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 ...
I read something years ago that actually makes sense given today’s events.
***But you’ve never read up on the boundary layer control experiments by aeronautical notables such as Oscar Schrenk, Ludwig Prandtl, and Theodore von Karmann. They explain these advancements.
Then study those quaternions and come out with the mathematical proof yourself. Easy peasy, done deal, right?
Your post #31 is a good example of the classic fallacy of arguing from silence.
What if there were many prior Earthly civilizations whose ‘tech’...
***The battle of the ‘what ifs’. What if there WEREN’T prior civilizations with the technology to fly? That seems far, far more likely, given the archaeological evidence.
If we knew of some inevitable meteor or comet strike...
***Uhh, we’d knock it off its course. Duhh. A civilization that could send its elite to the stars would have enough technology to deflect a meteor.
That’s a load of nonsense. 🐂💨💩
The government has, indeed, being lying about those things for many years. Among the reasons are “not wise to admit we can’t do anything about them” and “society cannot deal with such a truth”.
***Baloney. They’re simply lying because it is a set of secret weapons to be used in the next big war. And the technology goes back to the 1920s, not nearly as advanced as you suppose.
Many misguided “people of Faith” are especially vulnerable to rational breakdown when they consider the prospect of ET.
***You mean like Coppedge when he figured out the chances of life forming from chance was in the trillions of trillions of trillions? Far less than the standard 10^-50 mathematical definition of impossible.
They somehow think the Bible tells them that there are no ETs, leaving them with the notion that such beings could only be demons.
***I’m a person of faith and I do not “somehow” think what you claim I think. YOu’re posting a straw argument.
The Bible does not actually provide any information whatsoever regarding such topics.
***Sure it does. It talks about sending a strong delusion in the end times.
The possibility of life on other worlds is speculation without evidence.
***Uhh, no. It is speculation in the face of gigantically increasing evidence to the contrary. Fermi’s Paradox.
I have done battle with those folks countless times. It is like arguing with a brick.
One very important thing does stand out: They refuse to identify "the thing", "the reason", "the mitigating failure" that made the mission fail or impossible to perform. Na-da. You see, there is no reason for the mission to have failed. It was an engineering problem that was solved by engineering and a great deal of expense.
You sound like one of those people who laughed at the Wright brothers or scoffed at the idea of an atomic bomb. As I pointed out, our technology is only about 200 years old. To assume we know it all is just foolish.
“The problem is, those ignorant fools don’t know enough to understand why they got debunked.”
I have read a ton of articles and books on both sides of this subject, and the “debunkers” have failed to convince me.
I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.
How about the F-89 that was shot down after given an order to shoot down a UFO over the Great Lakes in 1953?
You’ll have to explain that one, sorry.
Clue us in.
Imagine a similar civilization that did not go through
***All of your reasoning is based on a hyperactive imagination rather than simply examining the evidence.
a “Dark Ages”. They would be 2000 years ahead of us in technology,
***That would still be 100 thousand years behind the capability you are postulating, the ability to travel across interstellar space. And then they come here & crash. Crashing is not indicative of a higher race of beings, it is indicative of an experimental program.
if we assume they started at the same time as we did.
***Yet another unfounded assumption, along with so many others you’re holding onto.
A “warp bubble” was created in the lab a few weeks ago.
***No it wasn’t.
NASA has a “warp drive” research team.
***Of COURSE they do. They love spending our money.
To assume that we know everything about physics
***Total straw argument. Coupled with the standard logical fallacy of arguing from silence. We know what we know. You’re postulating that there could be things we don’t know [argument from the silence of the evidence] that supercedes that which we do know — standard violation of Occham’s Razor.
at this point in time is a very risky stance.
***At this point in time, your position is the risky stance. You are promoting that “strong delusion” because it’s fun to think about, entertaining. But it doesn’t stand up to simple logical scrutiny to those who are familiar with scientific experiments in boundary layer control in the 1920s which led to flying saucers in the 1940s.
We intensely examine the years since Roswell, but historical accounts that lack the technical understanding of our world are dismissed.
***Yes, exactly. Such as the historical accounts of boundary layer control experiments in the 1920s which led to the 1940s capabilities observed in flying saucers. Once one takes a look at the prosaic explanations for UFOs, the
ET hypothesis dwindles into an extreme corner case with very little evidence.
Stay in your box.
testified on their deathbeds that the crash was real, and it was of ET origin.
***Nonsense. They testified that it was unfamiliar. The metal was stronger and lighter than aluminum, which is consistent with sinterized aluminum alloy, necessary for a boundary layer control aircraft [and well within 1940s technological capability] as promoted by the aeronautical luminaries of their day in the 1920s.
What makes you so sure it didn’t? Arguing from speculation is an argument from silence. A classical fallacy. Occham’s Razor is applicable.
The best way to get rid of a petrified dinkle-berry is a nice, long, hot shower.
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.