What's up with that uh? I read about the swore statements during the depositions, and all the mainstream media news, but for some reason HN had radio silence.

Is there something I missed that shows it's all shenanigans?

They (1) claim not to know what the craft are, which somebody told him contained (2) nonhuman biological whatever

It could be a Chinese drone with rat-cell-on-a-chip inside it

The guy's testimony was that somebody told him stuff and it seemed scary. Congress made a dog and pony show that a significant chunk of people attended.

Parse the details, not the overarching fantasy.

The government admitted to doing this in the 70s-90s to keep not-so-strange technology hidden behind The Strange. Trim with Occam.

The ticTac videos aren't interesting if you look at the limitations of perspective and remember that Air Force pilots aren't supreme authorities for objectively assessing parallax and assigning airspeed to all moving objects while flying a fucking cracker attached to a rocket.

>> and remember that Air Force pilots aren't supreme authorities for objectively assessing parallax and assigning airspeed to all moving objects while flying a fucking cracker attached to a rocket.

They don't need to be "supreme authorities" on anything -- they have insane technology acting as their eyes and as their objective measuring and tracking systems.

The technology itself in the 'Go Fast' video shows the object isn't moving fast. The distance from the object and the direction of the camera are available in the video, and using this you can calculate the altitude and speed of the object in question.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLyEO0jNt6M

You can calculate it to go many speeds depending on what assumptions are made. Just because mick west shows something is possible doesn't prove what's in the video.

1) There's a range of speeds that are possible depending on what you assume the turning angle of the jet was. That range doesn't go anywhere close to the speed of sound.

2) The burden of proof is on those who make an extraordinary claim. There is a perfectly mundane explanation of the cause of apparently fast-moving object which is supported by available evidence. Even if that depends on some assumptions, you would have to demonstrate those assumptions to be false before a less likely alternative, i.e., that it was an extraterrestrial spacecraft, should be adopted.

A perfectly mundane explanation isn't proof. There isn't enough evidence in this case to prove it one way or another. That should be acceptable but for many people it isn't.

In that situation, though, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot applies, as we can’t prove the negative.

You are making the assertions here. You claim to know the speed of the object, the distance to it, the size, etc etc.

No, the assertion being made is that there are mundane possibilities for each of those values that have not been ruled out by the data/video we have.

To make the extraordinary claim more plausible, you have to rule out the more mundane possibilities. Prove it's doing something unusual. Until then, "we can't prove it either way" doesn't mean there's a 50/50 chance.

The people fighting for those recordings at this point have seen reasonable explanations and dismissed them

It's like the Flat Earth documentary where a group crowdfunds an absurd laser and, when it demonstrates the Earth's curvature, reason that they need to "troubleshoot" that 'flawed' result.

There is always a hand to wave.

When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not unicorns.

Unless you can't see the horses. Then think horse spirits.

Or look for a slight hill

Pics or it didn’t happen. After years of claimed room temp superconductors people believed this one because it had a video of a floating rock. Aliens are an even more extraordinary claim, I’m going to need multiple close up videos before I even start to care.

You can find many nice pictures of aliens on StableDiffusion channel on Reddit. You can also ask for video.

People say a lot of things in sworn testimony to Congress. It's a data point but not a particularly strong one.

In this specific case, they were also pretty squirrely on the details.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/are-5-memorable-mo...

> Asked by Rep. Jared Moskowitz, D-Fla., how such a program is funded, Grusch claimed that the effort is "above congressional oversight" and bankrolled by a "misappropriation of funds."

> "Does that mean that there is money in the budget that is set to go to a program but it doesn't and it goes to something else?," Moskowitz asked.

> "Yes. I have specific knowledge of that," Grusch said, though he did not provide more details, claiming the information remains classified.

The chances of "we have aliens" being unclassified, but the exact details being classified... is fairly slim.

Sworn statements with no evidence don't merit much scrutiny. Especially when it comes to extraordinary claims.

"A friend of a friend told me, I swear".

100% chance the guy is just lieing for attention or because he is delusional. He said that UFOs could be coming from extra dimensions. He might as well say that the UFOs are coming from atlantis or the second circle of hell. It's just horseshit, plain as.

> UFOs could be coming from extra dimensions

I somehow find this perhaps more believable than the alternatives of (1) civs out there having FTL and not colonizing the Galaxy to the degree that we would detect it or (2) them coming here at sublight speeds to do the described UFO things.

I think the sad reality is that indeed (1) and (2) are extremely unlikely and that doesn't mean that extra dimensions is more likely. Extra dimensions is just even less likely.

Thus proving the parent post’s “credulity” point.

Been following the topic for many years.

TLDR is, we need to wait and see for real evidence to be revealed. It may well be all true.