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

261–270 of 287 posts

Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program

#261

Post by api »

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…

Why not just annihilate us now then? That would minimize risk, since there is always a non-zero probability that we might suddenly make some powerful discovery or other circumstances might change.

Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program

#262

Post by api »

EthanHeilman wrote: post #242
rdtsc wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

We're also assuming Snowden was not an intentional leak. Spy games get weird and complicated. They don't call it the "puzzle palace" for nothing.

Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program

#263

Post by mrspeaker »

King-Aaron wrote: post #257
mrspeaker wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't sound the same as yours, but I saw the "triangles in the sky" in the late 90s in Australia. I came home from work at about 1am, and noticed three lights up in the sky moving at the same slow speed in a triangle-ish formation (For a while I thought they were connected, but then seemed to move independently, and just looked... odd). I watched them for a couple of minutes go across the sky, then had to go and wa…

In 1996 (Around June I think), myself and around 200-odd people at the Karratha drive-in cinema witnessed a nearly identical phenomenon as you describe. It was about 9pm - 10pm, and I have fond memories of everyone around us staring straight up, instead of at the cinema screen.

Karratha?! I was south of Perth - maybe it was the same ones! I went to call the observatory, so I dialed the operator (remember operators?) and she said "You saw the lights too? If you find out what they are, call me back!"... I never got through to anyone though and just let it go.

Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program

#264

Post by grkvlt »

throwaway0458 wrote: post #243
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 u…

This is highly unlikely. There have been no occurrences of US military aircraft firing missiles at unidentified threats over Ohio, ever. To put it clearly - this did not happen. You didn't see what you think you saw.

Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program

#265

Post by api »

remir wrote: post #246
kromem wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The ET speculation is the most popular because we know for a fact that other stars and other planets around those stars exist and we know for a fact that it's (theoretically) possible to travel between at least nearby stars with sufficient technology.

We do not know for a fact that time travel is possible and there are good physics-based reasons to think it isn't. We definitely don't know that there are parallel dimensions or universes that are actually inhabitable. Dimensions and parallel universes may be mathematical artifacts. In math a dimension is just a degree of freedom. A penny is five-dimensional if you count temperature and electrical charge as dimensions.

Another speculation you run into is the "ultra-terrestrial" idea-- that they might be from Earth itself. Maybe they live deep underground or under the ocean, etc. This one is pretty implausible too. I could believe that there are unknown species, sure, but not an unknown species with an industrial infrastructure capable of producing flying machines. No way. Even deep underground we'd detect its vibration and EM emissions.

So yeah, space aliens are the most reasonable hypothesis if these things were to actually be artificial and not made by humans. That's the big "if" of course. Like I said elsewhere there's some intriguing evidence out there but nowhere near enough to draw such a conclusion.

Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program

#266

Post by pmarreck »

krapp wrote: post #249
pmarreck wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

And yet you're refusing to believe in the "reality" (hypothetical) of an alien ship visit, because it doesn't make sense (to you... and possibly to me). Probably because (among other things), we think FTL travel is impossible (... we think... cue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive) which makes any visitation from realistically far away essentially impossible or at least highly impractical ("cryosleep" for centuries, etc.)

And so a sensible person seeks (perhaps justifiably) prosaic explanations for everything and automatically excludes any hypothesis without a prosaic explanation (with the incredibly audacious conceit of assuming we already understand enough about the universe to make such assumptions), while the fantastical person, not as bound by the need for evidence, can wildly speculate (which would of course include nonhuman intelligences somehow visiting us over distances that are insurmountable to us currently, but might also include basically, well, anything, since without the hard-evidence requirement, you're free to get creative)

I think both of these points exist as extremes on a continuum and that they're both wrong in some capacity. I think pragmatism and reasoning and rationality are a good basis, however... just, limiting, as well.

We might advance a bit on the evidence front here if there was a scientific way to evaluate mass eyewitness testimony (individual eyewitness testimony has come under fire recently https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-..., but perhaps, if you multiply the number of witnesses, the errors will tend to cancel each other out and you might end up with something more like Evidence with a capital E. (This would be useful in far more areas than mere UFO observation, of course.)

Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program

#267

Post by MadcapJake »

inks wrote: post #239
nolanhanz wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Most do especially at flight control to record incoming planes along with steady snap cams that relay black and white feeds unless O’Hare is somehow less serious than Helsinki airport in 2005

This was over a gate (C-17 iirc) and thus may have been out of view for any flight control cams.

Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program

#268

Post by honestshitpost »

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…

Bigelow is a billionaire. The contract was for $22 million, chump change -- not just for Bigelow, but for almost anything. Hang around Wall St and government for even a little bit and you'll realize how small 22 million is. The money is a non story.

Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program

#269

Post by honestshitpost »

jrjf940 wrote: post #223
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.

Bigelow is a billionaire. The contract was for $22 million, chump change -- not just for Bigelow, but for almost anything. Hang around Wall St and government for even a little bit and you'll realize how small 22 million is. The money is a non story.
Post reply on HN