6 ms·

My guess is it's the US military projecting. They've almost certainly got covert flying vehicles cruising around so naturally they'd want to know about any sigh

My guess is it's the US military projecting. They've almost certainly got covert flying vehicles cruising around so naturally they'd want to know about any sightings of their own craft, or an enemy doing the same thing in the airspace. What better way to gauge how well the tech is working than by crowdsourcing the sightings?

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
maxander 7y ago
Soon they’ll be A/B testing stealth designs. “Model AST—12-7 flying over NYC generated 23 reports of UFO sightings, whereas model TYR-X3 generated 5 along the same route; moving forward, we should adopt TYR-X3 for all chemtrail operations...”
- giancarlostoro 7y ago
  With everyone glued to smart phones it is getting easier and easier to be "stealthy"
  - RandomBacon 7y ago
    It's also a lot easier to get evidence.
  - DuskStar 7y ago
    There's actually schemes to detect stealth aircraft through the changes in signal strength they induce in cell phones below their flight path. Not precise enough for targeting, but good enough to put up a plane to confirm...
    - heavenlyblue 7y ago
      Assume this only covers stealth planes flying below the height of the base stations?
      - RandomBacon 7y ago
        Not necessarily, but I still doubt this would be successful in detecting a stealth plane.
      - squarefoot 7y ago
        Cell towers are too low to use them to detect a stealth plane passing in between their antennas and anything on the ground, but satellites could be used. We're surrounded by radio signals originating from the sky, so at least in theory the right equipment could detect a stealth plane not thanks to the radio waves it reflects but the ones it doesn't let pass through itself.
        heavenlyblue 7y ago
        It was a joke :)
    - RandomBacon 7y ago
      I suppose that's plausible, but is it realistic? What's the range of a cell phone signal? The signals from the cell towers will be aimed parallel with the ground. There is going to be an inverse square relationship with the signal strength and distance. A stealth plane is also more likely to be up way high too. The more signals there, the more populous the area, the more likely that a plane would be even higher. How many signals are needed for a disturbance to be noticed/tracked? Maybe if the stealth plane was 50,000ft or lower, but considering comercial traffic usually flies up to 39,000ft, and some private traffic at 45,000ft, you probably won't find stealth aircraft below 50,000ft.
      - DuskStar 7y ago
        > Maybe if the stealth plane was 50,000ft or lower, but considering comercial traffic usually flies up to 39,000ft, and some private traffic at 45,000ft, you probably won't find stealth aircraft below 50,000ft. F-117 service ceiling was 45,000 ft according to Wikipedia - B-2's is 50,000ft. Ironically, the B-2 has some design compromises to allow it to operate at low altitudes for penetrating strikes, as stealth wasn't quite as trusted when it was being designed - and low altitudes allow operating below the horizon from radar installations. (The B-21 renderings look like they've dropped those compromises - high altitude penetration only) I'll agree that using cell phones to detect the presence of stealth aircraft is more than a little dubious, though.
    - skunkworker 7y ago
      Passive Radar IIRC. Though I believe the 1999 F-117A shootdown in Yugoslavia was a result of the bomb-bay door detection.
rl3 7y ago
Nick Cook wrote a book in 2001 entitled The Hunt for Zero Point: Inside the Classified World of Antigravity. It's notable because Cook was an editor for Jane's Defense Weekly, a legendary and reputable defense publication of the utmost credibility. A few years ago in a thread similar to this I discussed[0] and dissected[1] the book. My conclusion was that Cook is mistaken, but given incidents like this, and the fact he later uncovered a black UAV program, I always wonder. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10957586 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10957586 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10971548 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10971548
- api 7y ago
  It's entirely possible that there have been secret R&D programs looking into such things. It's also possible that these programs were fruitless since there may not be such a thing or the energies required to access it may be way past our Kardashev ranking.
- feedbeef 7y ago
  It never hurts to wonder. If we assume the Tic Tac is a man made craft, it doesn't seem a far stretch to also assume it may employ antigravitics. Perhaps it can be traced back to Die Glocke [1]. Your linked HN posts also mention Hutchison, an interesting character who appears repeatedly down the rabbit hole, where you'll also discover Schauberger and Leedskalnin. There's a lot of smoke and mirrors in these topics, which often delve into conspiracy and pseudoscience, making it hard to discuss them without sounding like a crazy person. In any case, it's fascinating to ponder, even if it's all just science fiction. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_Glocke https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_Glocke
  - rl3 7y ago
    Per your link: >"Although no evidence of the veracity of Witkowski’s statements has been produced, they reached a wider audience when they were retold by British author Nick Cook, who added his own views to Witkowski’s statements in The Hunt for Zero Point.[4]" The WW2 "Bell" experiment narrative was actually my largest complaint with Cook's book. While it makes for a fantastic story that's pretty much screenplay material, it's very unlikely to be true.
remir 7y ago
There have been reports of UFO sightings for 50+ years. This is not a new phenomenon. There were reports of UFOs during WW2 (so called Foo Fighters). If this existed during WW2 it means it started development way before that. The implications that such level of technological advancement was available at that time, and is still under active funding and development today doesn't add up.
- kenneth 7y ago
  UFOs aren't all the same. Each sighting could be something different. A UFO just means "unidentified" — what might be flying unidentified today is very different from 50 years ago, given the technological advancement since.
- rl3 7y ago
  >If this existed during WW2 it means it started development way before that. The implications that such level of technological advancement was available at that time, and is still under active funding and development today doesn't add up. I tend to agree it doesn't fit, but one way of looking at it is, even if highly improbable: the fundamental physics breakthroughs were made back then, and ever since the craft have been updated with modern avionics and electronics suites.
mimixco 7y ago
The problem here is defying the "laws" of physics. Of course, we're probably wrong about them and the universe could very well be a multidimensional place, but so far as we know no plane or drone can fly that way.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

maxander 7y ago

Soon they’ll be A/B testing stealth designs. “Model AST—12-7 flying over NYC generated 23 reports of UFO sightings, whereas model TYR-X3 generated 5 along the same route; moving forward, we should adopt TYR-X3 for all chemtrail operations...”

giancarlostoro 7y ago
With everyone glued to smart phones it is getting easier and easier to be "stealthy"
- RandomBacon 7y ago
  It's also a lot easier to get evidence.
- DuskStar 7y ago
  There's actually schemes to detect stealth aircraft through the changes in signal strength they induce in cell phones below their flight path. Not precise enough for targeting, but good enough to put up a plane to confirm...
  - heavenlyblue 7y ago
    Assume this only covers stealth planes flying below the height of the base stations?
    - RandomBacon 7y ago
      Not necessarily, but I still doubt this would be successful in detecting a stealth plane.
    - squarefoot 7y ago
      Cell towers are too low to use them to detect a stealth plane passing in between their antennas and anything on the ground, but satellites could be used. We're surrounded by radio signals originating from the sky, so at least in theory the right equipment could detect a stealth plane not thanks to the radio waves it reflects but the ones it doesn't let pass through itself.
      - heavenlyblue 7y ago
        It was a joke :)
  - RandomBacon 7y ago
    I suppose that's plausible, but is it realistic? What's the range of a cell phone signal? The signals from the cell towers will be aimed parallel with the ground. There is going to be an inverse square relationship with the signal strength and distance. A stealth plane is also more likely to be up way high too. The more signals there, the more populous the area, the more likely that a plane would be even higher. How many signals are needed for a disturbance to be noticed/tracked? Maybe if the stealth plane was 50,000ft or lower, but considering comercial traffic usually flies up to 39,000ft, and some private traffic at 45,000ft, you probably won't find stealth aircraft below 50,000ft.
    - DuskStar 7y ago
      > Maybe if the stealth plane was 50,000ft or lower, but considering comercial traffic usually flies up to 39,000ft, and some private traffic at 45,000ft, you probably won't find stealth aircraft below 50,000ft. F-117 service ceiling was 45,000 ft according to Wikipedia - B-2's is 50,000ft. Ironically, the B-2 has some design compromises to allow it to operate at low altitudes for penetrating strikes, as stealth wasn't quite as trusted when it was being designed - and low altitudes allow operating below the horizon from radar installations. (The B-21 renderings look like they've dropped those compromises - high altitude penetration only) I'll agree that using cell phones to detect the presence of stealth aircraft is more than a little dubious, though.
  - skunkworker 7y ago
    Passive Radar IIRC. Though I believe the 1999 F-117A shootdown in Yugoslavia was a result of the bomb-bay door detection.

rl3 7y ago

Nick Cook wrote a book in 2001 entitled The Hunt for Zero Point: Inside the Classified World of Antigravity. It's notable because Cook was an editor for Jane's Defense Weekly, a legendary and reputable defense publication of the utmost credibility. A few years ago in a thread similar to this I discussed[0] and dissected[1] the book. My conclusion was that Cook is mistaken, but given incidents like this, and the fact he later uncovered a black UAV program, I always wonder. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10957586 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10957586 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10971548 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10971548

api 7y ago
It's entirely possible that there have been secret R&D programs looking into such things. It's also possible that these programs were fruitless since there may not be such a thing or the energies required to access it may be way past our Kardashev ranking.
feedbeef 7y ago
It never hurts to wonder. If we assume the Tic Tac is a man made craft, it doesn't seem a far stretch to also assume it may employ antigravitics. Perhaps it can be traced back to Die Glocke [1]. Your linked HN posts also mention Hutchison, an interesting character who appears repeatedly down the rabbit hole, where you'll also discover Schauberger and Leedskalnin. There's a lot of smoke and mirrors in these topics, which often delve into conspiracy and pseudoscience, making it hard to discuss them without sounding like a crazy person. In any case, it's fascinating to ponder, even if it's all just science fiction. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_Glocke https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_Glocke
- rl3 7y ago
  Per your link: >"Although no evidence of the veracity of Witkowski’s statements has been produced, they reached a wider audience when they were retold by British author Nick Cook, who added his own views to Witkowski’s statements in The Hunt for Zero Point.[4]" The WW2 "Bell" experiment narrative was actually my largest complaint with Cook's book. While it makes for a fantastic story that's pretty much screenplay material, it's very unlikely to be true.

remir 7y ago

There have been reports of UFO sightings for 50+ years. This is not a new phenomenon. There were reports of UFOs during WW2 (so called Foo Fighters). If this existed during WW2 it means it started development way before that. The implications that such level of technological advancement was available at that time, and is still under active funding and development today doesn't add up.

kenneth 7y ago
UFOs aren't all the same. Each sighting could be something different. A UFO just means "unidentified" — what might be flying unidentified today is very different from 50 years ago, given the technological advancement since.
rl3 7y ago
>If this existed during WW2 it means it started development way before that. The implications that such level of technological advancement was available at that time, and is still under active funding and development today doesn't add up. I tend to agree it doesn't fit, but one way of looking at it is, even if highly improbable: the fundamental physics breakthroughs were made back then, and ever since the craft have been updated with modern avionics and electronics suites.

mimixco 7y ago

The problem here is defying the "laws" of physics. Of course, we're probably wrong about them and the universe could very well be a multidimensional place, but so far as we know no plane or drone can fly that way.