231–240 of 978 posts
Johnny Harris just made a good video on this last week. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQSxY7TR6mI
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everything is impossible until it is done. We have been to space. We have theories that FTL travel may be possible (Alcubierre drives, wormholes). The JWST just showed us that galaxies formed as early as 300 million years after the Big Bang. Hell, we didn't know there were planets outside of our solar system until the 1990s. We still don't know what Dark Matter or Dark Energy are. We have far more left to explore and…
> Everything is impossible until it is done. And some things just remain impossible. They laughed at Galileo but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. I think there's huge probabiliy that aliens really do exist. But they are nowhere close. And we don't have any resonable theories about FTL. They sound reasonable up to a point of "yeah, but you need negative mass to do that". So basically it's an artefact that equation…
Pilots are not the only ones seeing this. Ukrainian astronomers have data from their telescopes in two different cities referencing the same objects traveling at Mach 15, stopping on a dime, then turning around immediately https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.17085
As for the negative mass comment, here's a patent by the navy for an inertial mass reduction device https://patents.google.com/patent/US10144532B2/en
we have theories that is grounded in our current understanding of physics for superluminal travel. it's not insane to think a species 1 million years ahead of us have engineered it
All these UFO photographs, all of which are fuzzy smears. With the ubiquity of excellent cameras, why aren't there any in-focus, sharp photos of them? We all know the answer.
The Chinese balloon was as big as a 7-storey building, in broad daylight, drifting very slowly. Where are the excellent high-resolution photos?
There's a real problem with people being close-minded towards anything that seems fantastical. This includes scientists and other professionals who ought to know better. Obviously it's unscientific to jump to conclusions and assume that anything that doesn't make sense must be aliens or magic or whatever but at the same time, it's also unscientific to ignore physical observations just because they seem like something…
Every time one of those fantastic items gets explained, it's always mundane and boring, and never dampens the enthusiasm for the next one. I recall one about B+W photographs of "wood elves" taken around 1910 or so by a couple girls. The girls insisted it was genuine. Photographic experts declared the photos were genuine and could not have been faked. When the girls were in their 80's, they finally confessed that the…
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottingley_Fairies
Even Arthur Conan Doyle wrote an article about the Photos.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cottingley_Fairies,_pag...
All these UFO photographs, all of which are fuzzy smears. With the ubiquity of excellent cameras, why aren't there any in-focus, sharp photos of them? We all know the answer.
The Chinese balloon was as big as a 7-storey building, in broad daylight, drifting very slowly. Where are the excellent high-resolution photos?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (Sagan Standard)
Exactly how many eyewitness accounts, devoid of good physical evidence, constitute "Evidence" with a capital "E"? If this number is "infinity" for you, that is unreasonable.
I don’t think there’s any amount of eyewitness accounts of aliens that I would consider credible evidence without having something verifiable to corrobate them.
On the subject of the term UFO. The term Unidentified Flying Object is perfectly fine. But then some people say "Aha, you mean aliens, right". No, It is like the SQL NULL, No unidentified object matches any other unidentified object. If I meant aliens I would have said it was an Identified Flying Object(IFO) or perhaps an Extrateresteral Flying Object(EFO), But all I said was that something was flying and I could not…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I wonder how much some of these unidentified phenomena might be checked for some similar effects. come on, man. at some point, after enough of these reports, toeing the line you're toeing starts to look ludicrous. these are trained observers, pilots who know what to expect in the sky. and do not take lightly that there is still a certain amount of embarrassment (a social cost) to even coming forward, so to even mak…
How many experienced sailors once reported seeing mermaids? Until we understand the source of these sightings, it's entirely plausible pilots are all seeing something that doesn't actually exist for some reason or another. We won't know why until the phenomena is no longer mysterious, but there's always a high likelihood a given unknown is mundane, as opposed to fantastical or extraterrestrial. The article is right w…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The pulsating in the NARCAP video looks like the camera trying and failing to find focus on anything that it's looking at. Interesting though.
Camera autofocus is commonly brought up but in this case the crewmen were able to attest to the pulsating with their eyeballs, in addition to the other strange behaviour as noted in their testimony.
