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

Tom Delonge’s UFO Research Center Is Making Politicians Demand Answers

vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 317 posts

Re: Tom Delonge’s UFO Research Center Is Making Politicians Demand Answers

#161

Post by hackerbabz »

tclancy wrote: post #143
andrewstuart wrote: post #133

Ever since the 1970's mysterious UFO and bigfoot style videos have turned up. Always, ALWAYS, ALWAYS distant, blurry, out of focus and "from an authoritative source". This is precisely the same as the 1970s. Leonard Nimoy knew what was going on "In Search Of UFOs": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVFWJDPcPnk

I took a sci-fi movie course in the 90s and the professor opened it by mentioning people used to see great clipper ships in the sky. The other telling moment was when he asked why UFOs only appear in places “so small people have to take turns being the village idiot” and someone leapt up to day, “You can’t prove it’s not true!”

That’s fascinating. I wonder if people thought the royal navy was hiding flying ship technology. Or, God forbid, the French had developed it first!

Re: Tom Delonge’s UFO Research Center Is Making Politicians Demand Answers

#162

Post by krapp »

NateEag wrote: post #157

Time for me to burn some karma. What evidence do we have that these phenomena are strictly natural? There are some ingenious explanations in this thread of how you could create something like this effect with known technology. If we don't a priori eliminate it on the grounds it is impossible (as a Christian, I do not, but many here do), I imagine that supernatural beings trolling humans (especially modern scientific…

>What evidence do we have that these phenomena are strictly natural?

Well... natural phenomena are the only phenomena for which evidence exists at all.

That's why the Bible says faith is the evidence of things unseen, as opposed to data.

Re: Tom Delonge’s UFO Research Center Is Making Politicians Demand Answers

#163

Post by thomascgalvin »

NateEag wrote: post #157

Time for me to burn some karma. What evidence do we have that these phenomena are strictly natural? There are some ingenious explanations in this thread of how you could create something like this effect with known technology. If we don't a priori eliminate it on the grounds it is impossible (as a Christian, I do not, but many here do), I imagine that supernatural beings trolling humans (especially modern scientific…

When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras.

The principles of science do not allow us to rule out the possibility that these events are the result of alien life or supernatural phenomena. But it does give us plenty of evidence that there are more mundane, more plausible explanations.

And when you're faced with a potentially world-changing revelation, like confirmed contact with extraterrestrial life, it is basic due diligence to speculate on and rule out those mundane explanations first.

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. But you have to eliminate first. That is how you arrive at new knowledge, and that is how paradigms are shifted.

Could it be supernatural beings trolling humanity? Sure. But such an extraordinary claim requires correspondingly extraordinary evidence. That it was a secret, terrestrial weapons system designed to confound FLIR also requires evidence, but it's a much more likely explanation, and can generally be accepted as probable with correspondingly less evidence.

Re: Tom Delonge’s UFO Research Center Is Making Politicians Demand Answers

#164

Post by erik_landerholm »

tclancy wrote: post #145
erik_landerholm wrote: post #100

I feel like a lot of commenters on here must first be hearing of this or have not even looked into the tic-tac case even a small amount. You have a top gun pilot and his WSO on record saying they saw it visually along with a huge underwater craft. It moved in ways that nothing using conventional propulsion can. Hovering for example is extremely difficult, made all the harder with no wings, blades or visible exhaust.…

>he will be on joe Rogan soon. Well, shut my mouth.

I meant, it will be a 3 hr interview, instead of 45 minutes or 2 minute sounds bytes, so it will probably cover all the parts of the story, as there are more than I wrote about. I wasn’t saying that Rogan is some kind of badge of legitimacy.

Re: Tom Delonge’s UFO Research Center Is Making Politicians Demand Answers

#165

Post by cabaalis »

ianai wrote: post #87
i_feel_great wrote: post #84

I have always wondered why the US government never took advantage of this sort of thing to make serious money. Just think of a massive extraterrestrial-themed resort in the desert in the vicinity of Area 51. Think of all the licensing deals.

People don’t actually want the government to be a for profit enterprise. It would mean the government being influenced by private interests with money.

> It would mean the government being influenced by private interests with money.

This is the only way government is influenced. I know, I've worked there.

Re: Tom Delonge’s UFO Research Center Is Making Politicians Demand Answers

#166

Post by godelski »

chubbyrabbit wrote: post #147
godelski wrote: post #126

Reading the linked Vice article >"Based on pilot accounts, encounters with these UAPs (unidentified aerial phenomena) often involved complex flight patterns and advanced maneuvering, which demand extreme advances in quantum mechanics, nuclear science, electromagnetics, and thermodynamics.” - Walker > Republican representative Mark Walker of North Carolina This is laughably stupid. QM and nuclear science? Can we call…

> This is laughably stupid. QM and nuclear science? I see nothing stupid with using quantum mechanics and nuclear science in this context. > Can we call out politicians for just throwing in words that they don't know what they mean? I'm sure they know what those words mean on a surface level. They don't really need to understand them beyond that point, it's not their job.

> I see nothing stupid with using quantum mechanics and nuclear science in this context.

Why? Where would we even need QM or Nuke tech for these?

Metamaterials for tricking FLIR? That's the closest I can think and I'd call anyone out for calling that QM. We don't call carbon nanotubes quantum tech, because they're in the nano realm, which is FAR from the quantum regime. I'm not sure where else we could come even close. Quantum is sub atomic, we're really just at the birth of atomic tech right now too (It'd be fine to call some metameterials atomic tech). When we're talking quantum we're talking about things that require quantum effects; like teleportation. There's nothing here that is really demonstrating quantum effects.

Nukes? Where do we need them for this? Hot material is very heavy, and well... hot (radioactive). This isn't really good for stealth tech, since you have to provide a lot of extra shielding just so you don't fry the electronics, let alone hide the emissions in the radio, IR, X-ray, and gamma spectra. Then there's the fact that there's no current tech indicating that such a power source could be useful in this space. Unless you're thinking something other than a power source... which I can't think of any. For power sources there are a lot of other possible explanations that don't require generations of work (specifically in size, weight, and efficiency) to have been done in complete secret (because that's how advanced we're talking about if we want to use something nuclear here. Secret tech isn't ever even a generation ahead, though it is ahead). And I mean _generations_ of work. We're not even close.

If you're seeing something I'm not, I'm legitimately curious.

> I'm sure they know what those words mean on a surface level. They don't really need to understand them beyond that point, it's not their job.

I'd argue that the use cases more demonstrate that they know _the words_ but don't even know surface level meaning. I'm arguing that we should call people out for using buzzwords needlessly.

Note: I am fine with the uses of electromagnetics (I'll let that pass) and thermal-dynamics, even though I don't know why we would need to have extreme advancements in thermally efficient materials here. Not unless these things were hypersonic. These connections at least I can pass off as surface level knowledge, but QM and Nuke are just laughable.

Re: Tom Delonge’s UFO Research Center Is Making Politicians Demand Answers

#167

Post by elif »

erik_landerholm wrote: post #82
simonblack wrote: post #4

I reckon it's misdirection. "We'll say it's a UFO, but really it's a hypersonic plane in development." Just like the SR71 had a cover story during its development phase. "The wreckage was recovered in two days, and persons at the scene were identified and requested to sign secrecy agreements. A cover story for the press described the accident as occurring to a F-105, and it is still listed in this way on official rec…

So Captain Fravor is s liar? He claims to of seen the tic-tac and chased it. So if it’s a secret jet, he’s a liar, or we developed anti-gravity tech in secrecy somehow.

It is possible he saw the tic tac on sensors, saw 'something' with his eyes, and human perception/cognition blended them into a coherent memory.

I'm not saying that happened, just that it is a possibility. Personally I think it's aliens.

Re: Tom Delonge’s UFO Research Center Is Making Politicians Demand Answers

#168

Post by buboard »

chubbyrabbit wrote: post #147
godelski wrote: post #126

Reading the linked Vice article >"Based on pilot accounts, encounters with these UAPs (unidentified aerial phenomena) often involved complex flight patterns and advanced maneuvering, which demand extreme advances in quantum mechanics, nuclear science, electromagnetics, and thermodynamics.” - Walker > Republican representative Mark Walker of North Carolina This is laughably stupid. QM and nuclear science? Can we call…

> This is laughably stupid. QM and nuclear science? I see nothing stupid with using quantum mechanics and nuclear science in this context. > Can we call out politicians for just throwing in words that they don't know what they mean? I'm sure they know what those words mean on a surface level. They don't really need to understand them beyond that point, it's not their job.

> They don't really need to understand them beyond that point

why not?

Re: Tom Delonge’s UFO Research Center Is Making Politicians Demand Answers

#169

Post by erik_landerholm »

bobdole12345 wrote: post #132
erik_landerholm wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It moved way beyond super sonic speed and had the movement pattern of a “ping-pong ball bouncing off invisible walls”, while hovering. Capt fravor saw this with his eyeballs, unfortunately we can’t record that, yet.

No, more like the laser pointer dot can move faster than any cat could catch. That doesn't mean the laser pointer wielder is moving that fast.

Huh? You think it’s some kind of projection? How do you explain the great, huge underwater vessel the 4 pilots saw? It was seen visually. The FLIR and radar reports were from different people on two separate training exercises and from the Princeton.

The pilots claiming to have seen the large underwater craft and the tic-tac saw it visually only. The radar on their planes could not pick it up. They watched it for 5 mins and engaged it ( flew at it aggressively, they did not have active weapons). That is where they saw it acting erratically and stopping and starting as if you threw a ping pong ball inside an invisible box before “noticing” them, and mirroring their movements as fravor flew down in a large circle, before cutting across the circle at the tic-tac. It then flew past them as “incredible” speed.

That would be quite the laser pointer to make that scene.

Re: Tom Delonge’s UFO Research Center Is Making Politicians Demand Answers

#170

Post by twiceaday »

rblion wrote: post #95
twiceaday wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like for you to spell out exactly what you mean by "I was a skeptic of a lot of things until..." You saw something you couldn't explain. How is this connected to skepticism? Haven't you ever seen a magic trick you couldn't explain? Conversely, haven't you ever been lied to and were convinced you knew the explanation but later found out it was wrong? The absence of evidence that something terrestrial happened is n…

I think all -isms are an ego trap. I'd like to stop there. I don't care to be validated as an experiencer or as a skeptic, both are extreme points of view if you ask me. Some people jump straight to aliens, others jump straight to bullshit. I would give this more time but I need to go to bed, I've spent more time in this thread than I thought I would.

You said very little, I asked you to clarify, this is a cop-out. You have a faulty definition of skepticism, it is an easy-for-you-to-attack caricature. Plus, you've made no claims that require skepticism. You only implied them. I asked you to make them explicit but you got cold feet or something. This, combined with your comments in the other thread about wanting to believe there is something greater and that we are not alone, is enough for me to stop engaging.
Post reply on HN