they probably don't share it to every outsider who asks for it.

Now, some organizations claim to have UFO footage, but I have little reason to take their claims at face value. Example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_UFO_videos

> we would have have a lot of footage of them like we have for everything else that's actually real.

I don't have a lot of footage of narco-submarines or drug cartel headquarters. Does that mean they don't exist?

Does something stop being real when cameras stop being pointed at it?

People are extremely likely to upload footage they think is a real UFO. There isn't a shred of physical evidence for UFOS after so many decades.

>People are extremely likely to upload footage they think is a real UFO. There isn't a shred of physical evidence for UFOS

Is there some central repository of alleged UFO evidence that every single human with a camera is given access to as soon as they get the camera? No, I don't think that's what you meant.

There is a huge amount of human-generated information, and it is ambiguous and practically impossible to process as a whole. No one person can audit all of the videos uploaded to Youtube, rumble, odysee, etc. If we want to argue about what footage has been uploaded, we have to be able to specify what body of footage we are familiar with.

I don't know your background -- people in various walks of life have very different ways of talking about evidence. In my experience of non-paranormal claims, scholars cite scholarly sources, so when I see people saying, "There is no evidence" without immediately adding a bunch of book titles and journal articles, I suspect they are commenting outside their field of expertise.

Instead of just saying "there is no evidence," which is overly broad, you could argue, "I, <insert name here>, have confidence in experts X, Y, and Z, plus committees P, Q, and R <insert websites here> and all their reports on the evidence have been negative."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com