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

231–240 of 317 posts

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

#231

Post by TeMPOraL »

nowandlater wrote: post #90
rblion wrote: post #2

I was a skeptic of a lot of things until I saw some flying orbs around Mount Shasta, California last October. I saw similar moving orbs again in upstate NY this year on two occasions. I don't know what I saw but they were not weather balloons, satellites, planes, planets, stars, or meteors. Anyone here ever see something similar?

Only once: While on an Army training exercise at Fort Irwin California, through the IR scope of a Bradley Fighting Vehicle, at night (~ 9:45 PM) in the summer of 2009. I was gazing at the exhaust of a hovering black hawk when a perfectly spherical, very hot, object moved into my field of view. It was behind the helicopter, and as I followed it I realized It was rotating 360 degrees -- at an unknown distance -- around…

Two mundane phenomena to investigate: the first part sounds like an issue with optics and/or software; I assume attempting to range something involves moving optical elements. Your description does read a bit like attempting autofocus with a damaged lens system. As for diamonds, this does sound like a kaleidoscope, which again suggests broken optics.

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

#232

Post by tasty_freeze »

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.

What if the gentleman had said, "Based on pilot accounts, encounters with these UAPs (unidentified aerial phenomena) often involved complex flight patterns and advanced maneuvering, which demand extreme advances in CPU architecture including instructions we've never seen before, database consistency guarantees, and whitespace significance" would you see the problem with such claims?

If he had simply said, "These appear to use technology in advance of anything known to mankind" that would have been enough. To posit specific mechanisms of physics of a phenomenon we know next to nothing about is silly.

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

#234

Post by scarejunba »

elif wrote: post #175
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…

If you're going to call his use of those terms incorrect, can you explain a craft travelling supersonic without jets or rockets, leaving no emissions, utilizing no airfoils, consistent with our understanding of physics?

Well, it's obviously God visiting us. Anyone can come up with these untestable hypotheses. That's not useful by itself.

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

#235

Post by duozerk »

geomark wrote: post #189

I watched Joe Rogan interview Bob Lazar [1] which seemed mind blowing if everything he said was true. But then I went and researched it and seems more likely he came up with some fantastic stories to keep himself out of prison after he got caught taking a bunch of friends up to the mountains to watch some classified experiements of a particle beam device. It's not my field of study, but some opinions I read were that…

I'm partial of Jacques Vallée explanation of the Lazar testimony; that is, that he's completely truthful but what he saw and witnessed were models / fakes in some sort of psy op. Especially when you get deeper into the specifics of his testimony; little of what he describes makes sense, like the fact he was asked to investigate supposedly "alien crafts" with little more than a multimeter and an oscilloscope, and with nowhere near the expertise that'd be expected of someone in charge of such a thing.

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

#236

Post by chrisweekly »

jazzyjackson wrote: post #215
elif wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're going to call his use of those terms incorrect, can you explain a craft travelling supersonic without jets or rockets, leaving no emissions, utilizing no airfoils, consistent with our understanding of physics?

I don't know, the video didn't show me that the objects traveled at any speed -- that's from the pilots testimony, but maybe it appeared to move against the backdrop as they were banking around it. I would expect fighter pilots to be a good judge, but maybe you lose some sense of velocity when you're surprised by something you haven't seen before. Separately, radar operators saw something they didn't understand. It c…

I'm reminded of Sesame Street's Grover rushing towards the camera saying "Near!", then running away and shouting "Far!". Unimaginable velocity and agility inferred by movements of an object perceived to be large and distant might be more easily explained by one much smaller and closer.

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

#237

Post by TeMPOraL »

Gene_Parmesan wrote: post #98
rblion wrote: post #2

I was a skeptic of a lot of things until I saw some flying orbs around Mount Shasta, California last October. I saw similar moving orbs again in upstate NY this year on two occasions. I don't know what I saw but they were not weather balloons, satellites, planes, planets, stars, or meteors. Anyone here ever see something similar?

Yeah, and I don't think they were aliens. I just don't know what they were. We were driving through very rural Illinois at about 10 pm. I was just staring out of the window up at the sky. Suddenly, I noticed a rather bright orb (not perfectly circular or anything, I just don't know how else to describe it) hovering in the air. I would guess maybe a quarter mile laterally, and only a couple hundred of feet up. I didn'…

Could this be an uneven, polished surface reflecting some lights? Not saying it must have been, but this and some other descriptions do really sound like light reflections on a surface you can't othetwise make out, which change because you're moving relative to the surface.

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

#238

Post by carbocation »

ceejayoz wrote: post #47
carbocation wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does this image [1] from that article purport to depict landing gear down... with afterburners? 1 = https://the-drive.imgix.net/https%3A%2F%2Fs3-us-west-2.amazo...

What's wrong with that? That's how you'd typically take off from a carrier. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afterburner#/media/File:FA18_o... As long as you don't exceed the max speed for the gear, no problem.

Along the lines of `groby_b's comment - the elevation and orientation didn't make me think of a carrier takeoff. Rather, at a quick glance this looked like a photoshop. Although there is something about the F22's and F35's coatings that often make me think they look photoshopped.

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

#239

Post by krapp »

NateEag wrote: post #190
krapp wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

That sounds like circular reasoning to me - you seem to be saying that if we can observe something it must therefore be entirely natural. That doesn't follow, though. The obvious example would be that if Jesus actually rose from the dead by a miracle, then people who were present could see him and put their hands on his scars. Is the supernatural inherently not scientifically testable? Absolutely. It does not follow…

> That sounds like circular reasoning to me - you seem to be saying that if we can observe something it must therefore be entirely natural.

I'm saying that we have yet to have observe something which can be proven to be supernatural.

Asking whether evidence exists that a phenomenon is strictly natural presumes there exists evidence of something other than nature to classify against. As yet, such evidence to the contrary doesn't exist, so for the time being, all evidence of any phenomenon is of its natural state by definition.

>It does not follow that it could never be observed at all, if it exists.

The unfortunate paradox of needing to provide evidence of the supernatural is that any such evidence would, by definition, need to be natural, and would contradict the premise. So if it can be observed to begin with, that's evidence that it isn't supernatural.

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

#240

Post by ryacko »

api wrote: post #55
Rebelgecko wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about a third option, it's a visual artifact on the FLIR recording?

If it were just recorded by one sensor that would have been my initial assumption. This was (unless I am totally confused or misreading things) recorded by more than one unit and there were associated visual sightings. My best money would be on something experimental of ours being tested against our own aircraft, like some kind of decoy or jamming device.

Without any specific location where these experiments are kept and without someone trustworthy who would honestly report on what they see, it seems as if any investigation would be fruitless as the actual craft is only wheeled out to be spotted by sensors incapable of identifying it.
Post reply on HN