[psychphysic]

So basically you think that the USN should be able to detect the implosion and so must be hiding that they can do so.

Rather than any information specific to this event leading to the conclusion that USN can.

This is the same reasoning "UFOlogists" use to insist area 51 has aliens.

1. Aliens must exist.

2. US must be able to detect any aliens.

3. The US must be covering up that aliens exist.

[dTal]

I fail to see the analogy between "aliens must exist" (a statement for which there is no evidence) and "the submersible imploded" (which is substantiated by debris). The syllogism is simple:

* submarines make loud noises when they implode

* the navy can hear loud noises underwater

* the submersible is thought to have imploded based on debris

therefore,

* the navy heard the submarine implode

[danso]

Maybe there's a miscommunication here; detecting underwater sound from hundreds, even thousands of kilometers away, is made possible via the publicly known laws of physics.

Detecting extraterrestrial aliens requires technology that is not publicly known. Therefore, it is not at all logical to compare "hearing an imploding submersible in the Atlantic" to "detecting aliens/UFOs"

[psychphysic]

Really you'd need advanced technology to detect aliens if Roswell was indeed an crash landing?

You've got to be kidding!

[stochtastic]

> and so must be hiding that they can do so

I don't believe I said that. You can draw your own conclusion from the fact that it is within their capabilities to detect, localize, and to some extent classify a wide range of sources in this region of the ocean.

What you won't find is a lot of information about those capabilities in the public domain. Just consider that what _is_ known tells us that we had these capabilities in the 1950s, and that they were continuously improved upon throughout the cold war. This is not Area 51 conspiracy speculation; it is bread-and-butter NRL stuff that is more than half a century old at this point and is classified for good reasons.

[psychphysic]

I'll rephrase. What about this incident supports your claim?

As far as I can see not only is the answer to that is "nothing" but the claim itself is non-falsifiable.