News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program by valuearb on Saturday December 16, 2017 @11:55PM (#15944206)
Too bad no one at an entire airport had a camera or took a picture.
Re:The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program by pharke on Monday December 18, 2017 @06:24AM (#15950895)
Also, it wasn't seen by 'everyone at the airport'

>"The disc was visible for approximately five minutes and was seen by close to a dozen United Airlines employees, ranging from pilots to supervisors, who heard chatter on the radio and raced out to view it."

It also apparently was not visible on radar or visually from the control tower. Who cares if it was 'aliens' or not, it's a damned interesting phenomena that should be studied for it's own sake.

Re:The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program by jsmthrowaway on Sunday December 17, 2017 @12:49AM (#15944394)
To be fair, it was 2006, and "everybody's phone has a great camera" was several years off. The article does mention someone may have snagged it on a plain digital camera.

Not taking a side, just pointing that out.

Re:The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program by valuearb on Sunday December 17, 2017 @11:48AM (#15946439)
Phones had cameras back then. Disposable Cameras were available at every airport shop.

And Someone allegedly photographed it, but no one bothered to examine or release the photos?

Re:The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program by fapjacks on Sunday December 17, 2017 @07:34PM (#15948540)
Well, faced with all this suspicion and negativity, what incentive would anybody have to present their photos to the public? And so let's just scrap this whole incident at the airport. No pictures, no video, no UFO. There is still a substantial body of photographic, video, expert reliable witness accounts of unexplained phenomena happening in our skies going back decades. The government's chief skeptic guy that headed up Blue Book eventually changed his mind over the years in the face of this relatively small but very reliable subset of witness accounts [0].

The vast majority of people are looking at Venus or the moon or streetlights or drunken hallucinations. But we don't care about those people. We care about the 0.0003% (or whatever) of people that check all the boxes on a long list of reliability factors. And yet, that still isn't good enough for some people, because of the hugely negative pseudoscience context that this carries with it. "It's folklore!" In fact, I'll assert that a strange enough advanced aircraft could fly nuclear weapons over this country, and until our pilots shot it out of the sky and spread the wreckage across three states, it would hardly get any attention because of the context this subject carries.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Allen_Hynek#Change_of_opini...

Re:The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program by valuearb on Wednesday December 20, 2017 @12:21PM (#15971605)
What incentive? Huge incentives, obviously. This entire thread is a promotion to help a former government official kickstart a business to "research" this phenomenon, where his partner is contractually obligated to get paid $100,000 a year.
Re:The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program by chrisco255 on Wednesday December 20, 2017 @12:44AM (#15967322)
Some did. Most were cheap and even the most expensive ones took 2MP pixel shots. Good luck capturing a fast moving object from a long distance with a Motorola Razr.