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

Former intel officer says 'non-human biologics’ found at alleged UFO crash sites

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 673 posts

Re: Former intel officer says 'non-human biologics’ found at alleged UFO crash sites

#221

Post by PaulRobinson »

montagg wrote: post #124
LapsangGuzzler wrote: post #118

Snowden spent quite a bit of time looking for UFO stuff since he had access to almost everything classified and never found any evidence. I’m not saying this whistleblower is definitely lying, but if anyone was capable and willing to bring this forward with receipts, Snowden would’ve done so.

Trump would have done so. It would have been impossible for him to keep a secret. His need to stroke his own ego wouldn’t allow it. When Trump ended his term without once mentioning aliens, that’s when I was certain all of this was hogwash. Are there maybe very advanced aircraft out there we should be aware of? Certainly. But it’s definitely not aliens without hard af evidence.

Trump - like Johnson in the U.K. - likely did not have all the security clearances needed to access all “need to know” material.

A specific allegation made in these hearings is that there is a conspiracy to hide what is known from much of the government. Why people think that would exclude a President thought to be compromised by the Kremlin, I really can’t understand.

Re: Former intel officer says 'non-human biologics’ found at alleged UFO crash sites

#222

Post by mrguyorama »

throwawaysleep wrote: post #146
srge wrote: post #132

Many people from the government and from the military are putting their reputation and career (and maybe safety) on the line to bring these informations to the public. Let’s at least recognize that before automatically casting doubt.

In exchange for fame and large piles of cash. I'll trade my good name for a few million bucks too.

[flagged]

Re: Former intel officer says 'non-human biologics’ found at alleged UFO crash sites

#224

Post by neuronic »

beaned wrote: post #126
MikeTheRocker wrote: post #115

I don't know what to make of this. It just seems so incredibly implausibly that extraterrestrials would have the technology or motive to come to Earth without widespread detection.

Right, like what would be their motivation for exclusively interacting with governments rather than, say, landing in Times Square? I guess a counter thought would be that they haven't actually tried to interact with anyone at all, maybe only observe, but the armed forces/governments are the only element of our species with the ability to detect and retrieve them when they make mistakes.

But they never make mistakes above NYC or Berlin, or anywhere with a bunch of social media + phone users around.

Just somewhere in the desert conveniently close to AFBs and other restricted areas.

Re: Former intel officer says 'non-human biologics’ found at alleged UFO crash sites

#225

Post by mrguyorama »

froggychairs wrote: post #147
MikeTheRocker wrote: post #115

I don't know what to make of this. It just seems so incredibly implausibly that extraterrestrials would have the technology or motive to come to Earth without widespread detection.

Why would aliens have to destroy? When I go out for a hike in the woods or a hike in a new state/country that isn’t my home. I don’t go out destroying the land around me. I observe and enjoy my time Maybe these aliens are scientists. Documenting biological life across the galaxy. Maybe they’re VanCampers. Just bouncing from planet to planet for fun If a civilization has presumably reached FTL travel. I imagine many o…

And that's fine and all, but it's been nearly a hundred years and they're still doing the same shit? Are we supposed to believe we are the equivalent of a tourist attraction? One where you seem to have a high likelihood of dying?

Re: Former intel officer says 'non-human biologics’ found at alleged UFO crash sites

#226

Post by LapsangGuzzler »

BobbyJo wrote: post #203
nvy wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>These systems are commonly air-gapped Do you have direct experience? Because this is contradictory to my own experience. When I was in the Air Force we had access to various classified networks at levels up to and including TS. You often needed to be in a SCIF and/or have TEMPEST-rated equipment to log in, depending on the context, but the systems are networked nonetheless.

I worked in a SCIF for a short time for a defense contractor. It was a while ago, and I'm fuzzy about what I can and cannot say about how things worked in there, so I'd rather not say anything specific. What I can say is that it's trivial to keep things you don't want leaving a SCIF in the SCIF.

I’m definitely not military, so I can’t speak from experience here.

I just find it hard to believe that the military puts all of this information into decentralized air-gapped silos that are completely cut off from the outside world.

Information isn’t useful when it can’t be searched, cross-referenced and analyzed. How does data enter a SCIF? because it obviously doesn’t originate there. Do people walk in with thumb drives and load it into a computer? That sounds like a security nightmare to me

Re: Former intel officer says 'non-human biologics’ found at alleged UFO crash sites

#227

Post by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF »

LapsangGuzzler wrote: post #125
ryanSrich wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That proves nothing though. US Government data is so siloed it’s possible Snowden would not have access to UFO info even if he had access to essentially everything the NSA had access to.

> US Government data is so siloed The classified stuff wasn’t really that siloed. He had access to everything CIA, DIA, NSA, etc. He talked about this in his book. Searching for evidence of aliens was one of the first things he did when he got access.

Is there significance in the parent commenter saying "UFO" and the child comment saying "aliens"? Asking because they are not necessarily the same thing and searching for one may not yield results for the other. I suspect both terms would catch the eye, so this still seems like an interesting contradiction; probably just a difference between the comments that I noticed.

Re: Former intel officer says 'non-human biologics’ found at alleged UFO crash sites

#228

Post by nvy »

BobbyJo wrote: post #203
nvy wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>These systems are commonly air-gapped Do you have direct experience? Because this is contradictory to my own experience. When I was in the Air Force we had access to various classified networks at levels up to and including TS. You often needed to be in a SCIF and/or have TEMPEST-rated equipment to log in, depending on the context, but the systems are networked nonetheless.

I worked in a SCIF for a short time for a defense contractor. It was a while ago, and I'm fuzzy about what I can and cannot say about how things worked in there, so I'd rather not say anything specific. What I can say is that it's trivial to keep things you don't want leaving a SCIF in the SCIF.

Fair enough. My experience is fairly recent but it might also be a military vs intelligence agency thing.

All the classified/SCIF systems I used were networked, though the networks were physically segmented and most of the classified systems I used did not have internet access. Whether that counts as "air gapped" in your book I dunno, but I never came across anything like the room out of the original Mission Impossible film where the machine has no network access at all. In fact I question the utility of such a machine.

Re: Former intel officer says 'non-human biologics’ found at alleged UFO crash sites

#230

Post by ericb »

Avshalom wrote: post #195
ericb wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you watch it? He doesn't come off that way. He testified under oath. Every time he was asked for specifics, he said he had them, had already provided them, or in some cases would provide them immediately after because they were classified--which is the proper response if you don't want to go to jail. If he's a nut, you'd expect evasion, contradiction, waffling and avoidance when asked for specifics. I didn't see…

"I already told you" and "I'll tell you later" are absolutely avoidance when asked for specifics.

I can see where it might sound that way if you haven't watched the testimony.

"I provided this classified information under oath to the inspector general" is not an avoidance tactic but a direction where to locate classified info.

"I'll tell you later" on the surface might sound like an avoidance tactic, but when he was asked when he could provide it the answer was "immediately after today's session." In other words, no stalling at all, he just preferred not getting arrested for sharing top-secret info publicly.

Post reply on HN