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

71–80 of 287 posts

Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program

#71

Post by frankquist »

volgo wrote: post #56

IMO, the fishy part of the article is the cronyism involved in this program: "The shadowy program — parts of it remain classified — began in 2007, and initially it was largely funded at the request of Harry Reid, the Nevada Democrat who was the Senate majority leader at the time and who has long had an interest in space phenomena. Most of the money went to an aerospace research company run by a billionaire entreprene…

Say that you are interested in investigating puzzling phenomena, and you have the money. What more logical step is there than to approach your senate majority leader friend?

Such oddball connections are probably the only the way such a program would ever get funded.

Edit: well, obviously he didn't have the money. Misspoke. I meant the means (a company with the required infrastructure).

Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program

#72

Post by openasocket »

volgo wrote: post #56

IMO, the fishy part of the article is the cronyism involved in this program: "The shadowy program — parts of it remain classified — began in 2007, and initially it was largely funded at the request of Harry Reid, the Nevada Democrat who was the Senate majority leader at the time and who has long had an interest in space phenomena. Most of the money went to an aerospace research company run by a billionaire entreprene…

I doubt it was a no-bid contract. And there are far more lucrative programs which raise far less eyebrows than this.

Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program

#73

Post by _gutd »

valuearb wrote: post #60
neurotech1 wrote: post #26

Cmdr. Dave Fravor was one of the most squared away F/A-18 pilots in the Navy. He is not some conspiracy "nut" and if he says he saw something, I'd believe him. He is held in high regard by those who served with him. Cmdr. Fravor was featured in the PBS Carrier series [0][1] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_(documentary) [1] http://www.pbs.org/show/carrier/

Squared away people don’t have magic eyesight. It’s easy to get fooled.

Except the object is clearly visible on the F-18's IRST camera footage. It was also picked up on radar by a surface cruiser and a nearby E-2 Hawkeye. See: https://fightersweep.com/1460/x-files-edition/

Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program

#74

Post by maskull »

eric_h wrote: post #30
olegkikin wrote: post #20

I looks like the plane is making a left turn, and yet the object is dead center in the screen with barely any shake. And it's definitely not stabilized, because all the lines on the display are still. So maybe the pilot has some crazy ability to track a flying object perfectly while turning, but try doing it in any game and I think you will fail.

I know nothing about the current state of military tech, but that looks like a targeting camera that has some sort of edge detection allowing it to track the object. The vertical lines to the left and right of the object appear computer controlled, to me, especially because they track the left and right edges of the object and the vertical length changes in a way that seems reactive to the object on screen. The brief…

could be this ATFLIR pod, same reticle seen here: https://theaviationist.com/2017/09/21/heres-the-video-of-the...

Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program

#76

Post by Teever »

volgo wrote: post #56

IMO, the fishy part of the article is the cronyism involved in this program: "The shadowy program — parts of it remain classified — began in 2007, and initially it was largely funded at the request of Harry Reid, the Nevada Democrat who was the Senate majority leader at the time and who has long had an interest in space phenomena. Most of the money went to an aerospace research company run by a billionaire entreprene…

Robert Bigelow has been interested in aliens and UFOs for most of his life and has essentially dedicated his life to amassing the resources to start an aeronautical company.

Hiring him to do this is like hiring Robert Ballard to find the Titanic.

Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program

#77

Post by api »

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…

Part of the problem is all the crazy mythology around the subject. But strip that off and it has always seemed to me that there is an interesting residue of facts. It's not enough to prove anything but it's enough to be intriguing.

One possible answer to the Fermi paradox is that they are here but are just not making overt obvious contact. If this were true we'd probably be talking about a "post-singularity" super intelligence. It would be nearly immortal and thus very patient. Contact protocols might take thousands of years.

Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program

#79

Post by gfodor »

Retric wrote: post #70
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 directio…

Your analysis is one of the more obvious explanations and as such it has been considered thoroughly before for the cases that remain unexplained. Typically these cases include radar signatures or other corroborating evidence.

Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program

#80

Post by lgas »

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…

This could explain some (even many) cases of being unable to capture evidence, but it would not explain no one ever being able to capture any meaningful decisive evidence.
Post reply on HN