Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 287 posts

Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program

#101

Post by AgentME »

jboggan wrote: post #14
magnat wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looks like an insect stuck on the camera lens.

There were multiple contacts and the F-18s had telemetry on the objects, it wasn't just an optical trick. Also how do two different jets see the same insect stuck on a lens?

Is there video available from multiple jets? Maybe they didn't ever clearly see it. Maybe they kinda thought they saw something, and lead themselves to believe they did because the other jet was so sure of it.

About the radar comment: how often are there false positives on the radar? If they didn't see anything at all, would they have written off the radar results because they normally get that kind of noise? Maybe after thinking they saw something, they read too far into the radar noise.

Yeah, I know I'm proposing a couple coincidences, but we only hear about the situations where all the coincidences line up. And really, a couple mild coincidences lining up like this must happen often across the world, and seems more likely to describe this case than this being something extraordinary.

Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program

#102

Post by asdjasldkjkljd »

kilroy123 wrote: post #17

The one guy featured in this article, Luis Elizondo, is apart of Tom Delonge's (guy from the rock band Blink 182) wacky new company To The Stars Academy https://tothestarsacademy.com . So yeah, I'm not sure he can be taken very seriously. Just listen to Tom Delong on Joe Rogan's podcast and see how wacky this all is. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5n_3mnJfHzY

Tom Delonge is out of his fucking mind.

Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program

#103

Post by throwaway7645 »

madaxe_again wrote: post #92
valuearb wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s pretty clear that people see UFOs all the time. The problem is when they are identified. My daughter sees one nearly every car ride, something in the sky that isn’t shaped like a plane, and certainly doesn’t move like one. Guess what? when we get closer it’s always an airliner, or a helicopter, or a balloon. It’s easy to get mislead by the light, the perspective, the shadows, the distance, etc. The really dumb p…

We’d make a good case study of a civilisation negotiating a critical juncture. I’d dare say we’d be of interest to sociologists and historians, and given where we’re at there might even be something of a careless stampede to gather data before the idiot quadrupeds wipe themselves out. There can’t be that many civilisations going through the hockey stick/environmental catastrophe stage in this galactic neck of the woo…

How many species are at the hockey stick point is unknown...depends on what numbers you plug into the Drake equation variables. Could be rare or lots of us.

I think the rest of your comment is plausible.

Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program

#105

Post by gfodor »

api wrote: post #77
gfodor wrote: post #50

It's been pretty clear for some time now for those who study the facts that there is a very good chance there are real objects in the sky that maneuver in ways that conventional aircraft are unable to and cannot be explained adequately as other observed phenomenon. The taboo around this subject due to the common hypothesis they are due to extraterrestrials is a shame because there's been plenty of documented evidence…

Part of the problem is all the crazy mythology around the subject. But strip that off and it has always seemed to me that there is an interesting residue of facts. It's not enough to prove anything but it's enough to be intriguing. One possible answer to the Fermi paradox is that they are here but are just not making overt obvious contact. If this were true we'd probably be talking about a "post-singularity" super in…

After reading "The Dark Forest" I've leaned towards the idea that we are under pervasive observation (likely by hard-to-detect autonomous AI agents of some form, the origin of which is relatively inconsequential) and once the probability tilts towards a non-zero value that we are a threat beyond a certain blast radius we'll be wiped out.

If that were true, and the message of that being the case were delivered somehow to our governments, the general status quo around these phenomena and the propaganda steering people away from caring about them would be explainable. People have barely gotten used to the idea of mortality, but to know your race was doomed to extinction with certainty would almost certainly cause massive civil unrest and a major disruption to almost all human institutions and culture that assume our collective future is unbounded.

Perhaps this is too tinfoil but it's an internally consistent story, perhaps with the exception of how or why these agents would be detectable at all, when they surely could conceal themselves completely -- perhaps it's just probabilities though since there would not be much downside of detection by a primitive civilization such as ours.

Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program

#106

Post by throwaway7645 »

kilroy123 wrote: post #17

The one guy featured in this article, Luis Elizondo, is apart of Tom Delonge's (guy from the rock band Blink 182) wacky new company To The Stars Academy https://tothestarsacademy.com . So yeah, I'm not sure he can be taken very seriously. Just listen to Tom Delong on Joe Rogan's podcast and see how wacky this all is. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5n_3mnJfHzY

That academy link is pretty "out there" and def hard to take seriously when you see consciousness and other things mentioned like that.

Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program

#107

Post by neurotech1 »

eric_h wrote: post #30
olegkikin wrote: post #20

I looks like the plane is making a left turn, and yet the object is dead center in the screen with barely any shake. And it's definitely not stabilized, because all the lines on the display are still. So maybe the pilot has some crazy ability to track a flying object perfectly while turning, but try doing it in any game and I think you will fail.

I know nothing about the current state of military tech, but that looks like a targeting camera that has some sort of edge detection allowing it to track the object. The vertical lines to the left and right of the object appear computer controlled, to me, especially because they track the left and right edges of the object and the vertical length changes in a way that seems reactive to the object on screen. The brief…

The pod is an AN/ASQ-228 ATFLIR[0][1], a type of IRST (InfraRed Search & Tracking) system. The pod is either cued by the F/A-18 radar, or automatically tracked by pod itself. The ATFLIR has a computer assisted stabilization system.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/ASQ-228_ATFLIR [1] https://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/atflir/

Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program

#108

Post by imglorp »

gfodor wrote: post #79
Retric wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People lack depth perception in the sky which makes it easy to wildly misunderstand things. A great example shown by some UFO show was a side camera from the space shuttle. The footage has a nice curvature of the earth, with lot's of little specks that seem to be orbiting it way out in the distance. You see a maneuvering thruster fire then in slow motion a few heartbeats later these specks shoot off in a new directio…

Your analysis is one of the more obvious explanations and as such it has been considered thoroughly before for the cases that remain unexplained. Typically these cases include radar signatures or other corroborating evidence.

If the F-18 HUD footage in OP is real, that would indicate the avionics picked it up, tracked it, and reported the heading and velocity. This is also interesting because the FLIR showed the object as mostly black: not emitting heat as a jet would.

Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program

#109

Post by noetic_techy »

valuearb wrote: post #67

A partial list of things more believable than UFOs are Alien spaceships 1) Chemtrails. 2) 9/11 conspiracies. 3) JFK assassination conspiracy. 4) Vaccines cause autism. 5) Cell phones cause cancer. etc, etc. The only theory less believable than UFOs being Aliens is flat earth.

Or just very advanced earthly technology hidden in plane sight via the ridicule of people who lump it in...

Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program

#110

Post by fapjacks »

krapp wrote: post #91
Teever wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Robert Bigelow has been interested in aliens and UFOs for most of his life and has essentially dedicated his life to amassing the resources to start an aeronautical company. Hiring him to do this is like hiring Robert Ballard to find the Titanic.

>Hiring him to do this is like hiring Robert Ballard to find the Titanic. No, because the Titanic could be proven to have existed before Robert Ballard tried to find it.

To deny that something unexplainable has been happening in the skies is really disingenuous. We have very expert, specialist organizations whose primary responsibility it is to know what's happening in our skies. You take these two things and remove the context of "UFOs" and suddenly it's not crazy that they're doing something about it, but crazy that they're not doing something about it. The context of "UFOs" is laden with plenty of bad rap, but that doesn't absolve these organizations from their responsibilities.
Post reply on HN