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

171–180 of 287 posts

Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program

#171

Post by zzzeek »

twblalock wrote: post #97
volgo wrote: post #56

IMO, the fishy part of the article is the cronyism involved in this program: "The shadowy program — parts of it remain classified — began in 2007, and initially it was largely funded at the request of Harry Reid, the Nevada Democrat who was the Senate majority leader at the time and who has long had an interest in space phenomena. Most of the money went to an aerospace research company run by a billionaire entreprene…

It's no surprise that successful business people and politicians know each other. There is no perfect world where every decision to spend government money is a transaction between complete strangers. If this situation constitutes corruption, then almost every venture between government and private business would also need to be considered corrupt.

Not as much if you do open bidding which is pretty common in local and state government

Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program

#172

Post by almost_usual »

glenstein wrote: post #141
frankquist wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Say that you are interested in investigating puzzling phenomena, and you have the money. What more logical step is there than to approach your senate majority leader friend? Such oddball connections are probably the only the way such a program would ever get funded. Edit: well, obviously he didn't have the money. Misspoke. I meant the means (a company with the required infrastructure).

For me, the logical next stop would be to pause and think very long and very hard about why the subject isn't treated as legitimate by mainstream science.

What’s there to think about? Scientists are not credulous people and that’s a very good thing. There are plenty of research projects dedicated to searching for other forms of intelligent life and none of them have yielded any evidence.

This is unexplained phenomena which could be the result of diminished mental acuity or other unexplained physical events. I’m not sure how these theories should be made anymore legitimate without more evidence?

Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program

#173

Post by Johnny555 »

valuearb wrote: post #154
passwordreset wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When we (biologists) study other species, we travel long distances to examine them in their habitat. We try to hide so we can see them in their natural state, without our interference. If one suggested that this were 'dumb' or 'grandiose', then they would be ridiculed, as they would have exposed their own ignorance through that comment. The thought that a species might travel far to investigate another species in sit…

Except that biologists always are seen when in the field. Now imagine a biologist traveling to view a species using a vehicle which uses more energy than humankind has ever created. How easy is that to hide, and why would they hide from their equivalent to ants?

If you assume that this alien race can generate impossible amounts of energy, isn't it also reasonable to assume that they use a propulsion technology outside of our current level of understanding? Even if they use unfathomable amounts of energy, it could be completely outside of our ability to detect it.

Plenty of wildlife biologists do hide from their subjects when they know their presence will disturb the subjects. Why wouldn't an alien race do the same when observing humans?

Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program

#174

Post by sandworm101 »

frankquist wrote: post #71
volgo wrote: post #56

IMO, the fishy part of the article is the cronyism involved in this program: "The shadowy program — parts of it remain classified — began in 2007, and initially it was largely funded at the request of Harry Reid, the Nevada Democrat who was the Senate majority leader at the time and who has long had an interest in space phenomena. Most of the money went to an aerospace research company run by a billionaire entreprene…

Say that you are interested in investigating puzzling phenomena, and you have the money. What more logical step is there than to approach your senate majority leader friend? Such oddball connections are probably the only the way such a program would ever get funded. Edit: well, obviously he didn't have the money. Misspoke. I meant the means (a company with the required infrastructure).

>>>Say that you are interested in investigating puzzling phenomena, and you have the money. What more logical step is there than to approach your senate majority leader friend?

You spend your own money rather than ask taxpayers to fund your fantasy. There is more than enough open source intel on atmospheric phenomena out there. And plenty of "UFO researchers" willing to work.

Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program

#175

Post by sillysaurus3 »

ACow_Adonis wrote: post #100
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…

Historically, Europe was decimated by something much smaller than an ant. Additionally, in an unknown strategic situation, it is generally inadvisable to turn your situation with asymmetric information into one which informs the other players of your true state of play. Now you might say, its would be pretty obvious that we're a comparatively primitive society. Maybe, maybe not. That makes a lot of simple assumptions…

Now you might say, its would be pretty obvious that we're a comparatively primitive society. Maybe, maybe not.

https://eyeofmidas.com/scifi/Turtledove_RoadNotTaken.pdf

Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program

#176

Post by drukenemo »

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…

Thanks for the book tip, bought it immediately.

Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program

#177

Post by jsmthrowaway »

valuearb wrote: post #152
pfisch wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not a hoax: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_O%27Hare_International_Ai... I'm not saying it was an alien craft, but there are a limited number of plausible explanations for an event like this and none of what you listed is a plausible explanation.

Too bad no one at an entire airport had a camera or took a picture.

To be fair, it was 2006, and "everybody's phone has a great camera" was several years off. The article does mention someone may have snagged it on a plain digital camera.

Not taking a side, just pointing that out.

Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program

#178

Post by putlake »

glenstein wrote: post #141
frankquist wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Say that you are interested in investigating puzzling phenomena, and you have the money. What more logical step is there than to approach your senate majority leader friend? Such oddball connections are probably the only the way such a program would ever get funded. Edit: well, obviously he didn't have the money. Misspoke. I meant the means (a company with the required infrastructure).

For me, the logical next stop would be to pause and think very long and very hard about why the subject isn't treated as legitimate by mainstream science.

What we often fail to realize -- esp. in our tech bubble -- is that science is now mistrusted by the mainstream in society.

Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program

#179

Post by fapjacks »

krapp wrote: post #115
fapjacks wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 lad…

Robert Bigelow doesn't believe "something unexplainable" has been happening in our skies - he believes the explanation for those things is alien spacecraft. He isn't interested in seaching for truth, he has an agenda. It's also disingenuous to skip over more plausible explanations, including hoaxes, the memetic effect of UFO culture, classified military aircraft and disinformation campaigns, and misidentification of…

I can see where you might think I was asserting one way or the other whether Robert Bigelow was qualified for this work, and that's my fault. I have no opinion about this man specifically. I am just saying that I think this problem is worth further study by the organizations which exist for the purpose of knowing these kinds of things. That being said, according to the article, "Mr. Bigelow said he was 'absolutely convinced' that aliens exist and that U.F.O.s have visited Earth." And while on the surface that might seem to reveal his having an agenda and disqualify any of his analyses, do we feel the same way about physicists that believe God created the universe? Or do we just feel that way about people with out-group beliefs? I suppose a better analogy here would be the business owner of a company doing physics research, since he's not a scientist.

But beyond that, I think we can agree that the conversation elsewhere in this thread demonstrates there is a whole lot of negative context which serves to drive people away from taking it seriously.

Post reply on HN