Even before reading the paper I was 99% sure it was a hoax. Something about the video clinched it and I was sure. But many others (even here on Hacker News) were not sure. They (like me) found the idea fascinating and did not want to dismiss it out of hand. Many people weighed in on the extreme physics and engineering challenges that would have to be overcome to make it possible. But the video's defenders pointed out again and again that the nay-sayers should read and directly address the explanatory technical documents that the "pilots" had posted on their web site.
I didn't even look at the pilots' web site, and I expect most other skeptics didn't either. But should we have?
Because later the video makers admitted it was a hoax. So should we, who were so skeptical really have spent time reading that paper and picking it apart point for point? Or was it enough to let time prove us right?
Even before reading the paper I was 99% sure it was a hoax. Something about the video clinched it and I was sure. But many others (even here on Hacker News) were not sure. They (like me) found the idea fascinating and did not want to dismiss it out of hand. Many people weighed in on the extreme physics and engineering challenges that would have to be overcome to make it possible. But the video's defenders pointed out again and again that the nay-sayers should read and directly address the explanatory technical documents that the "pilots" had posted on their web site.
I didn't even look at the pilots' web site, and I expect most other skeptics didn't either. But should we have?
Because later the video makers admitted it was a hoax. So should we, who were so skeptical really have spent time reading that paper and picking it apart point for point? Or was it enough to let time prove us right?