I agree hallucination works as a model for some of the data. It doesn't work for multiply corroborated data from independent observers, or multi-system signals, like the visual, radar, and FLIR data. At that point it comes across as trying too hard to fit the data to the model.
Hum, do we have the same observations from civilian flights? considering thousands of airliners are in the sky daily, we should.
The other thing that bugs me is the variance in the observations. One time it's giant tic-tacs, one time it's cubes inside a sphere, flying saucers... It sounds unlikely there are that many different types of UFOs out there
yeah there's a lot of cellphone videos and reports from commercial pilots but some factors to consider are civilian witnesses can be more easily discredited or their videos said to be fakes to get YouTube views. and commercial pilots are discourage from talking about UFOs and in some cases that cost people their jobs. you can try a Google search, look at MUFON, check out secureteam10 on YouTube.
the military witnesses and the team behind to the stars academy is credible. it's highly significant to see something official get behind validating the data.
when Roswell happened people were ready to believe it and then 50 years of aerospace disinformation and counter intelligence has pummeled the public psyche into ridiculing and dismissing open discussion. which was a very successful psyop to create some cover for back engineering and development of these technologies.
it's funny to see otherwise intelligent engineering folks telling others how to think about this when really they don't realise they're just repeating the aerospace industry's developed talking points that were used to cover up the secret development.
space Force, whistleblowers, official data on sightings is a strong trend that suggests the writing's on the wall for disclosure.
as to the variety, again there's no reason why the universe need conform to your expectations of it. I think it's pretty cool that there is a variety of sightings. when you consider the variety of animals and plants on planet Earth even the variety of inventions of humans I don't see any reason why you would expect everything would look the same especially when you have to consider that these technologies would be way beyond what most people on earth understand.
but it's still pre disclosure which means that people have to choose for themselves right now whether they believe or not, because no authority has yet come out to tell people how to think about it. it's a serious issue and there are strong psychological reasons either way to either believe in anti-gravity, UFOs and aliens, etc, or to not believe in those things. and before we get mass public disclosure of authoritative evidence then it's gonna come down to these two camps with people and their psychological motivations, or choice, to believe or not.
the main defence of the debunker camp is shaming, to call the other side crackpots or conspiracy theorists, or to dismiss any and all collected evidence by whatever means such as applying convoluted logic to render the possible existence as something harmless.
while the main defence of the believers camp is to call the other side deluded sheep who can't think for themselves, and to substitute faith and belief to interpolate where the evidence might be lacking.
neither of these psychological reactions is that helpful I do believe that if a person was able to even handedly look at the collected evidence that would be useful but I think we're still in the era where that sort of thinking is not accessible to the public, because of the trauma of the 50 years of shaming discussion about this.
for a place that supposedly is all about intellectual curiosity HN is surprisingly dismissive of and uninterested in looking further into this topic than the aerospace industry's disinformation talking points. it's understandable because peer pressure and conformity is important to this collective of people. if you can't tolerate dissent on web frameworks how are you going to be able to discuss a topic where the stakes are even greater? it all makes sense.
