I mean, we don't know what they did, only what it looked like they did. If whatever caused the "thing" in the videos wasn't where the sensors thought it was, then it also wasn't doing what it looked like it was.
Silentiea
joined 1 year ago
I don't know what it is, but I also don't know what it's not. And neither does the Navy or anyone else. Those videos are still in the "one weird fluke" category (unless the Navy figured it out later and didn't tell anyone).
The thing is that it could be "shadows" or something similar mundane, but it could also be some kind of civilian drone or something combined with a software glitch that made the instrumentation report the numbers wrong. It could be a piece of experimental or otherwise new technology that's actually behaving the way the computer thinks. Nobody knows, and without more evidence of some kind, nobody will.
And sure, it could be aliens. But the prior probability on that one makes it exceedingly unlikely compared to the less exciting and more mundane explanations.
I mean the odds aren't very different for the kid after the procedure. Why can't God save them after? Not even /s, why don't they ever have an answer for that? If we're relying on a miracle anyway, why would an infinitely powerful god need such constrained circumstances to make it work?
You heard OP, remove the question if it's allowed! Only banned questions may stay! Does the set of all sets that don't contain themselves contain itself!?
I have heard someone say in all seriousness that it's still murder to abort an ectopic pregnancy (which would just kill the mom and 'child' if allowed to continue)...
When you make them feel something for once
I was never "popular" in school, but I got on pretty well with pretty much everyone. The "popular" kids were actually a pretty small, insular crowd that didn't actually like almost anyone. I kinda figured that's what it was like everywhere.
In star Trek, they use sonic showers.
Or, and hear me out, the statistic is just something some guy on Lemmy said and was never substantiated and is (at the very least potentially) unreliable.
"don't feed the trolls," they said, but did she ever listen?
No, I guess I didn't...
Saying what probably causes the numbers to be lopsided is really not the same as citing a source.
I mean I do.