Hacker News Reader

Comment by kipchak | Hacker News Reader

There are a few explanations I can think of, and each of them is rather strange.

1. The whole thing is a dis-info campaign to hook a near adversary into thinking we have spooky next gen technology. This all being public makes me lean this way. Similarly perhaps this is being used as a cover story for some impressive but not physics defying drones, similarly to how "UFOs" were used as an diversion away from projects like Mogul or the f-117 and B-2.

2. Pais is a conman, scamming the military into funding his fraudulent tech.

3. Pais is a breakthrough genius. The Tech is real and in years it will be revealed to the public.

4. The "Bob Lazar" option. "UFOs" as in foreign objects exist and occasionally crash, and are studied and reverse engineered when they do.

It's interesting to note that Pais was recently transferred to submarine command.

View on HN

An omission: I did not complete my Punnet square, but you cover it exhaustively. That #2 is a possibility, something far beyond my ability to flesh out. A chance discovery unable to be explained by the discoverer. It reminds me of a Harry Turtledove short story, "The Road Not Taken," about first contact where we accidentally skip over a common technological development. PDF: http://www.eyeofmidas.com/scifi/Turtledove_RoadNotTaken.pdf

Also re: #4 - for what it's worth (and a great entertaining read), Harry Turtledove covers that one too in his "In the Balance" book, where alien invaders show up during WWII. Highly recommend it.

>It's interesting to note that Pais was recently transferred to submarine command.

That benthic treaty ain't gonna write itself, mr. howard.

> Pais is a breakthrough genius. The Tech is real and in years it will be revealed to the public.

Or it's already installed on Nimitz-class carriers (with huge tires tucked into hidden underwater pods). The navy is just waiting for a serious war to warrant revealing land-carriers capable of driving hundreds of miles inland.

If not, at least when they decommission the old carriers we can have some serious monster truck rallies.

This explains the Theodore Roosevelt COVID outbreak. Sone sailers probably started blabbing about the giant tires and antigravity machinery and needed to be silenced. Captain Crozier was either also talking too much, or his removal is part of an elaborate double bluff coverup.

What a piece of junk this ship turned out to be. - Global of the SDF-1

Yeah I remember on the Bob Lazar Joe Rogan episode he kept saying it was not metal and made of some ceramic.

But within 2 hrs in he had to correct himself by saying there's no way you could communitcate via radio because of the supposed conditions keeping it aloft silently.

Another youtube video saying his car was powered by hydrogen, but not stored under pressure because apparently his diy particle accelerator can allow him to produce lithium-6 (not sure about isotope here, but not available public sale) which is the sponge like material in the tanks, metal hydride.

I didn't indulge in going too deep, but another article from the same series on The Drive explores China's filing of similar patents, imagining it could be a form of (low effort?) counter-propaganda.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/28729/docs-show-navy-g...

What do you make of this HN-comment then? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23060010

Part of the ongoing Psy-Op, "beliver", or what?

Made me think of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_mercury :-)

Who knows?

Honestly my intuition is more along the lines of something like the linked comment, but because I lack the technical acumen to for example read the patent and make sense of it my suspicion is I'm being taken for a ride. That being said the amount of money that goes to SAPs and USAPs is mind boggling, so it also seems plausible it's real. Perhaps that's the desired effect?

Also I recall a comment chain on Fark between two seemingly knowledgeable commentors that claim to be involved researchers and discuss some of the things in your linked comment, I'll see if I can find them.

Aha, found them.

The comments of "erewhon" (I think the same guy goes by "Tom Bedlam" on other sites) and "jvoight0205" are particularly interesting. https://m.fark.com/comments/1386759/11863499 https://m.fark.com/comments/1203844/9730116 https://m.fark.com/comments/4371964/50871026

Giggle... A site i haven't seen in a while :)

Thx

Phew. What a ride. Dozens of wikilinks bookmarked, hours not absolutely wasted, learned some potentially useful things.

1. It would need to be a _very_ stupid adversary.

This type of disinformation has a history; look at so-called "red mercury" during the Cold War.

An adversary does not need to actually believe everything you say, in order to decide that it's worth looking into what you're trying to hide. This distracts some amount of resources from other investigations, and potentially exposes some of their assets if you've built artificial channels for them to follow.

On the other hand, it's also potentially a great way to find the credible/gullible folks within your adversary, to which you could feed other misinformation later on.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com