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

151–160 of 161 posts

Re: An investigation of the Pentagon's UFO program

#151

Post by tgflynn »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #144
tgflynn wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't recall seeing anything in the article about experts being asked if the videos are legitimate. I think very few people question that the videos are real because the DoD has confirmed them and isn't thought to be in the habit of producing fake videos. I think the experts were asked if the objects in the videos might be conventional aircraft. There is still some discussion going on with regards to that point, bu…

Sorry, it's in a related PM article by the same author (and linked in the original post): "In an effort to try and clear up the debate, Popular Mechanics sought the help of a digital forensics expert to analyze the video. Having processed over 1,000 cases, including high-profile investigations like U.S. vs Zimmerman, Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, and the shooting death of Laquan McDonald, Primeau Forensics is regarde…

I think the Pentagon's statements confirming their origin alone would make them admissible in a court so I'm not sure why they felt the need to obtain that expert opinion.

Again that says nothing as to what they actually show.

Re: An investigation of the Pentagon's UFO program

#152

Post by stult »

jml7c5 wrote: post #72

I'm disappointed by this article. There is an amazing story here, and the author missed it: a collection of UFO believers and pseudoscientific quacks manage to get $26 million in funding from the US government. They produce mostly nonsense, yet somehow the project runs for years. The author collected all the pieces to tell the story, but wrote yet another "well, I'll let you decide, but it seems there's something to…

A slightly more charitable interpretation: DoD hired a bunch of loonies to keep Harry Reid happy and they used the opportunity to evaluate whether public information about UFOs could be used to compromise actual SAP research projects (imagine if the conclusions of the report had been, “yeah this particular set of sightings could easily be explained by this hypothetical near future technology” and the tech described was an actual black project). Which actually isn’t a terrible idea from a counter intelligence perspective, though they definitely over paid for the product. Ultimately that’s on Harry Reid’s shoulders, though.

Re: An investigation of the Pentagon's UFO program

#153

Post by samsari »

PaulRobinson wrote: post #108

At the risk of sound like a crank, this book convinced me of quite a few things: https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/750010.Witness_to_Ros... The things I came away with were: - Approx. 600 former USAAF (the precursor to the USAF) staff have admitted there was a cover-up of some description - Multiple first-hand dying testimonies or "open after I die" testimonies agree there was a craft and several beings of unkno…

If there really was any truth to it, then I would expect the authorities to have been for the last several decades quietly encouraging Hollywood et al to produce certain films and tv series. Media which would introduce and normalise some concepts so as to soften the blow when the eventual revelation of whatever it was about Roswell that people in the know found so difficult to deal with.

Re: An investigation of the Pentagon's UFO program

#154

Post by zuckluni »

jml7c5 wrote: post #72

I'm disappointed by this article. There is an amazing story here, and the author missed it: a collection of UFO believers and pseudoscientific quacks manage to get $26 million in funding from the US government. They produce mostly nonsense, yet somehow the project runs for years. The author collected all the pieces to tell the story, but wrote yet another "well, I'll let you decide, but it seems there's something to…

the first two are real, I've seen it. RV is used as a signal for stock picking, is a not very well known but real niche industry. There are people who consistently perform above 75%.

telekinesis is real, but humans are pretty weak at it. just watch YouTube.

as for the last two, I haven't seen anything that proves it but the reports of tech and others stuff make it sound possible.

your editorial stance is just one of many possibilities ellipsis why you so attached to it?

Re: An investigation of the Pentagon's UFO program

#155

Post by zuckluni »

tgflynn wrote: post #121
zuckluni wrote: post #87

to everyone theorizing. why? first, whether you say it's aliens or "the government", face it, both those concepts are black boxes to invoke to explain the unexplainable, ergo they're equivalent explanations, or different valence, same kind second, why be so quick to grasp and reduce it to a theory? why not just be a little bit comfortable with the discomfort of an unresolved tension? why just not be a little bit comf…

Well if humans had always followed the approach you suggest they would never have mastered fire or discovered agriculture. Would you rather be living as a hunter-gatherer or some non-human primate ?

What i'm really saying is in this case the theorizing has gotten in it's own way, isn't that obvious? i'm saying we should try to understand, but you gotta have the courage to face the mystery first, so you can see it clearly, without these kaleidoscope distortions preventing you from ever seeing the data you need to get understanding.

point of theory is to gain understanding, no? but if you're using theory as a stick to beat other people with, and if the theory is preventing people looking at the data (that you could turn into understanding), or if it's not falsifiable, then it's not helping.

you can't disprove the government creates all this as a psyop. but that 'theory' discourages people from taking the evidence seriously. you also can't disprove 'it is all aliens' but that theory discourages (perhaps another set of people) from taking the data seriously.

theories are good! except when they're not. and in this case they've gone fucking crazy. it's like sportsteams. there's no rationality. and science won't touch it, that's the problem. these pathetic theories are in way. they might be fun (to cheer for) but they're not helping understanding.

that's what i'm saying. that's the problem. or one of them, duh.

Re: An investigation of the Pentagon's UFO program

#156

Post by zuckluni »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #105
zuckluni wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This all just seems a little anachronistic... a little arrogant... Are there really people in this day and age that believe there's nothing that exists that can't be explained with a textbook? Is the world do devoid of magic, or is wonder in such bountiful supply that something amazing and wonderful must be snuffed out, crushed under the weight of such dullness, such grasping conspiracy theories? A government psyop,…

Name one thing that a) we're sure exists, and b) it's so extraordinary that it "can't be explained with a textbook". The entire progress of humanity came through converting "magic" to "mundane". It's usually called "gaining understanding".

I suppose it depends on the security classification of the textbook.

But seriously, your question probably depends on how you assess the explanations in textbooks, and the meaning of sure. I mean, are you sure you're satisfied with textbook explanations for stuff?

But the bigger picture is, it doesn't matter if we're sure, we're not sure about anything. We're not even sure about what's in the textbooks. It exists, the reports exist, that's what matters.

Gaining understanding by converting magic to mundane is good, but we don't get there by pretending everything is already explainable. We don't get there by denying the magic. Obviously.

We got to face it, right? It doesn't have to be aliens (or any theory that makes it hard for people to think about because they find it impossible to face), but we gotta look at it. And if the "textbooks" (or other 'sources of authority') are explaining it away as stuff we already know, that's not helping us look at the magic, that we need to understand, right? capiche? Obvious, right? I don't know why everyone's so crazy about this.

Science is supposed to look at stuff it doesn't understand. When did everyone get so scared of doing that?

Re: An investigation of the Pentagon's UFO program

#157

Post by zuckluni »

andrewflnr wrote: post #113
zuckluni wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe don't be so literal? maybe there are words for things that we don't understand yet.... we don't have the words yet so we have to reuse existing words and apply some imagination... that's not bad or hard is it?

Even if we have to reuse words, "dimension" is a bad one to use for this purpose.

says he who suggest no other...

then suggest another, right? obvious, no?

Re: An investigation of the Pentagon's UFO program

#158

Post by PaulRobinson »

samsari wrote: post #153
PaulRobinson wrote: post #108

At the risk of sound like a crank, this book convinced me of quite a few things: https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/750010.Witness_to_Ros... The things I came away with were: - Approx. 600 former USAAF (the precursor to the USAF) staff have admitted there was a cover-up of some description - Multiple first-hand dying testimonies or "open after I die" testimonies agree there was a craft and several beings of unkno…

If there really was any truth to it, then I would expect the authorities to have been for the last several decades quietly encouraging Hollywood et al to produce certain films and tv series. Media which would introduce and normalise some concepts so as to soften the blow when the eventual revelation of whatever it was about Roswell that people in the know found so difficult to deal with.

Before Roswell there were a total of 8 films featuring ETs according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_featuring_extrat...

After Roswell there have been ... well, count them for yourself.

Let's add onto that the numerous TV series from the Star Trek franchise to the X Files, and of course the TV series itself named "Roswell".

I'd argue the decline in observation of orthodox religions is a good barometer for how ready society is to deal with the inevitable truth that the Universe is swarming with life, we just haven't observed it yet.

Re: An investigation of the Pentagon's UFO program

#159

Post by tgflynn »

zuckluni wrote: post #155
tgflynn wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well if humans had always followed the approach you suggest they would never have mastered fire or discovered agriculture. Would you rather be living as a hunter-gatherer or some non-human primate ?

What i'm really saying is in this case the theorizing has gotten in it's own way, isn't that obvious? i'm saying we should try to understand, but you gotta have the courage to face the mystery first, so you can see it clearly, without these kaleidoscope distortions preventing you from ever seeing the data you need to get understanding. point of theory is to gain understanding, no? but if you're using theory as a stic…

Well, I don't see how you can make progress without formulating theories (more correctly, hypotheses).

I think the problem is when people become attached to a particular hypothesis. Many people seem unable to accept that they only have sufficient information to assign probabilities to different hypotheses and instead always assign probability 1 to their favorite hypothesis and 0 to all the others.

Re: An investigation of the Pentagon's UFO program

#160

Post by JTT »

retiredalien wrote: post #24
tgflynn wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It was KG who first pitched Robert Bigelow on building a pseudoscientific device to communicate with Bigelow’s dead son. Who is KG ? - Kit Green ? Do you have a source for this statement ?

Yes Kit. I don’t have a source to share. It occurred at Col. John Alexander’s home though, so one could potentially ask him.

If I may ask, even without a source to share I'd appreciate hearing anything you can add about this...where you heard it...how you found out, etc. Anything at all that either lends credence or simply explains it as a rumor from some other place. Thanks.
Post reply on HN