[deleted]
An investigation of the Pentagon's UFO program
61–70 of 161 posts
Re: An investigation of the Pentagon's UFO program
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
You didn't hear about Mao's peasant anti-gravity division? Jokes aside, I'm certain the OP didn't read the article and isn't well read on the subject. The OP's idea makes for an interesting story if you don't try picking it apart, but the real story is much harder to grasp. Most rational people cannot delve too deep into this subject without training wheels -- it can take years to get comfortable with some of the con…
You seem to have done some reading on this subject - care to recommend a few books that are well-researched and well-reasoned and not written by cranks?
The pinnacle of UFO research quality is from Jacques Vallee [0], who seems to have always been well ahead of the field, but he doesn't really hold back, which is both a pro and a con to someone casually interested. I'm also not familiar with his opinions on more recent developments in the space, which are quite significant.
I can recommend a fictional book "Sekret Machines" by the former lead of Blink 182 who has used his fame and lifelong passion for the phenomenon to create a media company espousing a more gentle introduction to the subject, while still providing some sobering and fascinating context on the phenomenon. The flashbacks are allegedly historical fiction, one of which was referenced in this popular mechanics article (when a UFO floated over Malstrom AFB and took all the ICBM's offline). It's also just a really good read. This same company hired Elizondo and a number of other "in-the-know" advisors, and caused the current UFO media hype cycle by releasing the Nimitz tape to the NYT in 2017.
Re: An investigation of the Pentagon's UFO program
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
You didn't hear about Mao's peasant anti-gravity division? Jokes aside, I'm certain the OP didn't read the article and isn't well read on the subject. The OP's idea makes for an interesting story if you don't try picking it apart, but the real story is much harder to grasp. Most rational people cannot delve too deep into this subject without training wheels -- it can take years to get comfortable with some of the con…
You seem to have done some reading on this subject - care to recommend a few books that are well-researched and well-reasoned and not written by cranks?
Richard Dolan has written a number of books from a ‘smoke then fire’ perspective focusing on how much the US (and other) governments appeared preoccupied with the subject while denying that preoccupation.
He doesn’t speculate or fill in gaps. He is and writes like an historian, however, so get ready for some dry reading.
Re: An investigation of the Pentagon's UFO program
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
You didn't hear about Mao's peasant anti-gravity division? Jokes aside, I'm certain the OP didn't read the article and isn't well read on the subject. The OP's idea makes for an interesting story if you don't try picking it apart, but the real story is much harder to grasp. Most rational people cannot delve too deep into this subject without training wheels -- it can take years to get comfortable with some of the con…
You seem to have done some reading on this subject - care to recommend a few books that are well-researched and well-reasoned and not written by cranks?
From what I've seen almost everyone who "specializes" in UFO's ends up going off the deep end in one way or another.
Some people who tend to try to stick to what's verifiable are:
John Greenwald - Specializes in FOIA, sometimes over-focuses on probably irrelevant details but is evolving.
Mick West - A skeptic, one of the few people who has attempted any serious public analysis of the Navy videos, seems reasonably open minded though biased toward the most ordinary possible explanations even of phenomena that clearly deviate substantially from the ordinary.
Luis Elizondo - Certainly worth listening to, though opinions vary greatly on his credibility.
Tim McMillan - The author of the original post. Looks promising, especially if most of his claims here turn out to be accurate.
Re: An investigation of the Pentagon's UFO program
#65Here'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…
The theory that this is US-controlled drone tech does not jive with the claims made with regards to aerodynamic performance by David Fravor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eco2s3-0zsQ Basically, skeptics need to embrace the idea that such an off-the-cuff, obvious theory like "it's drone tech" or "it's Chinese or Russian tech" like the one you mention is well outside the realm of things that should be taken seriously…
That video has been convincingly explained here, without resort to secret or alien technology: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLyEO0jNt6M
Re: An investigation of the Pentagon's UFO program
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
The theory that this is US-controlled drone tech does not jive with the claims made with regards to aerodynamic performance by David Fravor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eco2s3-0zsQ Basically, skeptics need to embrace the idea that such an off-the-cuff, obvious theory like "it's drone tech" or "it's Chinese or Russian tech" like the one you mention is well outside the realm of things that should be taken seriously…
That video has been convincingly explained here, without resort to secret or alien technology: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLyEO0jNt6M
West does have a convincing explanation for "Go Fast" which certainly looks like it could be a weather balloon due to parallax (ignoring the pilot testimony at least) -- but if you look at his attempt to describe the Nimitz one, it's pretty weak. He claims it's a reflection of "a distant jet" that would have had to be in restricted airspace, and despite the pilots having a visual on the same object, and the Nimitz's passive radar detecting the object and sending the fighters to intercept it at the correct location in the first place. That would also be a tremendous design error or equipment failure on the targeting pod, which seems unlikely given that all the other data for that encounter supports the video.
There were three videos disclosed, and only one has a convincing explanation (not the most famous one the parent is describing). The one present in the parent's linked video referred to the Nimitz incident, where the pilot is the commanding officer for the first squadron that went in and observed the object, whereas a second group went in and filmed the tape that was eventually released hours later. You should watch the interview and see if Fravor seems legitimate to you -- it's a great listen.
Re: An investigation of the Pentagon's UFO program
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
The theory that this is US-controlled drone tech does not jive with the claims made with regards to aerodynamic performance by David Fravor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eco2s3-0zsQ Basically, skeptics need to embrace the idea that such an off-the-cuff, obvious theory like "it's drone tech" or "it's Chinese or Russian tech" like the one you mention is well outside the realm of things that should be taken seriously…
That video has been convincingly explained here, without resort to secret or alien technology: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLyEO0jNt6M
The US Navy has said that they are unable to identify the objects in those videos. Assuming they aren't lying I would be inclined to think that they would be better at identifying those objects than a retired video game developer (no disrespect to Mick intended). If he is right then it's a case of gross incompetence on the part of the military, which would be a huge concern in itself.
Re: An investigation of the Pentagon's UFO program
#68Why don't we have more cell phone videos of this stuff?
Preferably from multiple cell phones from different angles.
As for "lights in the sky", see [1]. It's getting way too easy to do this.
Re: An investigation of the Pentagon's UFO program
#69I (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.
You're getting downvoted because you're wasting space with your melodrama. If you want to "cancel your subscription", just don't come to the site anymore. Or just avoid threads you know you won't like. Definitely stop whining.
Re: An investigation of the Pentagon's UFO program
#70Evidently "Popular Mechanics is ripping open the U.S. government’s massive UFO problem" but not bothering to proofread.
Yes, it seems a bit immature and pedantic to bother over mechanical errors in the text. But such clear mistakes in the published text (e.g. "intuitive" when they meant "initiative") does not speak well to their credibility as a newsgathering organization.
Unfortunately it seems like there has been a general decay in how carefully published material is proofread, I find a surprising number of typos and mechanics problems in books as well. I've found Packt to be especially egregious in this regard, many of their books seem to have been written by a non-native speaker and then never proofread at all.
Edit: it also strikes me as a bit iffy to introduce George Knapp as a KLAS reporter without mentioning his extensive involvement in the UFO community including hosting Coast to Coast AM. Whether fair or not this would lead many people (including myself) to view his information as generally less credible.