288
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2023
288 points (85.3% liked)
politics
19120 readers
3074 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I want to make a few points.
First, the appeal to experts is bad. Doctors misdiagnose things all the time and they're dealing with much less complex systems than literally all airspace. They also have more training and experience. We expect them to make mistakes on occasion, and we should expect the same from pilots.
Second, what reason would aliens have for flying in our atmosphere? We can observe what's happening on earth from space and our tech is not even close to capable for what would be needed to travel to other habitable planets.
Third, assuming it is aliens flying in the atmosphere for whatever reason, how would their tech not not be advanced enough to avoid detection? They are obviously trying to avoid detection (assuming it's aliens, which it isn't), so how are they so incompetent yet so advanced?
Fourth, if you include the UFO crash stuff, how would they be so incompetent to crash? We have extremely few crashes of our aircraft with our relatively simple technology. There is no way they'd be that bad to crash if they can create the technology to visit earth.
I don't know why I keep needing to repeat this, but I DON'T THINK IT WAS SPACE ALIENS.
I've been pretty clear about that from the start here, although I guess after re-reading my first post in the thread, it was a little less explicit about that fact than it could have been. Maybe I should have put it at the top rather than in the middle, and also written it in 100' tall letters of fire.
We don't know what happened in the tictac event, and of the other two, Grusch went full on conspiracy theorist nutjob and the other pilot had a similar but less credible story, mostly in that he wasn't backed up after the fact by other pilots. David Fravor's account was backed up by other pilots, and the other pilot to back him up explicitly disavowed herself from being a UFO person, while still backing what Fravor said.
I also focus on that event because it's the one that had six separate sets of radar on it, so out of all of them, it undoubtedly has the best sensor readings of any of the ones we know. The radar tracks that Fravor describes, with the tictacs descending from 80'000 feet down to sea level in a matter of moments, if released, would either immediately validate or discredit his claims, and the fact that it happened across so many different sensor types and systems also means that in the astronomically more likely event of it being some weird atmospheric phenomena that we've never scientifically documented or validated, also would have much more data to begin preliminary investigations with.
Like that's the real benefit here, is the scientific research that can be done, and the collation and collection of the data about these events under a single roof where it can be looked and expand the boundaries of human knowledge. If these phenomena are as common as the two pilots allege, then it's something we need to know about, for the simple purpose of making air traffic safer if nothing else, and if they are lying through their teeth, then releasing the radar tracks proves it. Either way, it should be done.