NASA says more science and less stigma are needed to understand UFOs

Re:NASA says more science and less stigma are needed to unde... by david-gpu on Friday September 15, 2023 @12:07PM (#37525215)

> The US government and, indeed, almost every government on earth, scans our atmosphere constantly for alien craft both from earth and using satellites (which is to say, they're looking for missiles and bombers) because it's sort of a core function of national security to control your own airspace. I'm not sure you need anything extra to find "non-human" spacecraft.

And do they systematically release that data for academic researchers to analyze? Or is it automatically classified? If it is classified (hint:it is) then how do we know what they have found?

If you were part of the military brass and your mission was thus the defense of your nation, what would you do if you received radar reports of objects behaving unlike anything else that your known technology could do? And if upon further research your experts determined beyond reasonable doubt that these anomalies are real craft, what would you do? Remember that your mission is to provide every possible military advantage to your country and to prevent other countries from gaining an advantage agsinst you.

Me? I would try to shoot them down to study them and keep the lid on the whole thing to prevent our adversaries from leapfrogging our current technology.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:NASA says more science and less stigma are needed to unde... by empyrrhicist on Friday September 15, 2023 @02:23PM (#37527191)

Please look up the "argument from ignorance", because that's what you're doing.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:NASA says more science and less stigma are needed to unde... by david-gpu on Friday September 15, 2023 @02:49PM (#37527557)

I'm not saying "we don't know have X data, so Y must be true/false, I am saying there is a perfectly plausible explanation for why if data from military sources did exist then it wouldn't automatically be known to the public. Because that is the argument that was being made by the comment I was replying to.

If you have a more detailed criticism I would be happy to address it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:NASA says more science and less stigma are needed to unde... by empyrrhicist on Friday September 15, 2023 @03:25PM (#37528025)

Replace "true/false" with "probably/reasonable to consider" and you're doing exactly that. You're using uncertainty to elevate an implausible hypothesis for consideration.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:NASA says more science and less stigma are needed to unde... by david-gpu on Friday September 15, 2023 @03:48PM (#37528282)

The comment I replied to was stating that if alien vehicles visited Earth then the military would be aware of it, with the implicit assumption that if the military was aware of UAPs then the it would inform the public.

My counterargument is that if the military detected UAPs then they would have both a strong incentive not to inform the public and the means to keep it secret.

Happy to address any other misunderstandings.

[ Parent | on HN ]