

NY Times Op-ed: "USAF or NASA should reopen investigations of U.F.O. phenomena." - robg
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/29/opinion/29pope.html?partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

======
robg
I'm afraid you guys have missed the point on why I posted this:

1\. It's the NY Times Op-ed page.

2\. It's written by the guy "in charge of U.F.O. investigations for the
British Ministry of Defense from 1991 to 1994."

I don't believe in UFOs but it makes _me_ stop to think when I read something
like this - considering the sources.

~~~
hugh
So in summary, some guy thinks that the kind of work he does is important and
should be better funded.

Not a big surprise there.

~~~
robg
And the Times editorial board publishing it?

~~~
hugh
Someone vaguely respectable saying something vaguely sensational? Got New York
Times written all over it.

------
jm4
I'm not sure where to start... There was a point I wanted to make and then I
spotted this:

"A healthy skepticism about extraterrestrial space travelers leads people to
disregard U.F.O. sightings without a moment’s thought. But in the United
States, this translates into overdependence on radar data and indifference to
all kinds of unidentified aircraft — _a weakness that could be exploited by
terrorists or anyone seeking to engage in espionage against the United
States._ "

Terrorists from Mars! It could be the title of a really bad B movie... only
the NY Times is telling us we should really be afraid. Ok, I know it's a
stretch... The article doesn't specifically mention extra-terrestrial
terrorists in UFOs. But how the hell do you get from UFO sightings to
terrorism? _sigh_

What's the point of this post anyway? I got myself all worked up and now I'm
wondering what the heck this has to do with HN? I guess UFOs are kind of geeky
and interesting to hackers, but surely someone could have come up with
something better than this.

~~~
davidw
You can play "six degrees of hacker news" with stories like this:

UFO's are science fiction -> lots of hackers like to read science fiction ->
it's hacker news!

Using this technique, you can justify the presence of any article on this
site.

~~~
jm4
I agree completely. What self respecting hacker doesn't like the occasional
UFO diversion? I just suspect that in this case I was lured in by a Reddit
troll.

------
nradov
The idea that some hostile foreign power could be sending low-observable
aircraft to spy on the U.S. is beyond ridiculous. No one else has that level
of technology. Even the U.S. government itself can just barely afford it.

------
silentbicycle
If we successfully investigate them, they're not _U._ F.O.s anymore!

------
steveplace
Maybe then they could find all the weather balloons I lost.

------
DanielBMarkham
Of course these things should be investigated. Would we want the Iranians to
investigate unknown aerial objects in their skies with little radar return?
Probably not, but it's the smart thing to do.

I love UFOs because they represent transient, non-reproducible aerial
phenomenon. Yet during the times we make observations, it seems we're able to
do so in a variety of spectra. It gets directly into the question of what
reality is. Is it what credible witnesses perceive? Well, credible witnesses
can mis-interpret phenomenon. But if we don't have credible witnesses, we've
only got reproducible experiments, which obviously doesn't work with transient
phenomenon. Does that mean we have nothing of value here? No -- that's crazy
talk. When people see things, their observations have to mean _something_.

Some folks talk about finding materials. I'm not sure that isn't changing the
subject -- the point is how we deal with unknown aerial phenomenon, not
objects found on the ground. Heck -- it all could be swamp gas for all I know.

------
time_management
I worry more about asteroid impacts, which we should develop a program to
prepare for, than I do about "green men".

~~~
maximilian
I'm pretty sure that NASA actually does worry about asteroid impacts and has
guys at JPL working on ideas.

