Posted on 08/31/2022 2:05:16 PM PDT by RoosterRedux
Congress made two startling claims. The first is that “cross-domain transmedium threats to the United States national security are expanding exponentially.” The second is that it wants to distinguish between UFOs that are human in origin and those that are not: “Temporary nonattributed objects, or those that are positively identified as man-made after analysis, will be passed to appropriate offices and should not be considered under the definition as unidentified aerospace-undersea phenomena,” the document states.
What does all this jargon mean, though? One key word in the congressional report is “transmedium,” a term the Pentagon has recently adopted for its UFO group that has emanated out to other agencies. This refers to technology that would be able to travel through different media, literally: space, air, and water are all media in this context. NASA’s moon-landing program launchers would technically count as transmedium because they blast through Earth’s atmosphere and then travel through space.
But that example itself shows why transmedium technology is so, well, alien. We’ve only barely scratched the surface of how best to travel through the atmosphere and then adjust and travel efficiently through space. Amphibious vehicles here on Earth usually go from motor propulsion on land to motor propulsion on the surface of the water—not from air travel to submarine. Even in Star Trek, flagships avoid having to leave orbit and enter planetary atmospheres.
The other interesting term is “cross-domain” or, for the Pentagon, “all-domain.” “Domain” is defense shorthand for battlefield or, in the 21st century, the “battle space.” During WWII, you would have seen analysis of domains in Europe like mountains or coastline, and those in Asia, like rainforest or dense city environments. Then there were domains in other mediums, including naval warfare (surface and submarine) and air warfare.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
This portion of a craft would have to have some unique properties to it, to state that it is not human made. Share what those properties are.
Again, I refuse to accept their statement on face value. There was a day when I would have, but that day passed many moons ago. 🙂
You are inserting false dichotomies. That’s dishonest...though I don’t think you are doing it on purpose.
Klatu barada nicto
Btw, Prof Garry Nolan of Stanford says there is evidence in hand. If you are interested, I’ll dig up the link tomorrow (I’m on my Kindle at the moment...Very hard to write).
Bottom line is there has to be some definitive proof that some UFOs are not man made for the statement to be true. If there is no proof, then that statement is nothing more than supposition. 🙂
If he doesn't provide verifiable proof, then I wouldn't want you to provide it, because anyone can say anything about which the truth is unknown.
If he does, then by all means provide it.
Here’s one: If we have a craft we would understand it. That’s an either/or fallacy.
There are plenty of possibilities between the two extremes of either we have a craft (and understand it) or we must not have a craft.
We may have significant evidence of something that is clearly not human and is clearly from somewhere else...but we don’t know what the hell it is or how it operates.
He’s one of the senior prof/docs at Stanford Medical School. Very famous. Nominated for Nobel in immunology.
His word carries a lot of wt.
Gotta go till tomorrow . Kindle out of juice.
Thx for the chat, :-)
Mom’s side of the family was in military intelligence.
Grandpa, who had been OSS, built “breweries” after WWII in interesting places - Venezuela, Argentina, and then later in the USSR and China. He was on the flight when Marcos was deposed.
My uncle was military intelligence in the Air Force. Just before he died last year he shared some stuff with me.
After he retired he worked for the DoE and oversaw security on the atomic airplane project. He later became chief of cyber security for Los Alamos and Sandia Labs. He briefed President Bush on the USB drive breach that happened a while back.
Anyway, in his career he did a lot of stuff he couldn’t talk about. Even when he knew the end was near, he looked me in the eye and said “I can’t talk about that” when I pushed for specifics.
He did admit that the government knows a lot more than it lets on about UAP and it knows that it isn’t from around here. It seems the debate is between interdimensional and interstellar, but some think that it is a difference without a distinction.
He also admitted that a lot of what people see is our aircraft. We are waaaaay ahead of where the public thinks we are. NASA is just for show. He recognized some of the vehicles in the Phoenix lights incidence as ours.
So...before you toss out “bull$hit” you need to realize that you have been misled, lied to, and plain old hornswoggled.
Are their little green men? Uncle wouldn’t talk about that at all. Sometimes silence says something too.
Charles Schulz’s Kite eating tree 2.0
But I never said that. 🙂
So, give me an example of what I actually said. 🙂
You made a statement that said, and I am actually paraphrasing it, that we might not understand the proof that they have.
To which I responded that you might not understand the proof, but there are plenty who would understand it.
But then a situation might arise where we have a divergence, where a percentage agreed it was proof, along with a percentage that would disagree it is proof.
A good example might be the statement that climate change is due to man made causation. There is no real proof of that claim, yet a percentage of people believe it to be true, while a percentage of people do not believe it. I am in the latter group.
Anyway I look forward to seeing what you are offering as proof, and it doesn't need to be tomorrow. Take whatever time you need. 🙂
If one wants insight into UFO’s, look up L.A. Marzulli’s studies of the matter.
If one wants insight into UFO’s, look up L.A. Marzulli’s studies of the matter.
But I never said that. 🙂
So, give me an example of what I actually said.
Regarding your use of a false dichotomy, I paraphrased (see above) because, as I said, I was typing on my Kindle and couldn't cut and paste. I am back on my PC now.
Here's your actual statement (which is a false dichotomy):
if they have been able to scrutinize one of these UFOs, why aren't they over there taking out Putin?Unless I misunderstand you, you are saying that if we are able to scrutinize a UFO, we WOULD understand it enough to take out Putin.See how that works?
That is an either/or fallacy (false dichotomy). It assumes that if we can scrutinize a UFO, we MUST understand it and be able to use our knowledge of it to take out Putin.
I realize that this is complicated, but the either/or here is: EITHER we have taken out Putin (we have a UFO) OR we haven't (because we don't have a UFO and haven't therefore scrutinized said UFO).
See how that works.;-)
That kind of fallacy ignores the possibilities between the two polar opposites...such as we have a UFO or some part of it AND have "scrutinized" it (to use your word), but don't understand it enough to utilize that knowledge to take out Putin. A vast range of possibilities here are precluded by your false dichotomy...we can understand a lot of the UFO or very little or anywhere in between.
You somehow think that though I cannot "personally" understand the UFO (why you make your argument personal is curious), there are those who can.
How you reach the conclusion that our scientists MUST be able to understand a craft or some part of it in their possession (from who knows where) is curious, to say the least.
Every human who has ever lived came to life with a lifetime supply of ignorance. There is far too much we still don’t understand about natural phenomena. To leap to the conclusion that lights in the sky are piloted vessels from another star system just seems pitiably laughable.
I think you are the only one jumping to that conclusion.
The general consensus among people who are seriously looking into this matter is that no one has any idea what this "phenomenon" is. It might just be a natural occurrence like the aurora borealis or swamp gas, but still undiscovered.
Additionally, it is now generally thought that what we are detecting as UFO's (on radar, infrared, and visual sightings by people like pilots) are only a tiny feature of the much larger "phenomenon" (this stuff in its totality is now referred to as the "phenomenon").
What most people are saying is that they simply don't know what we are dealing with here...but it does seem to merit examination.
What is enigmatic is why the government would stigmatize as laughable and crazy, and destroy careers and in some cases lives of people who merely said, "we saw something we can't explain."
Why would the military say to its own people (since 1947), "UFO's are nothing and you must never speak of them or we will destroy you"?
When the US shutdown the space shuttle program, I believe we then had technology to enter outer space by another modem. There is no way in hell our intelligence community would allow us not to engage space travel and depend on a foreign government for space travel.
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.