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

301–310 of 317 posts

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

#301

Post by godelski »

RandomTisk wrote: post #257
jazzyjackson wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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 ;)

I read this as

> I watched a bunch of high level YouTube videos and now I'm an expert on quantum mechanics and nuclear physics.

It is okay, you don't have to be an expert in everything. It is okay to not know. It is okay to be wrong. But please don't act like you know what you're an expert when you haven't done the perquisites. We're not in high school anymore, you can't write the book report without reading the book.

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

#302

Post by ozzmotik »

kfrzcode wrote: post #179
perl4ever wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if you know what it is, if you refuse to identify it, and you're the only one who can, then it's unidentified as far as everyone else is concerned.

The truth is out there... and it's relative to context

thank you

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

#303

Post by ozzmotik »

ceejayoz wrote: post #69
rblion wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

> There were two of them next to each other. Is that common at all? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_flying That you're asking that question really makes it hard to credit the claim that you successfully ruled out "all the logical possibilities". edit: You edited in some additional, so: > Does 'formation flying' involve craft flying around in random non-linear fashion? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogfight A…

my only question is, how likely is it that anyone is going to actually be witness to a dogfight at any given time? seems like something that would be pretty rare.

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

#304

Post by ozzmotik »

iamnotacrook wrote: post #88
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?

"Anyone here ever see something similar? " Nobody who wasn't off their face on drugs or mentally ill probably, no. "they were not weather balloons, satellites, planes, planets, stars, or meteors." Other than little aliens in magic flying machines what do you think they could have been?

i think the whole bit implying that one has to be mentally ill or on drugs to see such a thing is kind of made in bad faith. for what it's worth, i certainly suffer from mental illness and i have been "out of this dimension" in terms of drug abuse in the past so to speak and i certainly have never witnessed such a thing in my life. so i find it hard to believe either of those things would make one more likely to perceive such things and view them in such a manner. if anything id be more willing to say that it would more likely be someone who has an overactive sense of confirmation bias, but of course I have no idea.

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

#305

Post by ozzmotik »

akhilcacharya wrote: post #199
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…

The idea that it’s a guinea pig test of a submarine directed anti-FLIR system is the only plausible explanation to me. But again Lazar has been a crank for decades (I think the first reference to an alien at Area 51 named Elvis is from him, later popularized in Perfect Dark), so even that theory is a bit out there.

oh i was always wondering where Elvis' name came from in that game. thanks for sharing a potential bit of provenance

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

#306

Post by ceejayoz »

ozzmotik wrote: post #303
ceejayoz wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There were two of them next to each other. Is that common at all? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_flying That you're asking that question really makes it hard to credit the claim that you successfully ruled out "all the logical possibilities". edit: You edited in some additional, so: > Does 'formation flying' involve craft flying around in random non-linear fashion? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogfight A…

my only question is, how likely is it that anyone is going to actually be witness to a dogfight at any given time? seems like something that would be pretty rare.

Depends where you're located. I don't have an aviation map handy, but Beale AFB is less than 200 miles south of Mt. Shasta, and the Air Force trains continually.

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

#307

Post by ozzmotik »

edko wrote: post #218
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…

If it occurs in nature, and interacts with nature, why would it be supernatural? Why does “supernatural” have to be the first answer we think of when we face a baffling unknown?

ah thank you for the breath of fresh air. so many people are quick to represent the unexplained as supernatural, but the fact of be matter is that everything that is contained within "nature" can be explained by natural causes. just because we aren't aware of them yet doesn't mean that they aren't there.

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

#308

Post by godelski »

Isinlor wrote: post #281
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.…

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If there is even slight doubt about credibility of a claim of extraterrestrial technology, then there is no extraordinary evidence. Again, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Don't waste people time.

Less than 2 minutes into the video the pilot even notes that the object is trying to jam their radar. I'm not sure why this isn't huge evidence. Which is harder to believe: the object did in fact jam their radar and mess with their sensors or aliens?

4 minutes in they are talking about how strange it is that the pilot was asked what ordinance he had on board. THEN he is given chase orders...

I'm going with Occam's Razor here.

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

#309

Post by godelski »

one2know wrote: post #31

The videos are of real aircraft recorded through a FLIR pod. When zoomed out far enough the aircraft simply look like fuzzy ovals as demonstrated in this video https://youtu.be/jWjpnCKcj8M?t=136 For some reason people in the military and government are trolling the public, perhaps as part of a campaign to discredit news agencies.

> For some reason people in the military and government are trolling the public

This is an old tactic. It makes it hard for enemies to gather good data. It also makes it hard to know who and what to trust. You have pilots saying ridiculous things so can you trust every pilot? Makes vetting MUCH MUCH harder. All the major powers do this. But it is kinda like a placebo effect, even knowing about it doesn't make it less effective.

So I don't think it is so much to discredit news agencies but to make it harder for enemies to vet eye witness stories on experimental technologies.

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

#310

Post by RealityVoid »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #231
nowandlater wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The issue I have with these explanations is that they require more contortions than I'm comfortable with. Multiple reports from multiple people with and without scopes are hardly an easy thing to explain.

There are things that people notice, empirical observations if you want to call them like this, that have a certain social stigma associated with them. And I feel that, precisely _because_ of this stigma, people rush to justifications and conclusions that fit our normal model. But how can we find out what they actually are if we try to wiggle things within our model, how can we tell if our model is somehow incomplete?

I will say that I am unconvinced by the explanations people have for these events. They feel forced, contorted and somehow touched by the spirit of the environment that gave birth to the explanations.

Post reply on HN