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

NSA UFO Documents Index

nsa.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 167 posts

Re: NSA UFO Documents Index

#151

Post by bill_mon »

jolincost wrote: post #150
bill_mon wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Wikipedia page on remote viewing gives the opposite impression. Wikipedia also tells me that "The Stargate Project was terminated and declassified in 1995 after a CIA report concluded that it was never useful in any intelligence operation. Information provided by the program was vague and included irrelevant and erroneous data, and there was reason to suspect that its project managers had changed the reports so t…

So...there's conflicting reports? What are you going to do? I guess you'll have to think and decide for yourself. That's not too much to ask is it?

There are conflicting reports about every little thing.

I've never seen a single indication of remote viewing and I've never seen any such claims hold up. I know of no mechanism that would allow remote viewing. Null hypothesis and Occam's razor points me to dismiss claims of remote viewing.

Experts from CIA have apparently researched this, found nothing and closed the project. The James Randi prize has not been won.

If remote viewing was possible, why are we not seeing the results?

That's me thinking, like you asked for. On the other hand, I don't see any actual evidence from you. Do you have any?

Re: NSA UFO Documents Index

#152

Post by ikrenji »

infradig wrote: post #115
jk7tarYZAQNpTQa wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Area 51 was a radar testing site due to the unique properties of the salt on the ground. And they just tested a "silver shiny UFO" which was the prototype for the SR-71. And yes, this was exactly the same date when people first called radio stations and the police for UFO sightings. Assuming Area 51 was just that, you can't disregard the whole UFO phenomenon (which has been taken place all over the globe for decade…

Hope you're not talking about gimbal/gofast etc, as they are poor examples... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Le7Fqbsrrm8

on one hand you have multiple fighter pilots (who have seen the object with own eyes, not just instrumentation), military FLIR technicians, radar operators, CIC personnel, a navy admiral all claiming to have witnessed something unusual - on the other hand you got some rando youtube guy claiming it was a bird... interesting

Re: NSA UFO Documents Index

#153

Post by jolincost »

bill_mon wrote: post #151
jolincost wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So...there's conflicting reports? What are you going to do? I guess you'll have to think and decide for yourself. That's not too much to ask is it?

There are conflicting reports about every little thing. I've never seen a single indication of remote viewing and I've never seen any such claims hold up. I know of no mechanism that would allow remote viewing. Null hypothesis and Occam's razor points me to dismiss claims of remote viewing. Experts from CIA have apparently researched this, found nothing and closed the project. The James Randi prize has not been won.…

It's conceivable you looked at the same data as other people and came to different conclusions. Diversity of opinions and beliefs, that's not a bad thing is it?

Re: NSA UFO Documents Index

#154

Post by bill_mon »

jolincost wrote: post #153
bill_mon wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are conflicting reports about every little thing. I've never seen a single indication of remote viewing and I've never seen any such claims hold up. I know of no mechanism that would allow remote viewing. Null hypothesis and Occam's razor points me to dismiss claims of remote viewing. Experts from CIA have apparently researched this, found nothing and closed the project. The James Randi prize has not been won.…

It's conceivable you looked at the same data as other people and came to different conclusions. Diversity of opinions and beliefs, that's not a bad thing is it?

Remote viewing works or it doesn't. How do you propose we find out which it is?

Do you have an opinion on what 2+3 equals?

Re: NSA UFO Documents Index

#155

Post by jolincost »

bill_mon wrote: post #154
jolincost wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's conceivable you looked at the same data as other people and came to different conclusions. Diversity of opinions and beliefs, that's not a bad thing is it?

Remote viewing works or it doesn't. How do you propose we find out which it is? Do you have an opinion on what 2+3 equals?

I've already found out. If you haven't, I guess you'll need to do more. Seems there's more opinions on RV than arithmetic.

Re: NSA UFO Documents Index

#156

Post by tmn »

jolincost wrote: post #143
tmn wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve been looking through these ufo threads and haven’t seen anyone address the third explanation. I’m somewhat impulsively replying to you as your might receive this well. Most of the credible ufo phenomenon is likely a psyop. I won’t get into why the cia or other would put forth such efforts beyond reciting the quote “We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is…

Sure but in regards to remote viewing it is in fact a real thing, so there's a degree to which the existence of disinformation is not a confirmation of nonexistence of some underlying reality. Btw, i think you may have meant to put credible in quotes, otherwise it's an oxymoron... as, in "Credible ufos are actually psyops." I'm confident a lot of information is disinformation I think that your hypothesis that most or…

You said a lot which I appreciate. I will just say, my claim is not that most or all is disinformation, just that disinformation should be on the table when trying to make sense of info being fed to us from the matrix.

Re: NSA UFO Documents Index

#157

Post by deeeeplearning »

motohagiography wrote: post #111
deeeeplearning wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>A good one is where, say you are checking in on a civilization to see whether it's about to become space faring, and given the amount of energy required for it, the tech is dangerous to any other civilization these recent space arrivers might find. The question is whether they're going to pose a threat to the regional galactic order, and if they haven't got their cultural act together, do you let them? Seems a stran…

You'd think, but we subvert and bomb Iran every time they get close to enriching uranium, so there are precedents, if perhaps not on the same relative scale. The other question is why not just domesticate us and what kind of evolutionary impact does domestication have on a species? As someone who "educates," horses and dogs to live in an inescapable human dominion, in doing so, I shape them into something other than…

>You'd think, but we subvert and bomb Iran every time they get close to enriching uranium, so there are precedents, if perhaps not on the same relative scale.

But Iran, short of nuclear weapons, is essentially at exactly the same Technological level as the rest of the world. Humanity can barely get to our own Moon reliably so to think we are even remotely close technologically to civilizations capable of FTL travel or something similar is silly.

Re: NSA UFO Documents Index

#158

Post by jk7tarYZAQNpTQa »

infradig wrote: post #115
jk7tarYZAQNpTQa wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Area 51 was a radar testing site due to the unique properties of the salt on the ground. And they just tested a "silver shiny UFO" which was the prototype for the SR-71. And yes, this was exactly the same date when people first called radio stations and the police for UFO sightings. Assuming Area 51 was just that, you can't disregard the whole UFO phenomenon (which has been taken place all over the globe for decade…

Hope you're not talking about gimbal/gofast etc, as they are poor examples... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Le7Fqbsrrm8

Mick West is full of shit on this one. You can listen to both a FLIR technician [1], and the same pilot [2] who saw the Tic Tac, explain why West is wrong. Why would you rather believe someone who has absolutely no experience with neither aircraft nor these advanced imaging systems, over these 2 people?

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzmdSsszf5g

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBt4CNHyAck

Re: NSA UFO Documents Index

#159

Post by jk7tarYZAQNpTQa »

swebs wrote: post #74
subsubzero wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree, you have the pentagon with its task force looking into ufos/uaps under a formerly secret program - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unidentified_Aerial_Phenomena_... You have Commander Fravor and other decorated US fighter pilots with both eyewitness accounts, video evidence, and radar evidence on numerous encounters with unidentified craft(NYTimes reported on these videos as well) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki…

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_UFO_videos There's more in better info in the original USS Nimitz UFO Incident page. But Wikipedia authors scrubbed it when they merged the pages for whatever reason. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=USS_Nimitz_UFO_in...

Wikipedia editors have a clear stance against anything fringe, which is very wrong IMO. As an example, take this sentence from the intro for the Project Blue Book page [1]:

By the time Project Blue Book ended, it had collected 12,618 UFO reports, and concluded that most of them were misidentifications of natural phenomena (clouds, stars, etc.) or conventional aircraft. According to the National Reconnaissance Office a number of the reports could be explained by flights of the formerly secret reconnaissance planes U-2 and A-12.[2] A small percentage of UFO reports were classified as unexplained, even after stringent analysis.

That "small percentage" is actually 22%, as indicated many paragraphs below. And if we only consider the "Highest quality reports" category, the reports deemed unidentified goes up to 35%. That's not a "small percentage".

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Blue_Book

Re: NSA UFO Documents Index

#160

Post by at_a_remove »

guerrilla wrote: post #139
at_a_remove wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My stock response to that is that we don't know that I can't make a time machine out of some chewing gum wrappers, a rubber band, three transistors, six pipe cleaners, a AAA battery, and it only works while I wear a red hat. We also don't know that I can't use that device to go back in time to the start of the universe and change all of the physical laws so that the previous contraption cannot work. But what are the…

You could have used that argument to poo-poo someone proposing anything that was thought to be impossible before it was shown to be possible.

"We don't know what we don't know" is the ultimate gateway to wish fulfillment. It's not fruitful for anything other than fantasy.

Who is to say that I cannot write an AI in under 1,000 lines of C? We don't know what we don't know. By all means, pursue that line of inquiry if you feel that the odds are with you.

It's just not a useful heuristic for deciding what to spend your resources (time, money, effort, energy, etc.) on.

Post reply on HN