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

U.S. unable to explain more than 140 unidentified flying objects, but no aliens

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 72 posts

Re: U.S. unable to explain more than 140 unidentified flying objects, but no aliens

#41

Post by wahern »

chiefalchemist wrote: post #35
dragonwriter wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Intelligence Agencies are designed to deceive. No, their primary function is to acquire information useful to decisions makers, including info others want to keep secret. Counterintelligence agencies, which are sometimes conjoined to intelligence agencies and sometimes separate have a primary function of preventing information that decisionmakers want to remain secret from being discovered. Deception is frequently…

Yes. But the USA doesn't have designated counterintelligence agencies. They're consistently referred to strictly as intelligence agencies. So it's important to clarify that the counterintelligence role is there even if it's not directly identified. And, no their primary function is not to acquire information. Their primary funtion is to push and pull "information" to acheive the goals of The Republic. It's chess, not…

Maybe not agencies as you mean, but it does have:

* Marine Corps Counterintelligence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_Corps_Intelligence#Mari...

* United States Army Counterintelligence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Counterinte...

* Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Counterintelligence_an...

* National Counterintelligence and Security Center: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Counterintelligence_a...

Found via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_counterintelligence_or...

AFAICT the NCSC is independent from the CIA, though both do fall under the DNI. And the DCSA does have "agency" in its name. ;)

The hierarchy became more complex and confusing after the 9/11 reorganization, and apparently has continued to do so.

Re: U.S. unable to explain more than 140 unidentified flying objects, but no aliens

#42

Post by dragonwriter »

wahern wrote: post #41
chiefalchemist wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. But the USA doesn't have designated counterintelligence agencies. They're consistently referred to strictly as intelligence agencies. So it's important to clarify that the counterintelligence role is there even if it's not directly identified. And, no their primary function is not to acquire information. Their primary funtion is to push and pull "information" to acheive the goals of The Republic. It's chess, not…

Maybe not agencies as you mean, but it does have: * Marine Corps Counterintelligence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_Corps_Intelligence#Mari... * United States Army Counterintelligence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Counterinte... * Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Counterintelligence_an... * National Counterintelligence and Security Cente…

You left out the FBI, which doesn't have “counterintelligence” in the name but is nevertheless the primary civilian counterintelligence agency.

Re: U.S. unable to explain more than 140 unidentified flying objects, but no aliens

#43

Post by wahern »

dragonwriter wrote: post #42
wahern wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe not agencies as you mean, but it does have: * Marine Corps Counterintelligence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_Corps_Intelligence#Mari... * United States Army Counterintelligence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Counterinte... * Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Counterintelligence_an... * National Counterintelligence and Security Cente…

You left out the FBI, which doesn't have “counterintelligence” in the name but is nevertheless the primary civilian counterintelligence agency.

Without knowing more, I would think most counterintelligence work is still done by the FBI, CIA, NSA, and maybe DIA. But I was replying to the specific claim that there were no "designated ... agencies", where I interpreted designated to mean specialized. The FBI, CIA, and NSA are monolithic organizations.

Re: U.S. unable to explain more than 140 unidentified flying objects, but no aliens

#45

Post by okareaman »

leesalminen wrote: post #38
okareaman wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since when did the defense department need elaborate pretexts for their endless money pits?

See Iraq, as just one example. Remember Colin Powell’s charade at the UN?

That was a dumb pretext. Scott Ritter and others had debunked the weapons of mass destruction claim prior. Everyone knew George W. Bush was going to invade Iraq because Saddam had threatened to kill his father. He was going to finish the job daddy had failed to complete.

Re: U.S. unable to explain more than 140 unidentified flying objects, but no aliens

#46

Post by staticassertion »

syshum wrote: post #40
okareaman wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since when did the defense department need elaborate pretexts for their endless money pits?

Since they had to start competing with an ever growing demand by population for increasing social serivces like Unversal Healthcare, and UBI, combined with current social services and debt taking up over 50% of the federal budget. They see the writting on the wall, America can no longer fund its war machine unless there is an enemy, Russia / Cold War is played out even though they are still trying to beat that dead h…

Aliens make the perfect scare? You think more people are afraid of aliens than terrorists?

Re: U.S. unable to explain more than 140 unidentified flying objects, but no aliens

#47

Post by staticassertion »

lurkmurk wrote: post #18

What is the goal of this campain to re-introduce aliens into the public discourse? Interestingly, it seems that the "smart" people are now falling for it (washington post, hn, certain subreddits and podcasts...).

When did aliens leave the public discourse? Right now there's a bit of a flare up, because that's how modern media works - some story is done, gets clicks, everyone rides the SEO trend for a while until something else crops up.

I don't think there's much more to it than that.

Re: U.S. unable to explain more than 140 unidentified flying objects, but no aliens

#48

Post by staticassertion »

ALittleLight wrote: post #36
SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What part of... rules out aliens? Because 1) Ruling _in_ aliens requires proof. Insisting that this specific scenario be ruled out is classic "shifting the burden of proof" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy) The train of thought that "we don't know what we saw, so ... aliens!" is somewhere between wishful and nutty. Extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary proof. 2) claiming that it's _d…

1. I am not saying that these UAP are definitely aliens. I am saying that the findings of the report make aliens a more likely explanation. The report found that physical objects exhibited behavior that suggests advanced technology - including flying at considerable speed without discernible means of propulsion. It's unfair to characterize this line of thinking as "We don't know what we saw, so aliens." Instead, what…

This is all a really roundabout, long winded way of demonstrating confirmation bias. The idea that there are aliens among us is obscenely unlikely, with debunked after debunked case. Stacking up a whole bunch of fallacious arguments doesn't add up to a good one, or even an ok one, or even a "maybe".

> For one thing, multiple observations by multiple witnesses and multiple sensor modalities in multiple instances across decades is pretty good evidence.

Like this. No it isn't. It's terrible evidence, it actually isn't evidence at all.

Re: U.S. unable to explain more than 140 unidentified flying objects, but no aliens

#49

Post by creamytaco »

viraptor wrote: post #15

There are two things that just don't seem plausible at all for me in those stories: 1. Previous article mentions "For some Navy pilots, UFO sightings were an ordinary event: ‘Every day for at least a couple years’" ( https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/05/17/ufo-sightin... ) Is DoD too cheap for a bunch of GoPros? If the incidents are that common and a potential security issue, why don't we have validated days…

1. Why do you assume that all the data that was made public is all the data there is? It's highly likely the government has additional classified information of much higher fidelity.

2. These phenomena are concentrated around military bases and other areas of "interest". Hardly places where you'd expect non-military flights to frequent.

Re: U.S. unable to explain more than 140 unidentified flying objects, but no aliens

#50

Post by ALittleLight »

staticassertion wrote: post #48
ALittleLight wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. I am not saying that these UAP are definitely aliens. I am saying that the findings of the report make aliens a more likely explanation. The report found that physical objects exhibited behavior that suggests advanced technology - including flying at considerable speed without discernible means of propulsion. It's unfair to characterize this line of thinking as "We don't know what we saw, so aliens." Instead, what…

This is all a really roundabout, long winded way of demonstrating confirmation bias. The idea that there are aliens among us is obscenely unlikely, with debunked after debunked case. Stacking up a whole bunch of fallacious arguments doesn't add up to a good one, or even an ok one, or even a "maybe". > For one thing, multiple observations by multiple witnesses and multiple sensor modalities in multiple instances acros…

Whether or not aliens are "obscenely unlikely" addresses only your prior belief before reading this report. Does the report change your beliefs about aliens at all? If so, in what direction, more or less likely?

My point is that the observations of the report make me update towards aliens. The observations are consistent with the theory that alien craft operate in our atmosphere. Advanced technology that we don't understand. Doesn't appear to be ours. Yesterday, I wouldn't have said that was true or that we had good reasons to think it was true. Today, I'm more inclined to think it's true.

If my arguments are fallacious or terrible I'd appreciate you explaining how. Multiple witnesses with multiple sensors multiple times across years seems pretty persuasive. You think it's not evidence at all. Why not? What evidence would you expect to see?

Post reply on HN