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

The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 287 posts

Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program

#61

Post by [deleted] »

probably_wrong wrote: post #51
dwaltrip wrote: post #40

Where is the HD footage that actually shows features of the mysterious "unidentified objects"? Why is all the evidence grainy and obscured? The prospect that life from another star system traveled hundreds of trillions of kilometers, only to hide for the past few decades, peeking out briefly for low-quality photoshoots, is beyond absurd.

I once tried to take a picture of a deer, that I saw running away from me and hiding behind a tree. I knew perfectly well were it was, in which direction it would go, and had enough time to set my phone's camera properly. And yet, thanks to a slow auto-focus and low light, my pictures ended up a blurry, unrecognizable mess. Not even I would believe my story. I gained a lot of respect that day for people who claim to…

[deleted]

Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program

#62

Post by dwaltrip »

mratzloff wrote: post #49
dwaltrip wrote: post #40

Where is the HD footage that actually shows features of the mysterious "unidentified objects"? Why is all the evidence grainy and obscured? The prospect that life from another star system traveled hundreds of trillions of kilometers, only to hide for the past few decades, peeking out briefly for low-quality photoshoots, is beyond absurd.

I don't know if alien spacecraft have visited Earth or not, but nothing says they would have to be piloted by aliens. If they exist, they could just as easily be robotic drones.

That's a good point. Of course, it's possible. I just think it should be the last explanation we consider, after definitively crossing everything else off the list.

Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program

#63

Post by valuearb »

remir wrote: post #28

There's no doubt there's a kind of aura of ridicule around the subject of UFOs and I'm sure credible people don't want to be associated with it. That being said, I think it's something worthy of exploration. My interest in the subject really began when I listen to people around me who saw and experienced things. It's one thing to read books or watch documentaries about UFOs, but it's another when normal "everyday peo…

What’s worth exploring is space. Better telescopes, more monitoring, etc will actually tell us something about tye possibilities or existence of alien life.

Chasing down misidentified flying objects and hoaxes will not. The idea that numerous spaceships, each with more potential kinetic energy than mankind has created in its entire history, are just flying around our atmosphere without leaving massive and easily recordable emissions is ludicrous.

Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program

#65

Post by valuearb »

probably_wrong wrote: post #51
dwaltrip wrote: post #40

Where is the HD footage that actually shows features of the mysterious "unidentified objects"? Why is all the evidence grainy and obscured? The prospect that life from another star system traveled hundreds of trillions of kilometers, only to hide for the past few decades, peeking out briefly for low-quality photoshoots, is beyond absurd.

I once tried to take a picture of a deer, that I saw running away from me and hiding behind a tree. I knew perfectly well were it was, in which direction it would go, and had enough time to set my phone's camera properly. And yet, thanks to a slow auto-focus and low light, my pictures ended up a blurry, unrecognizable mess. Not even I would believe my story. I gained a lot of respect that day for people who claim to…

Intelligent Aliens aren’t deer, anyone who has mastered interstellar travel are closer to god’s in terms of the power they’d have over us. No need to hide, and probably impossible to hide their massive power sources.

Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program

#66

Post by Gravityloss »

magnat wrote: post #11
nsxwolf wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is that thing?!

Looks like an insect stuck on the camera lens.

Does the infrared camera lens zoom or focus by rotating? It looks like it's doing that towards the end.

Something stuck to the front element probably wouldn't be so much in focus, it should be something deeper in the lens. For example a piece of paint can become dislodged (has happened to me with binoculars).

Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program

#67

Post by valuearb »

A partial list of things more believable than UFOs are Alien spaceships

1) Chemtrails.

2) 9/11 conspiracies.

3) JFK assassination conspiracy.

4) Vaccines cause autism.

5) Cell phones cause cancer. etc, etc.

The only theory less believable than UFOs being Aliens is flat earth.

Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program

#68

Post by codeonfire »

akhilcacharya wrote: post #19

The most interesting part to me >Under Mr. Bigelow’s direction, the company modified buildings in Las Vegas for the storage of metal alloys and other materials that Mr. Elizondo and program contractors said had been recovered from unidentified aerial phenomena. Researchers also studied people who said they had experienced physical effects from encounters with the objects and examined them for any physiological change…

This sounds like a sponge operation to gauge how much experimental flight testing programs may impact the public, how secret it is being, collect debris that falls into public hands, etc. Obviously if it was done under the auspices of a military operation that would lead to questions. But no one questions the motives of people posing as UFO investigators.

Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program

#69

Post by ChuckMcM »

alfiedotwtf wrote: post #57
wolf550e wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But come on, if US intelligence agencies recovered metallurgy from Russian hypersonic missiles or something like that, why would they use UFO for cover? And why would they store it outside of AFRL? I think it's just a way to funnel taxpayer money, there is nothing real being investigated. Not extraterrestrial tech, not foreign tech, not even domestic tech.

"Most of the money went to an aerospace research company run by a billionaire and longtime friend of Mr Reid's" This.

See Glomar Explorer for other examples.

Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program

#70

Post by Retric »

gfodor wrote: post #50

It's been pretty clear for some time now for those who study the facts that there is a very good chance there are real objects in the sky that maneuver in ways that conventional aircraft are unable to and cannot be explained adequately as other observed phenomenon. The taboo around this subject due to the common hypothesis they are due to extraterrestrials is a shame because there's been plenty of documented evidence…

People lack depth perception in the sky which makes it easy to wildly misunderstand things.

A great example shown by some UFO show was a side camera from the space shuttle. The footage has a nice curvature of the earth, with lot's of little specks that seem to be orbiting it way out in the distance. You see a maneuvering thruster fire then in slow motion a few heartbeats later these specks shoot off in a new direction.

Now, if you assume they where large objects far away they must have been moving incredibly quickly and have insane acceleration. However, if you realize they are flecks of paint etc/ near the shuttle pushed out of the way by the maneuvering thruster then they where not actually moving fast relative to the shuttle at any point.

Post reply on HN