Hacker News Reader

Comment by admissionsguy | Hacker News Reader

Sadly, this doesn't look promising. At all.

> In the exclusive report, The New York Times detailed how the mysterious government program began in 2007 with support from then-Nevada Senator Harry Reid. The allotted budget reportedly went to an aerospace research entity run by a Robert Bigelow, billionaire businessman and a longtime friend to the senator.

I would love if there was something exciting and real behind it, but what is more likely:

- plain old corruption, or

- plain old corruption + alien or alien-like technology?

View on HN

Been following this for years. This is pretty much it.

Bigelow has been a ufo crank for ages, and as he's a billionaire that's buddies with a senator was able to arrange for pentagon funding for some of his crank friends. That went about as well as expected. After they lost that revenue source, they befriended the blink182 guy to keep going. They're just hoping they'll get another pentagon handout. For all their bluster when asked to put up or shut up they've got nothing.

The actual footage and pilot accounts are consistent with submarine launched weather balloons, halo artifacts on IRST systems, and similar banal explanations.

Edit:

An example video of how the tic tac's motion is consistent with gimbal motion, not an actual object rotating: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Btns91W5J8

And Tyler is sometimes problematic, but here he mentions his sources: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/28640/could-some-of-th...

> The actual footage and pilot accounts are consistent with submarine launched weather balloons, halo artifacts on IRST systems, and similar banal explanations.

This is totally incorrect. There is nothing balloon like or halo artifact like about the tic-tac and Fravor's description. It's just not true.

I agree that many of the people around the ufo phenomenon are cranks and liars, but that doesn't mean everyone is or that all sightings and eye witness testimony are fake or lies or misunderstandings.

What fravor and people on the nimitz described is nothing like what you lumped everything under, it's just not. If you want to call them all liars too, that's fine, but if not, what they described, the eyewitness accounts are not what you described.

Please calm down. I didn't call anyone a liar. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. That applies to naval aviators as well.

See the links in my edit for what I'm referring to.

Again though you seem unaware of what is being claimed. It wasn't just eyewitness testimony.

> The actual footage and pilot accounts are consistent with submarine launched weather balloons, halo artifacts on IRST systems, and similar banal explanations.

Consistent according to whom? And is that already a forgone conclusion?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com