Live data from Hacker News

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

vice.com

51–60 of 317 posts

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

#51
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

How do you know they were intelligently operated?

What organic phenomenon moves around like that? is what we asked ourselves.

One of the people with me was from Columbia University and he is as 'rational' as they come, even he was baffled...

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

#52
post #33
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you provide a little more detail as to what they looked like, how they moved, etc.?

White-colored, orb-shaped. They moved around in a non-linear fashion at will, they were intelligently operated. One of them disappeared in a flash... Strange thing was during encounter #2, they appeared in the spot in the sky 2 nights in a row.

And too big to be laser pointers?

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

#53
Anyone in this thread familiar with Electronic Warfare? Specifically, the EW arms race between a guided missile's "eyes", and decoy signals created by things that don't want to get hit by said missiles? (Or, better yet, between large-scale MIRV missiles, that don't want their warheads to get hit by interceptor systems, and the sensors on those interceptor counter-missiles. In that case, you'd call these techniques https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penetration_aid s.)

Consider that we now have reasonably-cheap, high-quality cameras and feature-detection ASICs that we can plop into missiles. Oh, and wide-band software-defined radios, too, to cheaply range-find our targets all over the spectrum. (Remember, SDR radios are expensive for consumers, but that's an artificial supply-limit, precisely because of their military applications.) Consider what sort of decoys would be required to trick all that fancy sensor tech. Now consider what such decoy emissions would look like to human eyes, or any other sensor. If you can trick a Sufficiently-Advanced Missile, you can trick anything.

(For fun, also consider the modern menagerie of cheaply-available parts that you could shove into such a decoy: a laser rangefinder, a short-throw projector, an optical stabilization array, some negative-index metamaterial "scales" that can be flipped on and off—like those glittery pillows!—some more SDRs, a MIMO signal-shaping antenna array. Oh, and an ultrasonic humidifier, because emissions won't diffract off of thin, non-turbulent air.)

Presume you have a bunch of these mesh-networked together (or all slaved to a stealthed aircraft so far above that it's out of range of your instrumentation unless you know exactly where to look), and that they're built with hard real-time links to one-another such that they can execute perfectly-timed hand-offs of the emissions-signature they're working together to project.

In short, picture a bunch of projectors you can't find, working to create a moving multi-spectral hologram in the sky. Picture one of the projector-drones gliding into place "underneath" the projection, just in time to give off a sonar return—and then wandering away again.

None of this is impossible. None of this is even particularly challenging if you spend $100MM/yr on it. And this is just what someone who doesn't know about any of the classified stuff can imagine.

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

#54
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Day or night? Quite a few of these turn out to be commercial airplanes at night.

Planes have blinking lights, right? These had none of those. They moved around in a non-linear fashion at will, they were intelligently operated. One of them disappeared in a flash... All the people there with me ruled out all the logical possibilities too, most of them were skeptics (including myself) before we saw them. We still joke about the ordeal when we see each other.

> 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 had one of those "inexplicable" encounters people talk about too.

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

#55
post #26

I think theres two possibilities that are believable for me. I dont think its 'aliens' or other extraterrestrials. Either it is completely fake, made up by the navy to hide something else that they wanted to cover up, and could also serve as a confusion tactic for other countries aerospace programs, some sort of fake internal thing to tease out a mole or another situation like that. The other possibility is that it r…

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.

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

#56
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 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.

That's absolutely untrue. If you show me a picture of an unfamiliar machine, I might not know what it is, but I can tell you definitely that it's not, say, a walrus.

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

#57
post #55

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.

I've seen this claimed but do we actually have confirmed source of that (multiple instruments detecting the same thing)?

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

#58
post #27

I reckon it's misdirection. "We'll say it's a UFO, but really it's a hypersonic plane in development." Just like the SR71 had a cover story during its development phase. "The wreckage was recovered in two days, and persons at the scene were identified and requested to sign secrecy agreements. A cover story for the press described the accident as occurring to a F-105, and it is still listed in this way on official rec…

I hate to be the pedant, but UFO really does just mean unidentified flying object. Everything is a UFO before you know what it is, so this isn't even a lie.

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.

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

#59
I'm still not buying how they could be on a big deployment off the east coast of the US and didn't have any other sensors pick it up besides two pilots next to each other with FLIR camera autotracking it momentarily.

Not to mention the constant satellite and aerial radar coverage and other networked stuff they have for these big deployments.

This isn't in the middle of the Indian ocean like the missing Malaysian plane.

At the end of the day we're left with another single location, single perspective anecdote which there were already countless before.

Post reply on HN