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

221–230 of 287 posts

Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program

#221

Post by oboopfmlrmnmn »

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.

Yeah, good luck with your long hard think

Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program

#222

Post by pmarreck »

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…

Because it totally makes sense that the military would fly highly-classified aircraft in full view of thousands of people, essentially giving away any element of surprise in the event the shit hits the fan (thinking Phoenix Lights here)

Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program

#223

Post by jrjf940 »

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 was pretty funny how the article had only passing mention of that part.

Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program

#224

Post by golergka »

volgo wrote: post #202
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).

No, the logical step is to stop and think whether or not you should use public money to do this. If he raised some VC funding, he can go hunt Minotaur for all I care. But this is my money he's using to do this. No thanks

> No, the logical step is to stop and think whether or not you should use public money to do this.

People in first-world countries are usually OK with spending public money on science. So, if you consider it legit science (and he does), it makes perfect sense for him to lobby spending public money on it.

Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program

#225

Post by Amezarak »

madaxe_again wrote: post #89
_gutd wrote: post #75

Interesting read that expands further on the Navy pilot encounter: https://fightersweep.com/1460/x-files-edition/ Worth noting that the object was observed by a total of 3 F-18s, an E-2 Hawkeye, and a cruiser on the surface.

It’s totally anecdotal, and I’m just some guy on the internet, but I’ve seen these, or at least something similar, twice - once above Bath, UK, in 2012 - the first hint something was up was a pair of sonic booms as two typhoons hurtled into the airspace over the city. Needless to say, ran out of the office to gawp, and the fighters were circling a thing hovering at about 20,000 feet - bulky ovular object with greeble…

> The other was at night in the Kazakh steppes, watching a triangle of lights dance in impossible fashion, before zooming up into the sky and disappearing - although given that I was near Baikonur, I give more credence to this one being man made.

I was struck by your account, as Thomas Pynchon mentions in Gravity's Rainbow a mysterious phenomenon called the Kirghiz Light, seen on the steppes.

https://gravitys-rainbow.pynchonwiki.com/wiki/index.php?titl...

Maybe a coincidence, but Pynchon drew a lot on real history and events, and I wonder if there was not something on the steppes people have been reporting for a while. I never could find anything on the Internet about it, but it makes me wonder.

Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program

#226

Post by agarden »

krapp wrote: post #216
nolanhanz wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'm pretty sure that if there were really a giant unidentifiable craft hovering over an American airport terminal less than a decade after 9/11 someone would have found a way to point something at it.

I am inclined to agree with you, but on the other hand, according to that WikiPedia article the FAA concluded it was an unexplained weather phenomenon. That is easier to believe, but it makes it no easier to understand how no hard evidence was recorded.

Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program

#227

Post by agarden »

rdtsc wrote: post #200
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 tu…

> 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.

Except that what you are swatting away with that comment is someone claiming to have heard that leak. One could also look at the NYT article as another leak, no?

I would think that if one had something top secret like this that one desperately wanted to keep under wraps despite the inevitable leak, the best strategy might well be to intentionally sow lots of bogus UFO sightings and create a subculture of UFO paranoia, so that when the true leaks eventually happen they are lost in the noise.

Which of course does not mean that is necessarily what has actually been happening.

Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program

#228

Post by api »

Johnny555 wrote: post #173
valuearb wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I find it quite silly when after having done science seriously for less than 200 years we think we understand all of physics, especially when our models clearly have gaping holes and contradictions.

Nevertheless you don't even need new physics for this line of speculation. Fusion rockets will do.

Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program

#229

Post by alehul »

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?

To carry the analogy properly, it would be using a vehicle which uses more energy than the species we're studying has ever created.

Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program

#230

Post by valuearb »

jsmthrowaway wrote: post #177
valuearb wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Phones had cameras back then. Disposable Cameras were available at every airport shop.

And Someone allegedly photographed it, but no one bothered to examine or release the photos?

Post reply on HN