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

241–250 of 287 posts

Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program

#241

Post by api »

valuearb wrote: post #236
api wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Fusion rockets are easily detectable. Essentially they would decelerate by sending an HBombs amount of particles our direction every few seconds.

Only if we're looking that way. Space is called space for a reason, and radiation diminishes with the square of distance. Light the big candle out by Uranus and Saturn and we'd probably not see it.

Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program

#242

Post by EthanHeilman »

rdtsc wrote: post #197
gfodor wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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.

What I find interesting is that certain government programs are very leaky and others we have not seen any leaks. For instance we know the NSA has cryptanalysis programs, yet no leaks of US cryptanalysis have occurred. The Snowden documents have very little information on these programs.

Large numbers of people knew about ULTRA across many nations on both sides of the iron curtain. ULTRA was kept secret for 42 years, well past the point that the main utility of keeping it secret has passed.

Why? What makes one program more leaky than another.

>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.

There so many motivations for a disinformation campaign here.

Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program

#243

Post by throwaway0458 »

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…

In the early 90s in southern OH, me and my brother watched an object exactly like those in the article, while 4 (IIRC) fighter jets attempted to intercept it. Unlike in the article, they did fire on it, and the object moved and accelerated faster than the missiles. They missed several times, until it disappeared and the jets turned back.

I think how close they got in the article is the limits of our tech. We happen upon them randomly, and the crafts are so much more advanced than ours that it's impossible to knock one down to study it further.

Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program

#244

Post by aluminussoma »

iankp wrote: post #203
perseusprime11 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before you saw these incidents, what was your belief system in UFOs? I ask this because sometimes we can see what we want to see and sometimes we cannot see what we don't want to see.

I'll share that I had an encounter that seemed unnatural/impossible and I wasn't alone at the time. It also was reported in our local paper the following day. I contentiously (regardless of the experience) have never and do not believe in aliens.

Would you mind to share what your impossible encounter was like? Did the paper report something else (like the Daily Mail reporting on a helicopter as the cause)?

Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program

#245

Post by remir »

valuearb wrote: post #232
goombastic wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Chasing down misidentified flying objects and hoaxes will not. The idea that numerous spaceships, each with more potential kinetic energy than mankind has created in its entire history, are just flying around our atmosphere without leaving massive and easily recordable emissions is ludicrous. Identifying, understanding and explaining/eliminating exceptions is how science progresses. I know it causes discomfort to se…

Examine what? There is no evidence that any UFO is an enormously powerful alien spacecraft, in fact all evidence suggests the opposite. Enormous amounts of power can be clearly detected through emissions and effects on surrounding matter.

UFO doesn't mean alien spacecraft. It means unidentified flying object. Bigelow might be convinced we're being visited by intelligent beings from elsewhere in the cosmos, but that's just a belief.

UFOs have been filmed and recorded by radars everywhere on earth. Something is going on. That doesn't mean it's ETs visiting us. On the other hand, it's a possibility. We don't know.

Now, does it mean we have to stop everything we're doing to investigate UFOs? Nope. All I'm saying is it's an interesting subject to explore.

Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program

#246

Post by remir »

kromem wrote: post #209
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…

I never understand why we always assume that it's extra-terrestrial. For example, let's say time travel will be possible at any given point in the future. Well, if it were possible in the future, we might expect to see it happening across time, including the past and present. It would of course represent technology thousands of years more advanced than the observers of the phenomenon, but not millions of years away,…

Another theory is that we're being visited be entities from a parallel dimension.

Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program

#247

Post by remir »

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtmpaM0PqyI

Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program

#248

Post by sumedh »

valuearb wrote: post #231
sumedh wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do ants have nuclear weapons?

Tbe amount of power needed to travel here from a nearby star in any reasonable time is equivalent to detonating a nuclear bomb every few seconds. It would be like us being afraid of a civilization that had just discovered gunpowder.

They won't be afraid of us, they probably don't want us to do something crazy like trying to use the nuclear weapons against them and hurt earth(humans) in the process.

Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program

#249

Post by krapp »

pmarreck wrote: post #222
krapp wrote: post #115

Earlier 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…

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)

I completely agree that the Phoenix lights were weird. I don't know what they were, I don't think they were birds, but I also don't think they were a big black alien triangle.

Neverthless, the military does sometimes test classified aircraft in view of civilians. And they have been known to use or even encourage UFO sightings as misinformation to cover up their activity.

Fiction has to make sense, but reality doesn't always have to make sense.

Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program

#250

Post by loblollyboy »

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

Hunt Minotaur lol
Post reply on HN