131–140 of 161 posts
Here's my theory about the recent influx of UFO footages coming from high places. US military was working on advanced drones. Nothing fancy, think current best tech, add 15 years and billion in r&d, that kind of stuff. Then when it was ready for test they flew it secretly before their own pilots and waited for reports. And waited. And waited some more. Silence. They disabled stealth, added flashlights, nothing. Milit…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Frankly, a much less reaching theory at this point is that we simply don't know what these things are, have completely failed to determine it, and can't safely conjecture anymore they are human created or purely natural phenomena. This is a perfectly suitable place to be given our place in the universe and our current level of understanding, and doesn't require any further leaps to explaining their origin beyond "w…
What a time to be alive. I never thought I'd see it, but it's happened. The tipping point has been reached where conspiracy theories denying this stuff have become crazier than the reports of it. I think a new and very rich vein of crazy is about to make itself available to the masses for their entertainment, that is the mental gymnastics some people will tie themselves into to deny the existence of something which t…
> Mention of Skinwalker Ranch in Utah as a “possible laboratory for studying other intelligences and possible interdimensional phenomena.” Using the word "interdimensional", rather than something more precise, smells like bullshit. Specifically, it sounds more like pop scifi than actual science. A "dimension" is an axis, not a universe, and I expect someone writing a serious document for the government about anything…
I agree with some of what you say in that introducing theories for which there is absolutely no known evidence doesn't exactly help their credibility. However: > A "dimension" is an axis, not a universe, I don't think you should be so absolutest about that. How do you know that what we think of as "the universe" doesn't live entirely in a 3+1 dimensional subspace of some larger universe ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You assume that if these are not ours, then broadcasting them shows a weakness. That seems like a big assumption. There are a variety of scenarios where the military may not see these as a threat, yet didn’t create them.
According to the Navy pilot who went on the Rogan podcast, the object he encountered was actively jamming his radar and targeting systems, which he also said is considered an act of war. I'm not sure how any military could consider a craft that can fly circles around ours while jamming our targeting systems to be benign. Unless it's ours. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnIG-i2WCfg https://podscribe.app/feeds/http-jo…
- there's some communicative intelligence involved with the craft(s), that we've communicated with in a way that leads us to think they are harmless (despite radar jamming antics.) in a best case scenario, we've been given guarantees of safety as well as sufficient explanation and demonstration to consider that guarantee credible.
- we've seen sufficient examples of these in history to conclude that if harm was meant, it would have been dealt by now
- the crafts themselves have given indications of any game theoretic elements which would lead to harm. for example, perhaps they've communicated (perhaps indirectly through escalation and deescalation) what areas of engagement or human action will lead to escalation and which won't, and have done so consistently
i'm leaning towards a combination of the second and the third. there's no reason to believe these craft are new phenomena, but likely evaded sufficient detection to be accepted as real until the last several decades. if you assume the technology involved in these are far beyond our own, then it's also fair to assume that any capacity for harm from these has been ever-present and existential in scope since humanity first began. and yet, here we are. so it doesn't take a huge leap of logic to conclude that perhaps these are harmless, modulo any major disruptions in say the threat of humanity to itself or to other parts of the galaxy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> isn't well read on the subject. Me neither, though the History Channel sure tries these days, lol. Anyway, can somebody explain what the fascination is with UFOs to somebody who never really got it? I just assume the Universe is so big (and expanding) that nobody besides bacteria could make it alive to Earth. The End.
> I just assume the Universe is so big (and expanding) that nobody besides bacteria could make it alive to Earth. Why would you assume that ? Even if the speed of light is an absolute barrier why do you rule out the following: - ET's that are immortal or with enormous lifespans, either naturally or because they re-engineered themselves that way - ET's that have produced artificial intelligent entities that are immort…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with some of what you say in that introducing theories for which there is absolutely no known evidence doesn't exactly help their credibility. However: > A "dimension" is an axis, not a universe, I don't think you should be so absolutest about that. How do you know that what we think of as "the universe" doesn't live entirely in a 3+1 dimensional subspace of some larger universe ?
I don't know that our universe isn't a subspace of some higher-dimensional structure. That has nothing to do with what the specific word "dimension" means and has always meant outside of sci-fi. There has never been a sound reason to use the word "dimension" to describe the other possibilities you mention. If you want to write a technical document about those possibilities and be taken seriously, you need to find a b…
I do suggest you watch this video from Carl Sagan's TV show Cosmos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0WjV6MmCyM
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The they're-a-bunch-of-quacks story doesn't have to explain the Nimitz incident. They were given footage and reports of the incident, but the existence or nonexistence of the event is independent of them.
Sorry I don't understand what you're saying here. Could you please elaborate ? (It might help to clarify who the different instances of they and them are referring to.)
I'll rewrite it:
"The they're-a-bunch-of-quacks story doesn't have to explain the Nimitz incident. The AAWSAP/AATIP group were given footage and reports of the incident, but the existence or nonexistence of the event is independent of what that group says."
By analogy:
People see a man in the distance stumbling through the woods covered in blood. They go to help, but can't find him. A hunting camera catches something moving through the trees around the same time the man was spotted. The police investigate, but it goes unresolved.
Years pass. A private detective appears in our story. This detective has unconventional views, such as believing that dogs can see dead people, vampires exist, Hitler is alive and imprisoned under the White House, etc. The detective has written about these subjects. In past unsolved murders, he has claimed Dracula was the murderer. Once, he tried to get a homeless man arrested after a stray dog led him from a grave to a back alley.
The private detective convinces the police chief, who already has some suspicion that vampires exist, of the danger posed by vampires. The police chief decides to fund the private detective, telling him to investigate the vampire angle.
Whatever the truth is regarding the blood-covered man, the police chief should have looked at the detective's wide range of bizarre beliefs, considered the severe deficit in judgement that those beliefs indicate, and not given him funds to investigate the case. Especially as it turns out he's using some of the funds to investigate all of his other wild beliefs, and even used funding to pay the costs of a group of Hitler-is-under-the-White-House believers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know that our universe isn't a subspace of some higher-dimensional structure. That has nothing to do with what the specific word "dimension" means and has always meant outside of sci-fi. There has never been a sound reason to use the word "dimension" to describe the other possibilities you mention. If you want to write a technical document about those possibilities and be taken seriously, you need to find a b…
In that case I think it's you who is misunderstanding the word. Unfortunately I haven't the time to give you a course on Linear Algebra so unless you can explain in more detail why you believe that the word "dimension" is inappropriate for the case I described I'm not going to be able to help you. I do suggest you watch this video from Carl Sagan's TV show Cosmos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0WjV6MmCyM
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In that case I think it's you who is misunderstanding the word. Unfortunately I haven't the time to give you a course on Linear Algebra so unless you can explain in more detail why you believe that the word "dimension" is inappropriate for the case I described I'm not going to be able to help you. I do suggest you watch this video from Carl Sagan's TV show Cosmos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0WjV6MmCyM
Linear algebra is exactly where "dimension" gets its abstract but very limited definition as a property of spaces, best summarized as an axis or direction, rather than a kind of space itself, which is what you need for anything like an alternate universe. I know this because I have in fact taken a course in it. I'm not sure what point you think you're making at this point.
Yes, but adding an extra dimension to a given space (more correctly stated as asserting that a space of dimension d is embedded in a space of dimension d + 1) vastly expands the "number" of points that are available, so adding a dimension doesn't just give you access to an additional d-space but to a whole continuum of other d-spaces. I think this is what people are referring to when they use the word "dimension" in this kind of context.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I looked at quite a few of the UFO videos on YouTube and none of them seemed legit to me except maybe this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-91Nobn2xk The uploader looks like the kind of weirdo that would grab their phone to capture a UFO video but probably doesn't have the skill to create such a high quality fake. It also matches the "tic tac" shape described by the most credible witnesses ever, the US Navy pil…
Empty supply canister or a wing tank being dropped? There's a USAF base nearby.
It does some weird mid-air pause thing at 0:32. And generally seems to be going horizontal or even increasing in altitude. Maybe that's just momentum? It could also have tiny wings that are catching some air?
But it looks very symmetrical and also reflective. The drop tanks I could find all look more aerodynamic and dull.
I couldn't find any good videos of drop tanks being dropped. Not sure what kind of supply canister it could be.
I'd love to know definitively because this is the first video I've seen that seems at all interesting.