UFOs, the Pentagon, and Tin Foil Hats

[Wifesbain]

The public gets technology ruffly 20 years after the military. Period.

I don’t know... I got out 3 months before the towers came down in NY. Some of my friends that were still in, and Were deployed, had family members sending them civilian body armor since we were still wearing flak jackets (designed to stop shrapnel from a detonation at least 30’ away... not a bullet).
Granted, to your point, there is a world of difference between having the technology, and getting the money from congress to field it widespread. I guess the money goes to aircraft, and some trickles down to special ops, but the average grunt is 20 years behind. At least it sure felt that way?.

 

[jpmcwjr]

^^^ This. It's very, very difficult for us to grasp just how big the universe actually is. As far as we can understand the rules by which reality functions the ultimate speed limit is the speed at which light can travel; however no physical object, at least one with mass, can travel at the speed of light. It's impossible because it would require an almost infinite amount of energy. Second, even if a space craft could be propelled at the speed of light the sheer distance between stars would make interstellar travel at best impractical, and more often than not, impossible. So unless we're missing some fundamental element in our understanding of how reality works, whatever is being witnessed/experienced isn't life from somewhere else in the universe hopping in a spacecraft and flying here.
<< Snipped bits out >>

Well, according to my tenuous understanding of what Neil deGrasse Tyson said in his series, there may be tunnels, perhaps involving black holes that would allow covering of millions of light years in a short time. Because the universe is warped? Hell if I know.

My own view is the the universe is infinite, and no one can prove otherwise!

 

[Richmond B. Funkenhouser]

Well, according to my tenuous understanding of what Neil deGrasse Tyson said in his series, there may be tunnels, perhaps involving black holes that would allow covering of millions of light years in a short time. Because the universe is warped? Hell if I know.

My own view is the the universe is infinite, and no one can prove otherwise!

Tyson believes that we live in a simulated reality.

 

[Wifesbain]

I guess what I don't understand is, if there is somebody/something with technology so ahead of ours, and they're around, why would "they" worry about being secretive?

I figure they wouldn’t want to have to listen to us begging for it nonstop... like my wife and that honey-do list.

 

[brian64]

Tyson believes that we live in a simulated reality.

We do actually...just not in the manner that he means.

 

[Wifesbain]

Well, according to my tenuous understanding of what Neil deGrasse Tyson said in his series, there may be tunnels, perhaps involving black holes that would allow covering of millions of light years in a short time. Because the universe is warped? Hell if I know.

My own view is the the universe is infinite, and no one can prove otherwise!

Since they call part of the universe “observable”, and some “non-observable” (or technology can’t see that far yet) you may be right?. Why blows my mind (I can’t remember which scientist said it) is that there are more stars in the observable universe than there are grains of sand on every beach on earth. Not sure if he was including desert sand. And most of those stars have planets like ours... strangely comforting to me, makes others feel really small.

 

[Richmond B. Funkenhouser]

We do actually...just not in the manner that he means.

I sure couldn't tell you... Those guys make some pretty good arguments. That theory is pretty mainstream now.

If youve ever heard of the double slit experiment, and take time to understand it.. it's basically proof that some of our physics are wrong.. It shows how particles act differently when watched.

 

[Country Bladesmith]

Well, according to my tenuous understanding of what Neil deGrasse Tyson said in his series, there may be tunnels, perhaps involving black holes that would allow covering of millions of light years in a short time. Because the universe is warped? Hell if I know.

My own view is the the universe is infinite, and no one can prove otherwise!

I got to meet Dr Tyson some years ago when I attended one of his lectures, and talked with him for a while. Super nice guy.

 

[jpmcwjr]

Interesting that one of the longest threads recently is on this topic.

And no one has raised the question of what sort of tobacco would the pilot of an UFO smoke? Squadron Leader? Shortcut to Mushrooms?

 

[Country Bladesmith]

Interesting that one of the longest threads recently is on this topic.

And no one has raised the question of what sort of tobacco would the pilot of an UFO smoke? Squadron Leader? Shortcut to Mushrooms?

Squadron Leader does sound appropriate. Maybe Brown Bogie?

 

[brian64]

I sure couldn't tell you... Those guys make some pretty good arguments. That theory is pretty mainstream now.

If youve ever heard of the double slit experiment, and take time to understand it.. it's basically proof that some of our physics are wrong.. It shows how particles act differently when watched.

My comment was mostly TIC. I was alluding to perception vs reality...and Perception Management is high science these days.

As for some of "our physics" being wrong, I'd say Edward Leedskalnin seems to have demonstrated that.

 

[BROBS]

If youve ever heard of the double slit experiment

Ahhh college days. ?

 

[brian64]

Shortcut to Mushrooms?

Actually the mushrooms are a shortcut to another dimension.

 

[Country Bladesmith]

Actually the mushrooms are a shortcut to another dimension.

I’ve heard a few old hippies say the same thing.

 

[BROBS]

Actually the mushrooms are a shortcut to another dimension.

Shortcut to Shakedown Street baby
? ?

 

[Richmond B. Funkenhouser]

Jackasses..

 

[Akousticplyr]

Since they call part of the universe “observable”, and some “non-observable” (or technology can’t see that far yet) you may be right?. Why blows my mind (I can’t remember which scientist said it) is that there are more stars in the observable universe than there are grains of sand on every beach on earth. Not sure if he was including desert sand. And most of those stars have planets like ours... strangely comforting to me, makes others feel really small.

Grains of sand was from Carl Sagan in Cosmos. Awesome book as well as TV series.
He was trying to help us visualize the sheer numbers. Something as follows (from distant memory):
Scoop up a handful of sand...there are more grains of sand in your hand than there are visible stars in the night sky. That's a lot of stars! And yet, there are more stars in the universe than all the grains of sand on earth.

 

[shanez]

I love this topic in general but...

1) Just because we visually witness a phenomena that we don't know how to explain doesn't preclude it from having a simple explanation.

2) Objects do not gain mass as they gain velocity.

3) Wormholes, etc. are not theoretical. They are hypothetical at best. Even if they do exist or are possible in some form it would be highly improbable that data (mass, energy, etc.) could pass through and retain coherency.

I watched the videos. What I saw is "something" at an unknown distance and no real scale to measure against. It could be something small at a relatively close distance that due to optical reasons (illusion) looks weird/unfamiliar or it could be something large at a relatively far distance that looks weird/unfamiliar for the same reasons. All of this and add to it motion and it gets worse for the purpose of identification.

 

[cshubhra]

This is not entirely correct. There is a concept of rest mass (Newtonian mass) which is invariant. There is also relativistic mass which changes based on the velocity.

It depends on your frame of reference.

I love this topic in general but...

2) Objects do not gain mass as they gain velocity.

 

[Wifesbain]

I love this topic in general but...

1) Just because we visually witness a phenomena that we don't know how to explain doesn't preclude it from having a simple explanation.

2) Objects do not gain mass as they gain velocity.

3) Wormholes, etc. are not theoretical. They are hypothetical at best. Even if they do exist or are possible in some form it would be highly improbable that data (mass, energy, etc.) could pass through and retain coherency.

I watched the videos. What I saw is "something" at an unknown distance and no real scale to measure against. It could be something small at a relatively close distance that due to optical reasons (illusion) looks weird/unfamiliar or it could be something large at a relatively far distance that looks weird/unfamiliar for the same reasons. All of this and add to it motion and it gets worse for the purpose of identification.

As to your something, I agree. I only saw a moment of those videos, it was a radio conversation between two fighter pilots talking about seeing something. I have another tidbit to toss into the mix. I was not a pilot in the service, but I did spend a lot of time in the cockpit of an F-18. One thing most don’t think about is that the canopy of a fighter is curved like being within part of a glass sphere. No matter how precise you keep the thickness of the glass, nor how well it is polished at the factory or by the flight crew, that curve will distort what you see through it at least a little.
If anyone has gone to the aquarium at Bass-Pro or somewhere like it and stuck their head into the observation bubble will know what I am talking about. Adding that to the vision problems you mentioned create a stack-on effect to the skepticism.

but... just because I’m skeptical, doesn’t mean I’m right, or the pilot wrong.