Search results

Who's the self-righteous narcissist here, really, Tom? I was simply pointing out that anyone with a pair of eyes can see this member's posts. Also, get over your butthurt; it's unbecoming of a partially grown manchild.

Red flags all over this reply. Hmmm. 1.) This is the first time that someone has pitched out the old "tinfoil hat" pejorative following a description of the very common and widely known concept of human intuition, in a conversation with me anyway. If you haven't experienced a single moment...

I don't think that's what he meant. Remote viewing - setting aside the whole issue of whether it works or not - is a specific procedural technique developed by Ingo Swann and others that's very distinct from the commonplace notion of intuition. Probably everyone I know has suddenly...

This is exactly how mental conditioning works. First you see one hoax exposed, perhaps the Billy Meier case. Then another one comes along, like the "Alien Autopsy" hoax. Then another, and another, like the "Roswell Slides" (which actually most reasonably discerning people looked at and...

This strikes me as a real blow to the whole field. Sure, one can find a few things to disagree with Stan about, but he's been a brilliant advocate for the reality of UFOs, and a truly gifted and amiable speaker who has always been a delight to listen to. I can't think of anyone who could even...

O brother. You're part of the problem Tom, not part of the solution. Over at MetaBunk you go around kissing behinds, but here your time is almost exclusively devoted to making a mockery of UFO cases and ufology in general (while simultaneously posting totally woo stuff like "by my forensic...

Robert Scheaffer and John Greenwald both got the name of the program wrong. It's not the "Advanced Aviation Threat Identification Program," it's "Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program." That's probably why the DoD responded to Greenwald's FOIA requests with a "no records"...

Okay so I read that page and I don't see an actual causality violation there - that looks like another relativity of simultaneity example. Just as we saw in our simple example with Spock and Kirk and our space station equidistant from them both, different observers can report different - and...

As I see it, we're in a very similar position today with regard to gravitational technology, as we were a few hundred years ago with magnetic technology. Back then, we didn't understand how magnetism really worked, we just knew that some rocks, loadstones, exhibited magnetic properties. So if...

Luis Elizondo had a good but brief interview with Tucker Carlson tonight. It weirds me out to watch Fox News, but I'm grateful to see this subject being taken seriously by the mainstream media:

That’s not actually a causality paradox; that’s more in the realm of the relativity of simultaneity. Let’s take a simple example: You’re at a position 4LYs equidistant from two planetary systems, when you’re informed via instantaneous subspace radio that both planets were simultaneously blown...

I don't believe anything that anyone tells me - that's why I dedicated several months to studying the key features of his gravitational field propulsion physics concepts, and confirmed them on paper, before I chose to discuss them with anyone. You can check it for yourself by charting the...

That's right. It's relative: for the traveler the distance and time are one thing, and for an external observer the time and distance are another thing. Both narratives are "real" in the objective sense, and yet they disagree. With special relativity, the external observer reports that your...

Yep - the average person in the public still thinks that we can't travel to the stars in less time than the observed distance to any given star: i.e., that it would take >4 years to travel to Alpha Centauri, for example, "because nothing can travel faster than the speed of light." So that's the...

You made a typo – here, I’ll correct it for you: Greers Meeting Planner: “I’ve never actually studied this subject so I’m completely oblivious to the vast body of evidence that supports the thesis that exotic alien devices have been operating in our air space for over 70 years, but since...

Yes, it can. It's simply electrical charges in motion. That's the simpler and more fundamental reality. There is no magnetic field - there's only electrical charge in relative motion. I'm familiar with Chalmer's ideas but I don't recall any magnetic analogies - maybe I haven't seen the...

I'm uncomfortable with the conflation between "theoretical physics," which I regard as the wing of physics which is perfectly valid and yet often beyond the limits of our technological capabilities (gravity waves, for example, were "theoretical physics" until our detectors achieved sufficient...

No, I'm not missing the point: you are. We absolutely understand what's going on at the most fundamental level with magnetism, and I already gave you the search terms required to verify it for yourself. Electrical charges in relative motion induce length contraction according to the Lorentz...

Garry Nolan has kindly accepted my friend request and I can now confirm this statement. He goes on to say that the telemetry data that we need to properly estimate the velocity of the object is embedded in the instrumentation readings. Honestly I've been too lazy to delve into these display...

No, this is demonstrably incorrect. We understand electromagnetic induction perfectly well - it's simply special relativity applied to electrodynamics. There isn't really a "magnetic field," there's just "the electric field undergoing relativistic motion." We've understood that for over a...