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

251–260 of 317 posts

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

#251

Post by 100100010001 »

mannykannot wrote: post #221
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?

Let's assume, just for the sake of argument, that your description actually describes an artificial object that has actually been observed -- what aspect of quantum mechanics explains it? Invoking QM as an explanation of something you can't explain is not a correct use of the term, unless it actually does provide an explanation, and the same goes for all the other terms.

An anti-gravity engine could be used to allow the use of quantum levitation to stabilize the craft in the earth’s magnetic field.

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

#252

Post by TeMPOraL »

armitron wrote: post #230
TeMPOraL wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That literally screams "sensor bug". Did no one there ever see how light behaves once you start playing with mirrors? I also wonder how much software is processing is done on raw data in real-time, because some of what I read could be explained by algorithms hitting a corner case. I mean, what's more likely? A magic propulsion system ignoring known physics, or some component in the complex sensory system of the plane…

Seen visually means they saw it with their eyes. Yes there exist "sensor bugs" in human vision but multiple observers with same report suffering from "visual sensor bugs" is probabilistically absurd. Assuming those reports are credible, which I see no immediate reason to doubt, the most plausible explanation must include technology that is far more advanced than anything we have or can imagine having today or in the…

Reports may be credible, but the reporting on that reporting less so. The way I understand it, some people saw some thing, FLIR saw some thing, a ship radar is claimed to have seen some things, but there's little to actually connect these observations as being the same thing.

My current best theory is that pilots were seeing a reflection on the surface of water and got confused because FLIR had a possibly unrelated and buggy interaction between an internal reflection in optics and tracking software.

(As for the radar thing, I hear it being said that there was a radar that saw someting, but no concrete information is being presented.)

Now take it from the other way around. Say it's aliens, or supernatural beings. Then why on Earth would they behave in an exact way that makes the FLIR footage indistinguishable from a camera auto-tracking a reflection on its own optics? Why exactly this pattern?

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

#253

Post by zorronimous »

cdumler wrote: post #171
chubbyrabbit wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 do. When you say this is an "unidentified aerial phenomena" or an "unidentified flying objects," that means it's unidentified. As in: we do not know what we are looking at. You don't get to say, "well, we don't know what this is; therefore, it must be aliens." You say, "We don't know what this is. Until we have more information, there is no conclusion to make." Nothing more. Full stop. The end. And, certainly not t…

It's hard for many to acept not knowing something. Or to make a joke from it: It uses propulsion we know to be impossible.

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

#254

Post by zorronimous »

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.…

One witness noted that if people thougt he was simply insane he should not be the one to turn the key for the nuclear missile. Or worse, if his sanity was ever so slightly in doubt he should be removed - according to himself.

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

#255

Post by [deleted] »

rblion wrote: post #66
ceejayoz wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Planes have blinking lights, right? Not necessarily - they can be turned off, non-functional, or drowned out by a brighter light like the landing lights from a distance. > One of them disappeared in a flash... Or someone flipped the landing lights switch. I saw a C-17 at night while staying near Fort Drum that I was completely baffled by until it got close enough to properly make out. Had it stayed away, I'd have h…

There were two of them next to each other. Is that common at all? Does 'formation flying' involve craft flying around in random non-linear fashion? There was a bunch of us and we discussed it for awhile, aircraft is the first thing we jumped to...

[deleted]

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

#256

Post by armitron »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #252
armitron wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seen visually means they saw it with their eyes. Yes there exist "sensor bugs" in human vision but multiple observers with same report suffering from "visual sensor bugs" is probabilistically absurd. Assuming those reports are credible, which I see no immediate reason to doubt, the most plausible explanation must include technology that is far more advanced than anything we have or can imagine having today or in the…

Reports may be credible, but the reporting on that reporting less so. The way I understand it, some people saw some thing, FLIR saw some thing, a ship radar is claimed to have seen some things, but there's little to actually connect these observations as being the same thing. My current best theory is that pilots were seeing a reflection on the surface of water and got confused because FLIR had a possibly unrelated a…

Reflection on the surface of water doesn't pass muster, it's impossible given the pilot reports. There is a multitude of events that are _all_ correlated in time and space. So opposite to what you say, there is a lot to connect these observations.

Also, there are far more plausible scenarios than aliens or the supernatural that involve extremely advanced technology.

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

#257

Post by RandomTisk »

jazzyjackson wrote: post #247
RandomTisk wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Me either, it's that R word making people sensitive again.

The man went to school for biblical studies. Now I don't have a grudge against anyone with a BA in biblical studies, but I'm not going to respect their opinion on whether something requires quantum or nuclear science.

There are way too many layers to unpack your statement here, but I will say that if you have an open mind, you'll find most Christians are very pro-science where it's observable and repeatable using empirical methods. Nuclear physics certainly falls in that realm and I have no doubt Quantum mechanics too.

Edit: unless you mean it's beyond the scope of his degree, then I can agree with that. Although even though I don't have a math degree either, but after watching a hundred or so Numberphile videos on YT, many on the cosmos and nuclear physics, I can see myself making similar statements in the future ;)

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

#258

Post by rasz »

thomascgalvin wrote: post #163
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 bas…

>When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras.

or coconuts

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

#259

Post by driverdan »

rblion wrote: post #34
driverdan wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't know what I saw but they were not weather balloons, satellites, planes, planets, stars, or meteors. If you don't know what they were then you can't rule out these other things.

I used an astronomy app on my phone to verify the satellites, planets, stars, meteors part. They moved around in a non-linear fashion at will, they were intelligently operated. One of them disappeared in a flash...

One of the biggest causes of this type of sighting is misinterpreting perspective. It's very hard to tell how far away something is in the sky, especially at night. Something that looks close may be far and vice versa. When you think something is a different distance away than it is it can appear to act in unexpected ways, leading to misunderstanding what it is.

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

#260

Post by ChrisGranger »

sudosteph wrote: post #102
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?

I wouldn't describe the weird thing I've seen in the exact same way, but I understand the feeling of seeing something you can't explain as a skeptic and being shaken by it. I'd have happily just doubted my sanity altogether and left it at that if my husband hadn't been right there seeing the same thing and reacting the same way.

Mind telling us about the weird thing you and your husband saw?
Post reply on HN