I never knew that HN was so full of people who might be spotted on reddits conspiracy subteddit.
The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program
181–190 of 287 posts
Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program
#182IMO, 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.
Well that is why you have a public bidding process where you throughly document why the winning bid won.
If they had nothing to hide, that part of the equation would be perfectly transparent.
I work in the public sector in Scandinavia and while I realize our laws are a little different, I would be in jail if I did something similar. Getting contracts to friends/family is a huge issue in most countries, which is why you document the reasoning even harder to make sure its absolutely bulletproof legally when they happen to have the best bid.
Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program
#183Earlier 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).
>>>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.
I guess that as a private citizen he would not have access to a lot of tech and information Pentagon has, no matter how much money he can spend. So spending money lobbying to get Pentagon create a program like this might be better approach rather then trying to carry out investigations on your own.
Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program
#184And if they do exist, then what? Piss 'em off by trying to kill or capture one?(more likely) Send Richard Dreyfuss up for an extended visit to Wyoming?(less likely)
Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program
#185What concerns me about these things is the likelihood of it being an earthbound experimental aircraft. If it's not ours, and it looks like magic to us, we're losing our air superiority.
Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program
#186Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Using "science" makes your statement too broad.
Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program
#187Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
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.
And yet no surveillance cameras captured it? No cameras at the gate? No cameras near or around? This was 2006, well after the days when the idea of 24/7 eyes everywhere was considered a conspiracy, it was the days of bush and the Patriot Act and consistent airport watch. And we get... no actual real evidence?
Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program
#188My grandmother's sister was married to a man who served as Captain of the 1st rank on a nuclear submarine in the Soviet and maybe even Russian Navy (I don't know exactly when he retired). As I found out later in life, he was also one of the liquidators of Chernobyl nuclear disaster, the effects of which ultimately led to his early death in early 2000s. I know for sure he already retired from military by mid 90s when…
When I was in submarine sonar school, one of my instructors claimed to have heard sounds under the sea that were not of this world. He said that they made him believe in alien visitation. In the many years and countless thousands of miles of voyages that followed, I never heard a goddamned thing. Oh well.
I had a Captain while doing my service in Finland he was convinced he had seen a UFO while aboard in Europe during the late 70s, he stood by it even when he was showed the spirit and claimed we must have copied it.
Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program
#189Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's also "unexplained aerial phenomena" as the generic cover for materials recovered from the secret research programs of other countries.
But come on, if US intelligence agencies recovered metallurgy from Russian hypersonic missiles or something like that, why would they use UFO for cover? And why would they store it outside of AFRL? I think it's just a way to funnel taxpayer money, there is nothing real being investigated. Not extraterrestrial tech, not foreign tech, not even domestic tech.
Why would the CIA use Howard Hughes and a barge large enough to house a stealth boat to recover a Soviet sub?
Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program
#190Earlier 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.
I don't think that would be your logical next step as it doesn't logically follow from the earlier steps. My post started with "Say that you are interested in investigating puzzling phenomena, and you have the money.". So my post presupposes that interest. You don't have that interest (at least not in the same way) so your point is moot. You can't say "Say that you have an interest. Your next logical step would be not to have the interest".