Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by gfodor 1828 days ago
The specific claim is that if the US is acknowledging these objects publicly as real and denying they are of US origin, then it is likely they are not human in origin, because if they could possibly be adversaries, this would not be being disclosed.

This is sound reasoning, but is based upon the beginning assumptions which are not yet fully determined to be true, and if determined to be true would not rule out non-human, natural origins.
1 comments
macspoofing 1828 days ago
>The specific claim is that if the US is acknowledging these objects publicly as real

'Real' as in those are 'real' videos (i.e. not created in photoshop or after effects). Not 'real' as in 'advanced technology like nothing else on Earth'.

>then it is likely they are not human in origin, because if they could possibly be adversaries, this would not be being disclosed.

No. If you see some phenom and it's not X, not Y, not Z, you can't say THEREFORE it must be 'Aliens'.

The default position is 'I don't know', not 'aliens'.

link
gfodor 1827 days ago
No, you're not understanding anything I wrote.

The "if" is "if the US claims they are real", as in, the military claims specifically the most plausible explanation of the evidence to them is that these objects are physical, solid objects, not illusions or artifacts.

Something real in this sense but unexplainable and not originating from humans does not mean space aliens. Just like it doesn't mean leprechauns or unicorns. Where'd "aliens" come from? The answer "I don't know, but we can rule out humans" is an insane possibility, but is one which seems both increasingly likely to be the truth and also much less insane than "it's aliens."

link