Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

An investigation of the Pentagon's UFO program

popularmechanics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 161 posts

Re: An investigation of the Pentagon's UFO program

#41

Post by not_skeptic »

gerdesj wrote: post #34
gerdesj wrote: post #31

I (skim) read quite a lot of the article. I had a laugh (obvs). I then skim read the comments here. Oh fuck, I am really feeling out of place. I thought HN is where we talk bollocks about important stuff, or important things about bollocks or occasionally we debate important things about important things. I'm pretty sure I did not sign up to talk bollocks about bollocks (unless orchids are involved.) This is bollocks…

Think I hit a nerve.

I thought the same until I looked into the matter. About 5% isn't crap. If you doubt, just ask what you will believe and I bet you can find your case in this subject. The other 95% is legitimate mis-identifications with a sprinkling of actual hoaxes to keep the skeptics fed well.

Re: An investigation of the Pentagon's UFO program

#42

Post by pfisch »

SuoDuanDao wrote: post #37
foldingmoney wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Here's my theory about the recent influx of UFO footages coming from high places. US military was working on advanced drones. Nothing fancy, think current best tech, add 15 years and billion in r&d, that kind of stuff. The issue I have with this line of reasoning is that if the US military actually possesses technology that's vastly ahead of anything official, then that implies that about 99.9% of the US military bu…

While I don't believe the 'it's all cointel' theory myself, it does also seem possible the USAF could have highly advanced prototypes that aren't ready for mass production yet.

Sure, they have "highly advanced prototypes" where those prototypes obey the known laws of physics and experience inertia.

They have drones that are better than the existing drones. They absolutely don't have drones that are anything like the impossible vehicles in these UFO reports though.

Re: An investigation of the Pentagon's UFO program

#43

Post by coleifer »

At risk of inviting ridicule, I went through a phase where I read everything I could find on the subject of UFOs. Jacques Vallee stands out as one of the most sober and interesting researchers on the topic. Some cases that I think are worth checking out:

* Colares, Brazil

* JAL 1628

* O'Hare airport

* Green fireballs, Los Alamos

* Black triangles in belgium

* Solyut golden sphere (maybe soyuz, I don't recall)

* Gordon Cooper

Controversial but compelling:

* Phoenix lights

* Rendlesham

* Ariel school

* Nuremberg 1561

Re: An investigation of the Pentagon's UFO program

#44

Post by taneq »

mfer wrote: post #22

When someone says UFO many people immediately think aliens. The military often means something different. For example, a new Chinese aircraft they can't identify is a UFO. In this article the word "alien" only shows up twice and it's someones opinion. It's easy to have miscommunication on this topic.

"Any flying object is a UFO if you're bad enough at identifying flying objects."

Re: An investigation of the Pentagon's UFO program

#45

Post by nine_k »

pfisch wrote: post #42
SuoDuanDao wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I don't believe the 'it's all cointel' theory myself, it does also seem possible the USAF could have highly advanced prototypes that aren't ready for mass production yet.

Sure, they have "highly advanced prototypes" where those prototypes obey the known laws of physics and experience inertia. They have drones that are better than the existing drones. They absolutely don't have drones that are anything like the impossible vehicles in these UFO reports though.

If some radio and optical trickery may lead an observer to believe that the device moves in impossible ways, it's valuable.

Remember that we have strategic bombers with a radio signature of a trash can, or whatever. This is seen as normal, and has been publicized for decades. Same with Russian supersonic fighter jets that can stop in the air for a moment.

If we (or "they") have a drone with a visual signature of an inertia-less device (under certain angles, doing a special manoeuvre, etc), this does not mean they are actually inerta-less, but that they can fool the aiming systems.

Re: An investigation of the Pentagon's UFO program

#46

Post by tgflynn »

gerdesj wrote: post #31

I (skim) read quite a lot of the article. I had a laugh (obvs). I then skim read the comments here. Oh fuck, I am really feeling out of place. I thought HN is where we talk bollocks about important stuff, or important things about bollocks or occasionally we debate important things about important things. I'm pretty sure I did not sign up to talk bollocks about bollocks (unless orchids are involved.) This is bollocks…

I might have agreed with you, until the US Navy admitted it's encountering aircraft it can't identify, which in some cases have been described as defying our understanding of physics and aerodynamics.

Being able to identify aircraft is a necessary pre-requisite for air defense because without that capability you might shoot down an airliner or ignore an incoming missile.

So either $700 billion a year isn't enough to buy an effective air defense capability or something else is going on.

Re: An investigation of the Pentagon's UFO program

#47

Post by [deleted] »

monkeydreams wrote: post #30
rafaelvasco wrote: post #18

I personally have no reason to negate the existence of aliens or UFOs. I've read a lot of testimonies about encounters and everything, and they mostly add up with one another. The problem is that this theme is such that there's lots of passionate people out there, and as such, there's lots of fabricated stuff too. One must be diligent when researching about this stuff, but the evidence is really strong;

> One must be diligent when researching about this stuff, but the evidence is really strong Where skeptics deviate from this reasoning is that, while there is hard evidence (i.e. the incidence of radiation burns, radar artifacts, etc) of something happening, the most likely explanation is terrestrial rather than interstellar.

[deleted]

Re: An investigation of the Pentagon's UFO program

#48

Post by chiefalchemist »

34679 wrote: post #27
dvh wrote: post #6

Here's my theory about the recent influx of UFO footages coming from high places. US military was working on advanced drones. Nothing fancy, think current best tech, add 15 years and billion in r&d, that kind of stuff. Then when it was ready for test they flew it secretly before their own pilots and waited for reports. And waited. And waited some more. Silence. They disabled stealth, added flashlights, nothing. Milit…

Wouldn't it be a lot easier to just pass orders down through the ranks to report all sightings, however odd they may seem? "Hey, we think the Chinese or Russians may have something new. It's imperative that all unidentifiable flying craft are reported." My personal theory is that the US knows exactly what these objects are because they built them. I don't believe the US military would've ever commented if they weren'…

Yes and no.

Is the US military broadcasting strength? Probably. That would be consistent with its history.

However. That doesn't mean they know. It only means they are in the best position to make the claim. No one does misinformation as good as the NSA, CIA, etc. does.

The two things are independent.

Re: An investigation of the Pentagon's UFO program

#49

Post by remir »

dvh wrote: post #6

Here's my theory about the recent influx of UFO footages coming from high places. US military was working on advanced drones. Nothing fancy, think current best tech, add 15 years and billion in r&d, that kind of stuff. Then when it was ready for test they flew it secretly before their own pilots and waited for reports. And waited. And waited some more. Silence. They disabled stealth, added flashlights, nothing. Milit…

There have been reports of UFOs since the second world war. I don't think the Chinese were flying highly advanced drones back then. Same thing with the US.

Re: An investigation of the Pentagon's UFO program

#50

Post by not_skeptic »

34679 wrote: post #27
dvh wrote: post #6

Here's my theory about the recent influx of UFO footages coming from high places. US military was working on advanced drones. Nothing fancy, think current best tech, add 15 years and billion in r&d, that kind of stuff. Then when it was ready for test they flew it secretly before their own pilots and waited for reports. And waited. And waited some more. Silence. They disabled stealth, added flashlights, nothing. Milit…

Wouldn't it be a lot easier to just pass orders down through the ranks to report all sightings, however odd they may seem? "Hey, we think the Chinese or Russians may have something new. It's imperative that all unidentifiable flying craft are reported." My personal theory is that the US knows exactly what these objects are because they built them. I don't believe the US military would've ever commented if they weren'…

Yeah, so I am curious here, why do you believe anything humans are capable of building can do what these objects are reported as doing? I ask this in all seriousness because I don't think you, me, or anyone else alive can answer how they do basically any of the stuff reported. This makes it hard for me to believe that not only has someone actually answered all of those questions, but actually mastered the science and fielded the requisite tech to do these things. I've seen this argument advanced before that this is super secret squirrel shit the boys out in NM are cooking on, but there's always this really big gap in what we can do and what these things do. What's your guess on how the boys filled that gap?
Post reply on HN