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

191–200 of 287 posts

Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program

#191

Post by spookyuser »

gfodor wrote: post #105
api wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think this is the least tinfoil of theories in this thread. After I read Three Body Problem it's become impossible for me to see the Fermi paradox in any other way. In fact , every other theory about how aliens might be on earth all seem so charming now. As if they haven't read the 'news' about what really happened.

Obviously this isn't the case but I just feel the Cixin Liu layed out this theory so convincingly that, at least for me, it might as well be.

Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program

#192

Post by duckMuppet »

putlake wrote: post #178
glenstein wrote: post #141

Earlier 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.

I think it's more to do with the those claiming things in the name of science that puts many people off.

Science is a process, a method by which we can answer certain types of questions. To often people hear things like settled science, or the science is crystal clear, not up for debate.. These are political posturing and have little to do with actual science. It's absurd, and some people realize this.

As with any science, data comes in late, or sometimes not at all. There are quite a few FDA prescription drugs that were approved and later recalled, some with devastating effects on their consumers.

The truth is, science is done by people, people who are infallible. People who make mistakes, who see things from a certain point of view, or who don't have all the data yet. Additionally, prediction models can be tweaked to say exactly what you want to, with devastating effect on our community.

You can't say anything though. Even in grad school labs, to make certain statements or even hint about things can lead to problems with your advisor, or research, or worse yet, peers.. Academia is a great place, at least it has been for me, as long as you keep your head down and focus on research.. i dont think it's the best place now if you truly want to question everything. I wouldn't even venture where you could go for that now.

I think this has led to a generalized mistrust, and it falls on all of us. The reality is that data is always changing, models change, etc.. People who put policies into legislation need to balance not only the aspect of the science, but the overall big picture; cultural, societal, expectations, desires etc. as well. That's politics. I think it was Russ Roberts who said you can engineer a bridge, but you can't engineer society in the same way. And i think that's right, too Often we miss that.

Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program

#193

Post by garmaine »

eplanit wrote: post #143
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).

Or, say you are a major donor to your senate majority leader friend. What more logical step than the senate majority leader getting millions of taxpayer dollars funneled to your company to investigate puzzling phenomena. With your income increased, you're more able to keep donating to the friend in the senate.

Bob Bigalow actually is a hard core ufologist for the record. No need for cynicism here I think. He just wanted access to DoD information on the subject.

Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program

#194

Post by nyolfen »

kevinskii wrote: post #150
avenoir wrote: post #144

My 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.

could it have been sea mammals?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlrcbKlW4Tw

Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program

#195

Post by nolanhanz »

inks wrote: post #187
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.

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?

Pretty sure they don’t have security cameras pointed at the sky

Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program

#196

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program

#197

Post by rdtsc »

gfodor wrote: post #105
api wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> the message of that being the case were delivered somehow to our governments,

That would make a fun plot for a movie. But having worked with the government and then also having observed leaks of top secret information and tools coming out the supposedly most secretive government institutions, I cannot believe they would be competent enough to keep that information under a tight lid for long.

Someone, somehow would have ex-filtrated some proof by now.

What I can see happening the government not necessarily encouraging but perhaps not discouraging either these rumors from spreading in order to divert attention from say testing of experimental aircraft.

Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program

#198

Post by r721 »

nl wrote: post #166
api wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There's a great article called something like 'a biologist's take on the Fermi paradox'. Worth reading because it challenges some core assumptions.

This one?

https://praxtime.com/2013/11/25/sagan-syndrome-pay-heed-to-b...

Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program

#200

Post by rdtsc »

avenoir wrote: post #144

My 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…

> Captain of the 1st rank on a nuclear submarine in the Soviet and maybe even Russian Navy

During the 70's or 80's Soviet subs were detecting these "quacking" sounds in the Antarctic. They were puzzling and many thought that it was the aliens or super secret Western technology.

https://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?stor...

It turned out to be whales.

There were other sounds like the "Bloop" which turned to be ice quakes.

> Or maybe he was just trolling us

I also had an uncle in the Soviet military and he did like to troll us. When rumors of aliens become popular in the tabloids, he convinced a good number of people from his village that aliens have landed in the woods. It was actually a lightning strike which caught some trees on fire but, but he got them to believe it was a landing zone for an alien spacecraft.

On a more serious note, I can't believe any government can keep a tight enough lid on something like that. Someone, somewhere is bound to defect or to leak it is somehow.

Post reply on HN