Posted on 12/20/2021 6:33:57 AM PST by RoosterRedux
Over the last century, we have seen an exponential increase in the understanding of the physical universe. International observatories on Earth and in space have produced magnificent images spanning the full range from the small scale of black holes to the large-scale structure of the entire observable universe. Now, we are in the midst of a discovery of even greater magnitude, but few are even acknowledging it. And incredibly, it is what many regard as the modern icon of quack science – unidentified objects, traditionally labeled UFOs, that may represent technological equipment manufactured by an advanced extraterrestrial civilization.
Almost overnight UFOs have gained acceptance by the government and some in academia as worthy of scientific study. With this shift came a new label from the U.S. military: unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP). Now, they are increasing the target of dedicated research, including Harvard University’s Galileo Project in search for extraterrestrial equipment near earth as well as Stanford University's independent research program on unusual materials. They are also the reason behind the establishment of a new office in the Pentagon charged with establishing a science plan to:
1) Account for characteristics and performance of UAP that exceed known science or technology, including propulsion, aerodynamics, materials, sensors, countermeasures, weapons, electronics and power generation
2) Provide the foundation for possible investments to replicate these advanced characteristics and performance
In fact, this language is the direct result of members of Congress including it in the 2022 National Defense Authorization Act.
All this has stemmed from three videos of UAPs captured by Navy pilots and officially released by the Pentagon in 2020.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
To assume we know it all is just foolish.
***There you go again. Combining the argument from silence with the straw argument. 2 synergistic classical fallacies.
What about it? There was a P51 that shot a flying saucer down, and shortly afterwards the orders became “Intercept but don’t shoot”. That’s the kind of order you issue when you know what the thing is.
I just did. Come up to speed.
Read the book “Intercept UFO” by Renato Vesco.
Stay in your own imagination. It does not fit reality.
The best way to get rid of a fantasy driven nonsense producer is to ask him if he has read the one book which refutes his ridiculous thesis. And it turns out you have not read it.
The official record is what takes precedence. That’s why all these libtards who scream up & down about stuff like the Trump portfolio with Russia, well they change their stories once they’re under oath.
If you read up on man-made flying saucers you’ll find that 5% unexplainable data dwindling down to 0.5% or less.
Arguing from silence is a classic fallacy.
They’re feasible but they’re a waste of money.
Please provide a list for why this can't be done.
Do you believe there are no landers on Mars? No Saturn/Jupiter fly-bys?
One important thing I’ve learned about the UFO phenomenon is that it doesn’t make any difference. There is no actionable component with respect to my life. I am finished discussing this with you because I’ve already wasted too much of my life on this crap already.
I gave you a link that walks you through dozens of reasons why it will not happen because the tech does not yet exist.
“Getting ready” and “considering” is what you are going to hear a lot of.....
It is like a kindergartner “getting ready” and “considering” going to college.
“Please provide a list of why this can’t be done.”
Here is one article that includes a partial list to get you started—it is just the tip of the iceberg:
https://www.aulis.com/moonbase2017.htm
Thanks. Am including this in “Today’s News.”
Apollo deniers, in my experience, are not students of physics or mathematics; and, as such, do not have the metal tools to correctly judge these issues. APs do not understand the technologies of that period including photography, video imaging, and radio communications. Their judgements are based upon technology of the last twenty years or so. They also do not understand the political climate of the times, or the history of rocketry, medical science, and electronics. Apollo deniers will not make the effort to read "source" material, actual technical content of spacecraft hardware and mission planning. They also have a strong tendency to WANT the US to have failed those missions, and are by nature very cynical. All of this makes them immune to facts and reason.
I have in the past spent a great deal of time and energy trying to explain why the so-called Apollo denier experts are wrong, only to find the audience to be quite immune to facts. Yet, I'll try one on you just to verify predetermined results:
Deniers say that men cannot survive transit through the Van-Allen belts. The Van-Allen belts are torroids, big doughnuts with a hole in the middle. Apollo launched at a 71deg azimuth from the equator so that it could exit earth proximity by going up through the hole. When it turned toward the moon it went through the weak outer fringes of the Van-Allen belts, and was in them for only 10 minutes. The Van-Allen belts consist of electrons, protons, and other charged particles that are swirled around the earth by the magnetic field. The astronauts were shielded by the wall of the spacecraft, which were layers of stainless steel, aluminum, and ceramic. Secondary gamma emissions due to particle collisions was low intensity, and was recorded by dosimeters on each astronaut. Once developed, gamma exposure was equal to one chest X-ray. Radiation affects are dependent upon exposure time. They weren't in harm's way for very long. Vacuum aside, naked people wouldn't survive that trip. The spacecraft was shielded in accordance with measurements taken by satellite probes that flew long before the Apollo missions.
The Apollo missions did not happen suddenly or without precedence. Everything used in the moon missions had been refined using knowledge gained from near earth satellites and lunar satellites, crash probes, and soft landing probes. All mission elements were developed and refined during the development of WWII aircraft, the V2 rocket, ICBM missiles, Mercury and Gemini missions, as well as ground simulations.
First, the Saturn V did lift off several times. There are movies of it, and there are thousands upon thousands of eye-witnesses.
The tooling for making the F-1 was discarded along with the updated drawings. It was very expensive to make the tooling, let alone the design of the engine itself. NASA does not want to resurrect it on the grounds that newer designs are easier to tool and make; and, they would provide higher thrusts. The only way to recreate an F-1 engine is to scan it with X-ray 3-D imaging devices to see how the later versions were made.
You do know that NASA did not actually develop ANY of the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo hardware or any detailed designs, don't you? Every scrap of it was developed by contract companies. The F-1 engine was developed by Rocketdyne. Once NASA no longer needed it, they were free to dispose of all production artifacts. A few clever souls siphoned off historical artifacts.
Your referenced article is so very wrong. It would take a lot of effort to tear it down. Since I already know that such an effort is wasted on people like you, I will go no further.
Fair enough—but when nations and private companies spend billions more dollars and many more years and still can’t get it done, just remember our discussion.
You do likewise when China lands men there and brings back crisp pictures of the Apollo sites.
And, oh yeah, what about the Chinese and Japanese images of the Apollo sites taken by their orbiters? Apollo Sites
I'm 72. I lived through the Apollo years. In 1973 I worked in Huntsville with Sperry Rand, processing Skylab data. I knew many of the guys who developed the Saturn V and other components, including Apollo navigation systems. You should celebrate your Nation's achievements; for, there will be few to follow.
Do you believe we have landers on Mars?
Of course—if you read the links you would know exactly what the issue is—human landings on the Moon (and of course the same issues for Mars).
The experts there argue that the only way to do this is to have robots build underground bases and infrastructure so that humans can function there.
In addition the landing craft (with human occupants) will require shielding with nanotechnology. Likewise the space suits will require nanotechnology as well.
Here is an article about what NASA is dealing with today just on the spacesuit issue:
https://qz.com/2046840/a-1-billion-space-suit-is-holding-up-nasas-2024-moon-landing/
They’re labeled by Ross as “rUFOs”, residual UFOs, and I said “<5%” by way of roughly summarizing an entire book in one short paragraph. In recent years, small drones must be driving down that figure.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.