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

Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

dni.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 244 posts

Re: Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

#151

Post by krferriter »

beaner wrote: post #116
krferriter wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They referenced 18 cases in which "observers reported unusual UAP movement patterns or flight characteristics". Of course this does not mean the object/phenomenon actually exhibited unusual movement or flight characteristics, rather that the person who observed it thought it might have been. They need to list each of those 18 key cases they referenced, as well as what their current state of knowledge about each is. O…

> They also point out that the reports disproportionately come from the area immediately surrounding US military testing/training facilities. Is that because the observers are disproportionately likely to be near US military testing/training facilities?

I don't think entirely so. Perhaps to some extent there is a sampling bias, since members of the military spend a lot fo time around military facilities. But much of the reports are from aircraft carrier strike groups that tend to meander around and take trips between US bases and also patrol strategically important water areas.

A significant number of the reports come from the immediate visible vicinity of San Clemente Island off the coast kind of in between San Diego and Los Angeles. San Clemente Island and San Nicolas Island next to it is the site of a US Navy base with multiple runways used to test drones and other aircraft and run training exercises from companies on the mainland. Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Northrup Grumman all have extensive engineering facilities both in Los Angeles and San Diego. In fact in the 2004 "Nimitz incident" the carrier was undertaking a training exercise next to San Clemente when the objects were reported to have appeared on the radar display and when they sent out the fighter planes which reportedly saw an object and got it on infrared camera.

Re: Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

#152

Post by krferriter »

238475235243 wrote: post #128
krferriter wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 1) This isn't a recent phenomena. People have been seeing discs in the sky for literally thousands of years. People have reported talking to ghosts and angels for thousands of years too. People's senses and memory is fallible and can lead to misinterpretations and misunderstanding. > 2) Aircraft can't make 90 degree turns or descend from 80,000 feet to the deck approximately instantly. You are assuming that their r…

> but not at the same time. The initial two F-18's had two people each.

And they all saw the same object from the same perspective which could have resulted in similar visual effects leading them to misjudge how far away the object was. They reported that it was very far away but the sensor readings in the thermal video and other alternate theories about what the object was suggest that it wasn't as far away as they thought. Which if true would explain why they thought it was moving faster than they thought.

I was referring to the disjoin between the radar technician, the fighter team with Fravor, and the later fighter plane that actually captured the infrared video.

Re: Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

#153

Post by GenerocUsername »

dadver wrote: post #148
f02a wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's anthropomorphism so much as logical deduction. Our planet's chemical makeup has been advertising its life-supporting properties for millions of years. Lately we've been (perhaps foolishly) advertising ourselves to the galaxy via radio, etc. Surely it would be interesting to other observers in the galaxy. Perhaps by setting off nuclear weapons, we advertised ourselves as a potential threat, inviting…

In my view, reasoning "this is what we would've done" or placing logical deduction based on -our- understanding of a fantasized encounter is exactly anthropomorphism. While I'm not a stranger to the notion that eventual intelligent alien beings might in many regards have similar behaviors, wants and needs as humans, I'm personally inclined to think of aliens as much, much higher on the kardashev scale (c.f. ghosts an…

Such a defeatist view. You might as well say "it's pointless to try to understand anything not strictly human".

I think we are allowed to discuss things from an anthropomorphic lens because thats the only point of reference.

Re: Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

#154

Post by f02a »

dadver wrote: post #148
f02a wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's anthropomorphism so much as logical deduction. Our planet's chemical makeup has been advertising its life-supporting properties for millions of years. Lately we've been (perhaps foolishly) advertising ourselves to the galaxy via radio, etc. Surely it would be interesting to other observers in the galaxy. Perhaps by setting off nuclear weapons, we advertised ourselves as a potential threat, inviting…

In my view, reasoning "this is what we would've done" or placing logical deduction based on -our- understanding of a fantasized encounter is exactly anthropomorphism. While I'm not a stranger to the notion that eventual intelligent alien beings might in many regards have similar behaviors, wants and needs as humans, I'm personally inclined to think of aliens as much, much higher on the kardashev scale (c.f. ghosts an…

I think too often UFO debates become too "either or". People will say "it can't be aliens; it's advanced technology from Russia or China!"

In all cases... why not both? I think we should open our minds to all the possibilities.

I think it's unlikely that humans are "special". There are billions of possibilities regarding how life could have evolved elsewhere. (And that's not even considering panspermia theories; it could also look very much the same in certain pockets of our, or other, galaxies, due to effects like that.) I think there is likely to be a wide variety of life. I think there are probably other human-like life forms in the universe, just as there are probably life forms that are so different that they might resemble ghosts and angels to us.

One interesting thing about UFO reports is that there are a wide variety when it comes to descriptions of the craft. You have the "classic" saucer shape, cigar shape, "tic tacs", spheres... (etc, etc). I think a lot of the confusion on this topic is due to this inconsistency. What if we're being visited by multiple types of interstellar life?

Anyway, some life in the universe might be more easily anthropomorphized in this way. Some not at all. I certainly don't want to anthropomorphize this phenomenon fully; then I would have to assume that there is a colonization ship on its way and we're all doomed. I hope advanced life in the galaxy isn't the same as humanity, otherwise our planet probably has a very violent future.

Re: Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

#155

Post by dadver »

GenerocUsername wrote: post #153
dadver wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my view, reasoning "this is what we would've done" or placing logical deduction based on -our- understanding of a fantasized encounter is exactly anthropomorphism. While I'm not a stranger to the notion that eventual intelligent alien beings might in many regards have similar behaviors, wants and needs as humans, I'm personally inclined to think of aliens as much, much higher on the kardashev scale (c.f. ghosts an…

Such a defeatist view. You might as well say "it's pointless to try to understand anything not strictly human". I think we are allowed to discuss things from an anthropomorphic lens because thats the only point of reference.

>You might as well say "it's pointless to try to understand anything not strictly human".

No that's the opposite of my point. I'm saying that I believe we should try to understand the possible 'them' from a less anthropomorphic perspective.

>I think we are allowed to discuss things from an anthropomorphic lens because thats the only point of reference.

That was pretty much my point in my last paragraph and why I in my original reply said I don't have a better system.

Re: Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

#156

Post by nescioquid »

echelon wrote: post #150
EMM_386 wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If there is nonhuman intelligence in our solar system, it's orders of magnitude smarter than us, and I'd also wager it's probably by design impossible for us detect. Likely in the galaxy, seems unlikely there is advanced nonhuman intelligence hiding in our solar system.

> seems unlikely there is advanced nonhuman intelligence hiding in our solar system Maybe. I did some Googling, and apparently the human race has produced between 1 and 2 billion cars in the last 100 years [1]. That's an incredible feat! Assuming a post-biology intelligence has started space manufacturing, they probably have the capacity to produce an incredible volume of intelligent probes. Wikipedia claims that the…

What are the time-scales involved in system formation, the evolution of a technologically sophisticated culture capable of doing what you say, sending probes out (at sub-luminal speeds) and reporting back? Isn't that reason enough to estimate that while there may be such advanced alien societies, we will never have the possibility of contact?

Or through a vanishingly small chance, happen to find ourselves in a system relatively near one of those 100-400 billion stars around which such an advance civilization had earlier arisen?

Re: Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

#157

Post by dadver »

f02a wrote: post #154
dadver wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my view, reasoning "this is what we would've done" or placing logical deduction based on -our- understanding of a fantasized encounter is exactly anthropomorphism. While I'm not a stranger to the notion that eventual intelligent alien beings might in many regards have similar behaviors, wants and needs as humans, I'm personally inclined to think of aliens as much, much higher on the kardashev scale (c.f. ghosts an…

I think too often UFO debates become too "either or". People will say "it can't be aliens; it's advanced technology from Russia or China!" In all cases... why not both? I think we should open our minds to all the possibilities. I think it's unlikely that humans are "special". There are billions of possibilities regarding how life could have evolved elsewhere. (And that's not even considering panspermia theories; it c…

>I think there is likely to be a wide variety of life. I think there are probably other human-like life forms in the universe, just as there are probably life forms that are so different that they might resemble ghosts and angels to us. >Anyway, some life in the universe might be more easily anthropomorphized in this way.

I completely agree.

>What if we're being visited by multiple types of interstellar life?

Sure, that's a possibility. This makes me think of that university (and more places certainly exist) that was simultaneously hacked by two different APTs (if memory serves me). Maybe humans/Earth is really that interesting that there are several different kinds of aliens, or alien ship designs from the same species, at the same time here. Intuitively that doesn't sit well with my gut instinct, on the other hand as it is an unknown, unexplained, speculative phenomenon, I guess all bets are off...

Re: Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

#158

Post by DoreenMichele »

lend000 wrote: post #78

From a first skim, it looks intentionally vague and noncommittal, and in classic form, released on a Friday afternoon to minimize coverage. Also of note: there was no input at all drawn from the CIA, which is the agency most frequently associated with the topic for a variety of reasons, aside from the Air Force. "The majority of UAP data is from U.S. Navy reporting [i.e. not in-the-know] , but efforts are underway to…

it looks intentionally vague and noncommittal, and in classic form, released on a Friday afternoon to minimize coverage.

As a guess, they do that both because this is information gathered for security reasons and there are limits to what they can reasonably say without compromising security and because no matter how they write it it turns into wild speculation about aliens by the general public and conspiracy theories and the like. That stuff even creeps into HN discussion in a way and to a degree that is not the norm here.

Minimizing the public furor is probably the least worst thing they can do, all things considered.

Re: Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

#159

Post by FriendlyNormie »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #59
busyant wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am someone who thinks there likely is alien activity on earth Can you elaborate on why you think this (or provide some additional detail)? For example, do you mean "intelligent" life? Or is this more along the lines of panspermia? Thank you.

No, I don't care to elaborate on my personal opinions about this topic. I only noted that because I habitually remind people on HN that UFO just stands for Unidentified Flying Object and the reason the US government is interested is for national security reasons. I noted it just to suggest "If you are inferring that I am on your side in thinking only nutters believe in aliens you are wrong." I have no desire to have…

No post body was provided.

Re: Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

#160

Post by jablongo »

guerrilla wrote: post #102
raverbashing wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, this "RF energy" statement is too vague. Ok, you detected what exactly? At which frequencies? Power? BW? Does it look like something (unmodulated signal? Modulated? How?)? Do you have a recording of it?

Considering that they were not directly in contact with the object, it is 100% necessarily true, so the statement is entirely meaningless without specifics like the ones you request.

The RF emissions acknowledged here are something I'd never heard of before. Stating the obvious; even though this report is completely vague on that front (and all others), the fact that this was mentioned means that there was likely an RF abnormality in a few event reports. It's not really logical to assume they are talking about something trivial that a plastic bag would 'produce'. But yea - agreed, this is missing so much info.
Post reply on HN