
UFO Existence 'Proven Beyond Reasonable Doubt': Former Head Of Pentagon Program - n-exploit
http://www.newsweek.com/ufo-existence-proven-beyond-reasonable-doubt-says-former-head-pentagon-alien-758293
======
narrator
So let's assume this is real for a moment. It's either the "breakaway
civilization"[1], otherwise known as the secret space program or it must be
the Strugatsky's "Roadside Picnic"[2] scenario.

In support of "Roadside Picnic", if they've been hanging around all these
years and just making the ocassional look-around and flybys without landing on
the white house lawn and asking us to join the Interstellar Federation, we
must be extremely unimpressive. Basically, life is common in the universe. We
are a somewhat interesting tourist attraction and pit stop on the way to alpha
centauri or whatever, but not really that special. They get here, pick up
water and air maybe, take some pictures, some dna samples and fly off to
wherever they were on their way to. Everything we have here they have in a
million other places all around the galaxy.

The breakaway civilization seems more plausible if one assumes that travelling
interstellar distances is flat out impossible though. However, there could be
a mix of the two...

Now if this is all just a bug on the windshield "swamp gas", I understand the
downvotes, but otherwise please tell me how it's not one or the other given
the evidence.

1.[http://www.theeventchronicle.com/study/breakaway-
civilizatio...](http://www.theeventchronicle.com/study/breakaway-civilization-
means-us-2/#)

2.[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roadside_Picnic](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roadside_Picnic)

~~~
bufferoverflow
There are other options, if you're talking about the latest UFO video:

3) equipment failure

4) mass delusion

5) error in judgement

6) the creator of the matrix messing / debugging

7) government or private company testing a new type of propulsion

Now look at all these options rationally, which ones are more likely?

The problem with the UFO evidence is, it's shitty every single time. With 4K
cameras in cheap smartphones, 50x optical zoom cheap consumer cameras, cheap
telescopes widely available, our UFO videos haven't gotten any better.

~~~
runeks
> The problem with the UFO evidence is, it's shitty every single time.

Of course it is. The greater the clarity of the footage, the lower the
probability that the filmed object will remain unidentified (as in
Unidentified Flying Object).

If you’re on the look for unidentified things, how could anything but unclear
evidence be useful?

~~~
Houshalter
Even when people do get clear video, people just accuse it of being a drone or
CGI. Video evidence means shit in 2017.

~~~
bufferoverflow
That's not entirely true. Cameras are starting to introduce video signing. At
least there's a chance to prove the source was filmed with camera X, if its
public key is known. It would be cool if camera manufacturers had a public API
for that too.

Example:

[http://www.urbanalarm.com/knowledge-base/2016/digital-
chain-...](http://www.urbanalarm.com/knowledge-base/2016/digital-chain-of-
custody-for-mobotix-video-cameras)

~~~
runeks
> At least there's a chance to prove the source was filmed with camera X, if
> its public key is known.

To be fair, the only thing that can be proven is that it was either filmed
with that camera, or someone has extracted the private key from the device (or
just tricked the signing chip to sign a custom data packet).

------
hliyan
I went through the following sources, and assuming that there is no lying
involved, I'm having some difficulty explaining the observations:

1\. [https://theaviationist.com/2017/12/17/u-s-department-of-
defe...](https://theaviationist.com/2017/12/17/u-s-department-of-defense-
video-shows-unknown-object-intercepted-by-u-s-navy-super-hornet-and-we-have-
no-idea-what-it-was/)

2\. [https://fightersweep.com/1460/x-files-
edition/](https://fightersweep.com/1460/x-files-edition/)

The difficulties:

1\. Multiple corroborating observations - radar contact, two sets of aircraft
crews visual observations, one set of FLIR footage

2\. Very high acceleration and deceleration - powered descent from 80K feet to
20 feet in a matter of seconds; high G turns and acceleration, BUT with no
visible high temperature engine exhaust visible on FLIR footage. It's possible
to mask engine exhaust and it's possible to achieve very high G's, but I can't
imagine how to achieve both simultaneously.

Theories:

Assuming that there is no lying involved, based on (1) we can safely assume
that there _were_ actual physical flying objects in the area. However, before
we go off-Earth, I think we should look at propulsion systems that do not rely
on thermal expansion of gases.

1\. What if it's just an extremely powerful electric propellor based drone?

2\. What if it can achieve burst acceleration by releasing compressed gases
(which actually reduces temperature)?

~~~
tristanj
Here is another UFO incident from another country (Belgium) with multiple
corroborating observations and very high acceleration/deceleration:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_UFO_wave](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_UFO_wave)

The evidence includes:

1\. Statements by thirty different groups of witnesses, three separate groups
of police officers, documenting the sight of a large object flying at low
altitude. An estimated 13,500 people on the ground saw the object, of which
2,600 filed written statements describing in detail what they saw.

2\. Detection on radar of the object from two F-16 Fighter jets scrambled to
intercept the object

3\. Secondary detection of the object from ground radar at a nearby military
airfield

4\. Data from the F-16s suggesting near impossible maneuvers. Quoting
wikipedia:

"During the first radar lock, the target accelerated from 240 km/h to over
1,770 km/h while changing altitude from 2,700 m to 1,500 m, then up to 3,350 m
before descending to almost ground level – the first descent of more than 900
m taking less than two seconds. Similar maneuvers were observed during both
subsequent radar locks. On no occasion were the F-16 pilots able to make
visual contact with the targets [NB: it was around midnight hence poor
visibility] and at no point, despite the speeds involved, was there any
indication of a sonic boom."

5\. A low quality photo, which may have been faked.

With regards to the evidence presented, I find it very difficult to come up
with a convincing explanation of this incident.

~~~
taneq
Sounds like a cluster of balloons with directional radar reflectors on it? So
what you're seeing is not a single rapidly moving source, but multiple
stationary point sources each being detected intermittently?

~~~
tristanj
Explanation yes. Convincing explanation no. It _could_ have been caused by
balloons. Balloons can't fly at 2000km/h, nor accelerate at 100g, so for the
ballon hypothesis to work you'd have to assume there was also a major
malfunction in the two F-16 lock-on systems. You'd also have to assume there
was a major failure in the military ground radar system.

However, when you make those assumptions, that opens up a can of worms for
other possible explanations. Assuming there was sensor system malfunction, the
incident _could also_ be explained though a flock of helicopters flying
around. Or it could have been several NSA spy planes flying around. I've seen
both those explanations put forth as an explanation for what happened in
Belgium.

I don't believe it's possible to disprove either your balloon hypothesis nor
the helicopter hypothesis. There's just not enough evidence to make any
convincing explanation.

~~~
kamaal
Its also a little hard to believe the systems malfunction theory.

How is it that the systems from various departments of the government. Each of
which are totally independent of each other, suddenly all malfunction at once
at the same time, and the event happens, and then again the systems get back
to functioning perfectly fine?

------
whatshisface
I'm seeing a lot of comments here beginning with something to the effect of,
"assuming there's no lying involved."

Well, assuming there's no lying involved, the NSA never tracked us, Iraq had
WMDs, and Bill Clinton did not have sex with that woman.

There's a broader epistemological problem afoot here: the NSA could easily
design a flawed zero-knowledge proof mechanism that I would never see a flaw
in. Likewise, it's always going to be easier to fake a video of magitek than
it will be to invent it for real. As a result it's essentially impossible to
believe these stories under any circumstances short of an actual leak of the
magitek.

~~~
ern
Iraqi WMDs are an interesting case _against_ broad government conspiracies.
Before the invasion, the evidence was weak and fragmentary. After the
invasion, it would have been a lot easier (and less embarrassing) to fake the
WMDs if they had the capability. The fact that they couldn’t tells me that
they aren’t good at high profile hoaxes of physical evidence with lots of
witnesses.

~~~
wallace_f
Similarly the Gulf of Tonkin incident was lied about and also resulted in LBJ
being granted war powers without congressional approval--even though the
incident was also easily dismissed as false. If anything, it served as a
blueprint that these two easy tricks could be used again--like in Iraq. And in
both cases, they got everything they wanted and no one held them accountable.
Why would they need to cover anything up if no one holds them accountable?
Focusing on a cover up might have a Streissand effect. So I do think there are
broad government conspiracies... The NSA surveillance was a conspiracy theory
until recently.

~~~
evgen
> The NSA surveillance was a conspiracy theory until recently.

NSA surveillance was a conspiracy theory “until recently”? Really? Bamford’s
_The Puzzle Palace_ came out in 1982. We have known about the NSA (known, not
‘suspected’) since before Edward Snowden was born. People in the crypto and
infosec community have considered them the top threat for decades. Actual
techniques and processes are news when verified, but please do not try to
suggest that either the existence of nor extent of NSA activity were in any
way surprising or considered a conspiracy theory.

~~~
wallace_f
In my opinion this is like me saying: Greider's _The Secrets of the Temple_
came out in '87\. People have similarly considered the central bank a top
threat for hundreds of years. It's so laughably obviously a tool of the
plutocracy, but just as Clapper testified before congress and other reputable
sources had claimed the NSA was not conducting domestic surveillance, as is
the case with the Fed's missdeeds. Just have a look at the Fed's website
yourself(1). They always try to say, in roundabout ways, that they are not
creating money out of thin air, but that is exactly what they do: when the
Fed's balance sheet ballooned after 2008 by over 4 trillion dollars--where do
people think they got 4 trillion dollars from? That's 4 actual trillion
dollars--not being snarky here.

So while I can somewhat agree with you, but I hope you can see my point about
what gets labelled as a conspiracy doesn't matter if a lot of reputable people
like Bernie Sanders, JFK, Ron Paul, Aaron Swartz, etc have already called
foul.

Anyways the EFF has a useful timeline for NSA spying:
[https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying/timeline](https://www.eff.org/nsa-
spying/timeline)

1 -
[https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/money_12853.htm](https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/money_12853.htm)

~~~
antonvs
> They always try to say, in roundabout ways, that they are not creating money
> out of thin air

How else would one create money?

~~~
zaphod4prez
By acquiring whatever backs the money and printing money that represents it.
In other words, the treasury would buy gold from somewhere else, and create
money representing that value. This is how our monetary system worked when it
was gold- & silver-backed. Now it's a fiat system, where there is no reserve
of some asset held to back the currency ("out of thin air").

~~~
antonvs
That "backing" is nonsensical. A currency is a proxy for the wealth in an
economy. All that using gold or silver to "back" it does is cause the price of
that commodity to rise to reflect the size of the entire economy.

As such, the "intrinsic" value of the commodity is irrelevant - it may as well
be paper. Which is why that's what it now is.

------
dragonwriter
The existence of unidentified flying objects—observed aerial phenomena without
a contemporaneous clear explanation—has never been in even the slightest bit
of doubt.

What has been (and remains) in considerable doubt is particular proposed
identifications for some subsets of UFOs, particularly, the explanation that
some are extraterrestrial spacecraft.

And the ET explanation has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt; it is,
_at best_ , for some UFO incidents among the explanations which cannot be
unequivocally rejected based on existing evidence.

~~~
emerged
Even if I personally saw a green little man flying around my living room, my
mind would more likely assume it was government technology masquerading as an
alien.

It'd take something pretty incredible, orders of magnitude more advanced than
I could phathom humans creating, to convince me of legit alien intelligent
life.

------
vadimberman
While both the incident and the program are interesting enough to warrant
further inquiry (let alone declassification), the kind of organisations that
Elizondo is associated with, do not make him sound credible.

This is "To The Stars" association, cofounded by him and Tom DeLonge:
[https://dpo.tothestarsacademy.com/#how-we-
work](https://dpo.tothestarsacademy.com/#how-we-work). A promise to invent
"beamed energy propulsion" and "advanced electrogravitic propulsion" already
makes me scratch my head. I see that there are lots of retired top brass
there, like the former head of Skunk Works. There is Gary Nolan, who
diligently analysed the so-called "Starchild" skull to conclude that it's
probably nothing special. But then, there is Hal Puthoff
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_E._Puthoff](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_E._Puthoff)),
of the Stargate ("Men who stare at goats") and "zero-point energy" fame.
Finally, while there is nothing wrong with DeLonge as a musician, the pairing
of a UFO enthusiast musician and former DC functionaries does not make a lot
of sense.

I mean... at this point Elizondo is offering one short video with the clarity
of a Rorschach test, and extraordinary claims.

The figures at the top of the To The Stars page guarantee there will be more
coverage on the topic.

~~~
kneel
I really wanted to believe this was real until I went to the 'to the stars
academy' website. Luis Elizondo is on their board.

This 'academy' and all its directors have a huge financial incentive to
convince others that they're onto something.

The top of their front page has a large 'invest' button. You can purchase
shares in this 'academy'.

This reeks of a scam, or at least a bunch of psuedo-scientific conspiracy
fueled 'research' that will never amount to anything other than begging for
more funds and blaming shortcomings on gov coverups.

What are people going to do with their UFO research shares?...

------
booleandilemma
There are 4.77 billion people walking around with a camera[1] in their pocket,
so until we see something that doesn’t look like the bigfoot video from the
60s, I’m going to continue to believe that this recent alien talk is our
government trying to distract us from the real issues.

Also, usually when something real happens, like a meteor falling in Russia,
it’s caught by multiple, independent cameras. Show me a UFO video filmed by
different people from different angles.

1\. [https://www.statista.com/statistics/274774/forecast-of-
mobil...](https://www.statista.com/statistics/274774/forecast-of-mobile-phone-
users-worldwide/)

~~~
leephillips
It's not "our government", it's one guy who's miffed that his office was
defunded. And his quotes in the article make no sense to me; I can't parse the
syntax and don't know what he's trying to say. It he's being quoted correctly,
he sounds addle-headed.

------
mankash666
If this object indeed exists, it being a covert US government agency project
is highly likely.

So, in my opinion, one arm of the government is being funded to investigate
the covert operations of another, without the former knowing about it.

Like in many narcotics themed movies and TV series inspired by real events,
the DEA spends considerable time and effort, only to find the CIA
masterminding an operation

------
everdev
UFO != Aliens

I think many would agree that there are unidentified flying objects beyond a
reasonable doubt.

My guess is that just as it's hard to identify something in the distance, most
of these experiences are from distance with poor resolution for the simple
reason that if you were to get close enough you'd be able to tell what it was
which is probably something other than an extraterrestrial spaceship.

------
cirgue
Whatever your position on UFOs, this guy is a publicity crank. He gave an
interview with NPR where he implied that quantum teleportation was an
instantaneous form of communication and seems to conflate the idea of
unidentified flying objects and alien spacecraft.

------
rjromero
The odds we encounter aliens are remarkably low, but what are the odds we
encounter aliens with a similar evolution pattern, that is, reproductive-
driven intelligence and similar somatic senses?

We could stumble upon some weird aseuxal amoeba type beings who don't even
have a personal ego or concept of private property, they just float around on
organic ships and communicate through flows of slimy alien-goo. Whew, what a
bummer would that be.

~~~
PoachedSausage
ET finally shows up and it turns out they're Marxists, that is really going to
upset quite few people.

------
sidcool
I have an inkling that these press releases are aimed at ramping up to the
news of existence of Aliens by the governments. Sort of delivering the news
slowly.

~~~
gmueckl
I am not trusting the source, though. The Pentagon has a history of nutjob
projects and fishy research results (in addition to some solid stuff from
DARPA).

------
Apocryphon
Well I suppose it's significant that the Pentagon confirms that these are
actually flying objects and not swamp gas from a weather balloon trapped in a
thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus.

~~~
tigershark
Where did the pentagon confirmed this?

~~~
Apocryphon
UFO literally stands for unidentified flying object. So meaning these weren't
optical illusions or visual hallucinations.

People are saying that UFO just means an unidentified flying object (not alien
spacecraft as in the popular meaning) and so this is a non-story. My joke is
that even if UFOs just turn out to be flocks of birds or unreported aircraft,
it's still at least a little significant, because it means something's up
there.

------
deepnotderp
From bufferoverflow's comment: The problem with the UFO evidence is, it's
shitty every single time. With 4K cameras in cheap smartphones, 50x optical
zoom cheap consumer cameras, cheap telescopes widely available, our UFO videos
haven't gotten any better.

the same situation with loch ness monsters, Sasquatch, etc.

~~~
brango
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSZ2mSnaC44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSZ2mSnaC44)

It's not perfect, but shows the same object from multiple angles.

~~~
ilitirit
[https://www.livescience.com/12826-jerusalem-ufo-
hoax.html](https://www.livescience.com/12826-jerusalem-ufo-hoax.html)

~~~
brango
Damn video editing software :-(

------
ilitirit
This does pose a conundrum for UFO conspiracy theorists though. i.e. Why would
the Pentagon spend millions on a UFO program if, as conspiracy theorists
believe, they've had evidence about them since at least the Roswell incident?
Bob Lazar in fact has claimed to have actually worked on these craft and have
witnessed humans fly them.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Lazar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Lazar)

The interviews with him about this are on Youtube.

So either, the US government knew about them but didn't tell the Pentagon; or
the Pentagon had no such program; this program was meant to spread
misinformation; neither the US gov nor the Pentagon ever had any evidence of
UFOs.

------
digi_owl
I see some talk about radar measurements, and i find myself wondering how some
early stealth tests would look on such equipment.

Could perhaps the speed or altitude readings shift drastically as the vehicle
banked and thus exposed more or less reflective surfaces to the radar source?

------
rdtsc
Yes, without a doubt we have not been able to identify these flying objects.
Headline sounds impressive but it isn't really. Just because there is
something we saw and couldn't identify it doesn't mean it's aliens.

------
friedButter
UFO = Unidentified Flying Object

Its fair to say that some flying objects would be unidentified after all

------
joering2
I'm not concerned about aliens, as much as I am concerned about all the hype
we are experiencing recently related to extra-terrestrials.

For decades government came short of making fun of people who believed in
"green man from outer space" ... now all of sudden all this hype in media
makes me wonder... is someone in gov capable of pulling strings on taxpayers'
dollars are preparing some huge tax bill to shove in peoples faces, [call it
for example AARA (Affordable Alien Research Act)] just to find another reason
to take more from tax payers pockets? Otherwise I don't get all this fear-
mongering... anyone?

~~~
GVIrish
It could well be propaganda aimed at securing funding for pie in the sky
military spending. But consider what would be the logical course of action if
you're a government who comes across evidence of extraterrestrials, especially
in decades past.

First, you have to weigh whether telling the general public will cause panic.
I don't know that if the US govt told people aliens were visiting in the
1960's, people would've taken it well.

Then think about how your adversaries might respond. It stands to reason that
if any country were able to gain control of alien technology either by making
contact, observation or recovering crashed spacecraft, it could dramatically
alter the balance of power for the next century or more. Imagine alien
technology that allowed a Nation to build aircraft/spacecraft that could out
accelerate and out maneuver any ballistic missile. All of a sudden mutually
assured destruction falls apart and nuclear weapons are rendered obsolete by
anyone without alien tech.

So if you're a Nation state that knows about aliens, you'd probably want to
keep it under wraps and one way you'd do that is discredit any public reports
while quietly trying to figure out everything you could.

------
planck01
I am obviously very skeptical about these kinds of claims, especially if
extraterrastiality is claimed. There is nothing in the article supporting this
and there are so many extraordinary events that have had to occur for this to
hold. From breaking our understanding of physical speedlimits, to motifs for
hiding and appearing on very specific sites.

I always love the Mitchell and Webb sketches that show the absurdity of these
kind of claims:
[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=59zLZ6PpeSA](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=59zLZ6PpeSA)

------
ninjamayo
The whole assumption/connection of UFOs to extraterrestrials has to be
eliminated in order to understand what these objects truly are. For some
reason for decades the majority of people simply cannot think in a scientific
way about UFOs, it's like they are blocked. Yes there are exceptions of people
but they usually get ridiculed. If we start from the premise that UFOs exist,
stop thinking aliens and see what else is there then maybe we will get to the
truth. Other options we can look into:

1) Someone or some people have the technology to build these. We simply don't
know who they are and what they represent

2) It's a natural phenomenon that can be explained but needs proper
investigation

3) They are drones from our planet but maybe built at a different time
remnants or an old civilisation. Do we understand the entire history of earth
and it's past civilisations? Maybe yes but also maybe we are missing something

4) Theory of multiverses and other dimensions could be something to think
about

5) Or they are simply projections to our brains sophisticated enough to make
us think these things actually exist

It could be none of the above and just governments messing around with us in
order to see how we react but this has to be one of the most complex and long
term projects any government has got into. Point is more people need to look
at this scientifically rather than dismiss all the evidence straight away.

------
thrill
Aliens. Smart enough to transit the Universe. Not smart enough to have even
human level stealth.

~~~
V-2
They might not care that much. What difference has it made so far, after all?
Maybe they settle for "stealthy enough for practical purposes".

------
meri_dian
Unless everyone involved with this is lying, something very strange is going
on.

I mean, just let it sink in. We have high level government recognition that
objects with incredibly advanced flight capabilities exist and we have no idea
what they are or where they come from.

How do you dismiss this? When the encounter in the recently released video
involved multiple military assets monitoring the UFO with a high level of
precision that pretty much rules out explanations that rely on illusions or
other misleading sensory phenomena?

~~~
akhilcacharya
I’m skeptical of the ET hypothesis, or even the advanced Air Force research
tech hypothesis, but one thing has puzzled me about the released video. It
only shows the object rotating and then is cut off - what happened after?

------
Istribitel
Take away the background story and the audio. You're left with what looks like
a moth in the optics.

------
ap3
This is not the pentagon but the former pentagon employee. Doesn’t carry as
much weight as the pentagon implies

Would like to see international confirmation - Russia and China admitting that
there are flying objects that can’t be identified to rule out some advanced
esrthly technology.

------
lolc
And again grainy footage of an UFO. Some people conclude from this that
unknown life crosses oceans of vacuum only to skip around in our tiny puddle
of an atmosphere.

But lifeforms capable of bridging light-years would look nothing like us. Why
assume they would enjoy a ride in our atmosphere?

------
interfixus
I shall remain sceptical until presented with some kind of _highly_
irrefutable evidence.

But assuming for the sake of argument that some of these observations are
actually founded in somthing real, then where _on earth_ does the idea of
aliens enter the picture? Bugs or vira in the metaprogram sound no more
farfetched, nor does my personal favourite, that it's just our great^n
grandchildren visiting from a more or less distant future.

------
amazeon
Total mecca for UFO media.
[https://www.gaia.com/search?q=ufo](https://www.gaia.com/search?q=ufo)

also I mean this shouldn't this be more compelling than some grainy video or
is it so WTF that we just auto-NO.

[https://www.gaia.com/series/unearthing-
nazca](https://www.gaia.com/series/unearthing-nazca)

------
tudorw
I have not checked yet, but maybe someone else is aware of the other news
story this wave of headline making news is burying?

------
poisonarena
this is the hacker news title I have been waiting for my whole life...

~~~
vixen99
But it's merely pointing to a lack of identification on the part of some
flying objects! I'm rather looking forward to something more exciting.

------
ggggtez
Count one vote for: Mass delusion. Being educated doesn't immunize you against
seeing patterns that aren't there.

------
NiklasMort
some more info on that video:
[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/us/politics/unidentified-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/us/politics/unidentified-
flying-object-navy.html)

~~~
joering2
paywall :(

------
Houshalter
This is a really interesting video on old cases of UFOs that convinced me
there might be something to them.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fb7T1v_VHpE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fb7T1v_VHpE)

------
emmelaich
What _I_ find difficult to believe is that presumably intelligent people put
any store in these ridiculous pictures _at all_. There's a a thousand
explanations, most of which would not occur to most people.

Let me add this comment that I made to a dupe on this UFO thing a little while
back:

 _" I can give my own example of an utterly astonishing gob-smacking sight
which turned out to have a fairly simple explanation. I invite people to
speculate on what it was... About 7am I was travelling in a ferry on Sydney
Harbour about 400m east of the bridge. I saw a giant (50m diameter?) golden
glowing ball hover on the other (west) side of the bridge. It was definitely
not on the bridge. It maintained its position for over 30 seconds.

Then it changed and the actuality was revealed."_

Follow this link for the discussion and explanation.
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15948600](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15948600)

------
rurban
"First material evidence please, then you get some more money".

They spent their entire first budget on a warehouse near Las Vegas to store
such potential material evidence. Without any convincing material evidence. So
what else does he want?

------
sunseb
It reminds me this great scene from the movie "Men In Black":

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vmGcngRA24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vmGcngRA24)

------
scotty79
> “In my opinion, if this was a court of law, we have reached the point of
> ‘beyond reasonable doubt.’”

...which, if true, should make us weep about state of US justice system.

------
sunseb
It's like you are walking in the woods and you find a tribe of monkeys : why
would you interact with them?

~~~
danaliv
Who will be the Jane Goodall of aliens?

------
mekazu
Is this reddit now?

------
redial
To paraphrase the great Mitch Hedberg...the problem is not the _evidence_ ,
the real problem is that aliens _are_ blurry.

------
gcb0
unidentified doesn't equate extra terrestrial.

------
TheRealPomax
To save people some time: "The existence of UFOs had been “proved beyond
reasonable doubt,” according the head of the secret Pentagon program that
analyzed the mysterious aircrafts." and given that UFOs by _definition_ exist
(because we needed a term for Unidentified Flying Objects): no, actually, the
title and this article are drivel. Thanks for the clickbait.

~~~
choxi
Yes, but the Pentagon official they interviewed is saying he believes that
_extraterrestrial_ UFOs exist:

> I hate to use the term UFO but that’s what we’re looking at,” he added. “I
> think it’s pretty clear this is not us, and it’s not anyone else, so no one
> has to ask questions where they’re from.

So it's not really misleading. I think he believes that aliens exist and have
visited Earth.

~~~
wavefunction
"It's not us, and it's not anyone else."

I might take this more seriously if the guy said "It's not any humans."

~~~
servsys
Who else is there other than humans?

------
demarq
Why is Pentagon in the title. At what point did the pentagon confirm the above
title.

~~~
dang
The title was rewritten in a misleading way ("'UFO Existence Proven Beyond a
Resonable Doubt' – Pentagon"). We've restored the original title, or rather a
shortened version of it to fit the 80 char limit while preserving its meaning.

------
nisten
Let's do a first principles analysis. If alien's were present here in
biological form, having superior intelligence capabilities, they would have
already taken control of us. Given the stupid amount of pollution we keep
outputting to the planet, this is definitely not the case. There's no
intelligent alien life here because it's still us in control.

Could it be an alien drone though? Yes.

If it was it means it came here either by a lightsail, or some other sub-
lightspeed travel technology. Or it was dropped through blackwhole or
something and it just showed up.

If it teleported here, then it probably has next level quantum tech and
whatever. It could've teleported back a signal, taken over all communications
and they would have already physically taken over our planet. So that's not
likely the case, unless the drone is just capable of surviving faster than
light travel but is still limited by the same physical problems in integrated
circuits and power generations that we already know.

Okay.Now, if it traveled at sub-lightspeed it's likely to have taken at least
a few thousand light years at minimum ( given by our observation of what
planets are close to us ) to get here. More likely a few hundred thousand.
That means another few hundred thousand to send a signal back. In that case
that they would try to colonize us before we get too powerful, by sending a
colony ship or something, which would take even more time. We're likely to go
extinct on our own before that happens so there's no point worrying about
aliens. This is assuming that they've reached the same physical limits in
technology that we have. Those being the speed of travel limit, and quantum
computing not being Turing complete. Meaning this drone can not break
cryptography, or run an overpowering AI that takes over all our communications
and controls us.

~~~
jotm
Why are some people obsessed with aliens conquering Earth?

If you have the technology to do interstellar flight, surely you have advanced
refining/processing tech, and you can get raw materials anywhere - the other
planets and asteroid belt nearby are full of everything. You probably have
robots to do all your work, too.

There's no need to enslave some species to make them work for you or risk
losing anything in a potential fight (pretty sure even advanced aliens would
be wary of nuclear weapons) or deal with gravity/atmospheric/natural
conditions of this planet for some resources that can be found elsewhere.

If anything (as we kind of learned by now), dealing via peaceful means would
be way more productive. Just provide some high tech or rare minerals and we'll
gladly mine the shit out of the planet ourselves.

~~~
nisten
If they study our past signals they will see that we've knowingly caused the
extinctions of other living beings and frequently make even our species
suffer. Which means, in the event that we get technologically capable enough
to reach another planet with intelligent life, we're very likely to do the
same thing to them. Therefore the only logical choice for that alien
civilization are to either try and take control of our planet or just outright
wipe us out. No?

------
ShabbosGoy
> In his resignation letter to Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, he asked, “Why
> aren’t we spending more time and effort on this issue? There remains a vital
> need to ascertain capability and intent of these phenomena for the benefit
> of the armed forces and the nation."

I stopped reading after that.

~~~
dang
Please don't post unsubstantive comments to HN, especially not when they're
also internet tropes.

