Are we doing enough to learn the truth about UFOs?

[marduk]

For instance, there is nothing that we know of that can achieve instantaneous speed and distance minus relevance to the laws of inertia, let alone the need for tremendous relevant energy to do so with.

You don't need instantaneous acceleration or speed to account for the reports. In other words, if you've ever seen a missile fired, you literally can't see it go (except the smoke). It's too fast, and the acceleration is too high.
That doesn't make it instantaneous or infinite acceleration. Just beyond the operational capabilities we're familiar with.

Yes on the energy athough. I wonder about the power requirements as well.

Inertia though I'm not as fussed about. Our machines pull 100G's all the time. US missiles are doing that right now in Syria. What if the objects are purely mechanical, and solid-state?

 

[Jeff Davis]

When I used the word disclosure in the post that kicked this off, I meant it in the sense of "coming clean" in a very general sense under hypothetical circumsatnces. More specifically I mean letting us see all the evidence for ourselves. Without that there is no way to determine whether the governmental assessment is either honest or complete. It may be the case that those who have made statements to the effect that there's nothing beyond what we've been told, are being honest because they are themselves in the dark. We've been told before that there is nothing more to be had, only to find out that via FOIA requests that there was indeed more.

I don't post simply for the sake of disagreeing. My intent is to illuminate the subject matter with whatever evidence or analysis may help move us closer to the truth, and one of the best ways to do that is to consider a claim and then try to verify it. If in the course of doing so we find conflicting claims, then the responsible thing to do is consider those claims, even if they are contrary to our personal feelings about them. The other choice is to simply believe what we're told in order to feel good about our beliefs and assumptions. Which would you prefer?

Let's steer clear of loaded questions and consider what ufology is in a more rational context: http://ufopages.com/Content/Reference/Ufology-01a.htm

I never made that claim.

I'll grant that outside the context in which our discussion started, there are some assumptions being made that are based on my personal belief. But others aren't, specifically the number of documents withheld under the FOIA exemptions from investigators who have made requests for them. I have no reason to seriously doubt that such documents do exist and that they are of relevance to UFO reports in some as of yet undetermined manner.

I think that saying, "They know more than we do and they're not telling us." is definitive. Exactly how much more they know is a matter of speculation, but returning to the point where we kicked off this round, the idea of disclosure came up as a possible response to a hypothetical situation where we civilians manage to acquire substantial evidence of alien visitation. So we've moved off a bit from the initial context. If civilians were able to get sufficient verifiable evidence that proves alien visitation is true, then the cat would be out of the bag ( so to speak ), people would start demanding answers, and that might be sufficient cause for disclosure. That is the extent of my initial comment. Exactly how much the PTB knows that we don't [know], is another matter.

Thank you for your patience. IMO, we have to be able to look at the UFO phenomena and simply concede that there may be NO WAY for us to "learn" anything from them apart from aspirations turned inspirations that drive humankind forward, progressively speaking. This is the single greatest possibility IMO. We may not be living in a vastly populated Universe. Our universe may fit onto the head of pin in an alternate sense of things wherein Universes are entangled with one another and host a total of one species, mono typically. The individuals of the species may in fact be the interactive cells that constitute the whole of another intelligence or field of awareness. In this sense, perhaps UFOs are a type of nano technology used cross universally (mean: more than one) to regulate and perform actions so far beyond our comprehension that all we can do is stand rapt in awe at the observation of such a phenomena.

Then again, humanity itself may be the sole proprietor of all things UFO as set forth beyond the boundaries of temporally limited existence itself.

That or UFOs may be yet one more progressive paradigmatic beckoning of tricksterish proportions as set forth by the program that our individual interactive cognitive IDs interface the realm of consciousness with.

All in all, UFOs represent one single attribute of our awareness above and beyond any other, and that is our endless need to question everything.

 

[Jeff Davis]

You don't need instantaneous acceleration or speed to account for the reports. In other words, if you've ever seen a missile fired, you literally can't see it go (except the smoke). It's too fast, and the acceleration is too high.
That doesn't make it instantaneous or infinite acceleration. Just beyond the operational capabilities we're familiar with.

Yes on the energy athough. I wonder about the power requirements as well.

Inertia though I'm not as fussed about. Our machines pull 100G's all the time. US missiles are doing that right now in Syria. What if the objects are purely mechanical, and solid-state?

But most assuredly all can and do see the missile fire on take off. It's act of being set into motion is not instantaneous due to it's need to overcome 1G, correct? Admittedly, just like an insect in flight, it's tough to see it unless you are long way away.

 

[marduk]

But most assuredly all can and do see the missile fire on take off. It's act of being set into motion is not instantaneous due to it's need to overcome 1G, correct? Admittedly, just like an insect in flight, it's tough to see it unless you are long way away.

Not sure what you're getting at, maybe I'm missing it.

We do see UFOs before they take off. Then they're gone.

Just like a missile or even a model rocket. It's sitting there, then it's gone.

A bullet in a gun is in the chamber, then it's gone.

Check out this myth busters clip around 46s in:

It's there, then it's gone.

 

[Jeff Davis]

But you can clearly see it's "fired" propulsion that results in it's eventual top speed. And if you are far enough away you see it's distinct line of travel at night due to as much. Show me a missile sitting there in broad daylight that just instantly disappears without any trace. That would be a good example. LOL! We imagine that a great deal via reported UFO sightings and even have videos showing as much. I fully realize that our eyes cannot follow something moving as fast, as say, the paper being spread about as a firecracker blows up, but that's not technology represent of craft, as is also not the case with a missile, or a ping pong ball. There should be a reason within a context of reasonable science that clearly shows the responsible inertia relevant propulsion if a UFO is moving that fast and one that is represent of friction based air travel. One beyond Bob Lazar's sci fi explanation which to the best of my knowledge I don't recall ever being duplicated.

You have to remember that beings are routinely seen in UFOs piloting them, and that UFOs are reported to be the vessels of beings exiting and entering them. Even by MR. Lazar and his "Sport Model".

Something else is going on, and when we eliminate the impossible, what remains is quite possibly a unique or completely different stage of possibilities that we are not at all familiar with yet.

 

[marduk]

But you can clearly see it's "fired" propulsion that results in it's eventual top speed. And if you are far enough away you see it's distinct line of travel at night due to as much. Show me a missile sitting there in broad daylight that just instantly disappears without any trace.

I just did, in that video. It's a ping pong ball, but still, it's an object with a high rate of acceleration, no visible means of doing so, and it disappears.

That would be a good example. LOL! We imagine that a great deal via reported UFO sightings and even have videos showing as much. I fully realize that our eyes cannot follow something moving as fast, as say, the paper being spread about as a firecracker blows up, but that's not technology represent of craft, as is also not the case with a missile, or a ping pong ball. There should be a reason within a context of reasonable science that clearly shows the responsible inertia relevant propulsion if a UFO is moving that fast and one that is represent of friction based air travel. One beyond Bob Lazar's sci fi explanation which to the best of my knowledge I don't recall ever being duplicated.

You have to remember that beings are routinely seen in UFOs piloting them, and that UFOs are reported to be the vessels of beings exiting and entering them. Even by MR. Lazar and his "Sport Model".

Something else is going on, and when we eliminate the impossible, what remains is quite possibly a unique or completely different stage of possibilities that we are not at all familiar with yet.

Isn't that like saying because we don't understand the technology, it doesn't exist?

If you look at the cargo cults as an example, they didn't know how airplanes worked, and thought they were magical things.

Re: the pilots. Good point. I dunno. If we suspended ourselves in fluid, for example, maybe biological creatures could survive. Or maybe they're not biological at all. Or maybe they're constructed in situ, just to go out and poke at the rocks and wildlife, then decomposed back in the saucer.

 

[mike]

For instance, there is nothing that we know of that can achieve instantaneous speed and distance minus relevance to the laws of inertia, let alone the need for tremendous relevant energy to do so with. So in order to do so, one would require a new paradigmatic stage on which to achieve such a goal.

Just because we dont know of a mechanism to do this doesnt mean one doesnt exist.

Another example involves manipulation of time itself, one account suggesting they travel by "stitching time".
There are numerous accounts of time dilation associated with the genre.

This sort of technology would absolutely give the appearance of instantaneous speed in defiance of the laws of inertia.

Frame dragging has been proven, Gravitic propoulsion almsot certainly goes hand in hand with manipulating spacetime.

As for energy, i would again caution about posting absolutes. History is full of absolutes that were just plain wrong


However, any such Alcubierre drive was assumed to require more energy — equivalent to the mass-energy of the whole planet of Jupiter – than could ever possibly be supplied, rendering it impossible to build.
But now scientists believe that those requirements might not be so vast, making warp travel a tangible possibility. Harold White, from NASA’s Johnson Space Centre, revealed the news on Sept. 14 at the 100 Year Starship Symposium, a gathering to discuss the possibilities and challenges of interstellar space travel. Space.com reports that White and his team have calculated that the amount of energy required to create an Alcubierre drive may be smaller than first thought.
The drive works by using a wave to compress the spacetime in front of the spaceship while expanding the spacetime behind it. The ship itself would float in a “bubble” of normal spacetime that would float along the wave of compressed spacetime, like the way a surfer rides a break. The ship, inside the warp bubble, would be going faster than the speed of light relative to objects outside the bubble.
By changing the shape of the warp bubble from a sphere to more of a rounded doughnut, White claims that the energy requirements will be far, far smaller for any faster-than-light ship — merely equivalent to the mass-energy of an object the size of Voyager 1.


We ourselves have revised the energy requirement from the mass energy of jupiter, down to an object the size of voyager 1


The ship, inside the warp bubble, would be going faster than the speed of light relative to objects outside the bubble.

They are already suggesting they can do 10 times the speed of light with this technology

A top NASA boffin has outlined ongoing lab experiments at the space agency aimed at first steps towards the building of a warp-drive spacecraft theoretically capable of travelling at 10 times the speed of light.
Thats 1.86 million miles per second, and inside the warp buble..... no inertia the ship and crew are not moving in the classical sense.

Quantum-thruster physics, another technology White is looking into at NASA, could be the key to creating the fuel needed for a warp drive.
These electric "q-thrusters" work as a submarine does underwater, except they're in the vacuum of space, White told the crowd here at Starship Congress on Aug. 17. The spacecraft is theoretically propelled through space by stirring up the cosmic soup, causing quantum-level perturbations. The resulting thrust is similar to that created by a submersible moving through water.
The technology produces negative vacuum energy, a key ingredient for an exotic-matter-powered warp-drive engine.
"The physics models that tell us how to construct a q-thruster are the same models we'll use to generate, design and build a negative vacuum generator," White said

Engage! Warp Drive Could Become Reality with Quantum-Thruster Physics - Yahoo News


This isnt scifi, its real science being researched now

 

[mike]

I have to make this criticism too Jeff

Whats happening here is youve developed a pet theory about conciousness being the cause, and in order to make the case for this you are trying to disprove competeing theories rather than provide evidence that directly supports yours.

Thats bad science, and postulating absolutes like "its not possible" to do this or that, doesnt directly support your theory. eliminating competing possibiltys by claiming they are not possible doesnt by default make yours correct via the last man standing logic.



Neither does using terms like science "fiction" when real science is saying its likely to be science fact

Theories are proven by providing direct evidence that supports it, not by eliminating all competing ideas as scifi or not possible.

If history tells us one thing, its the claim of not possible is often wrong

"There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement." - Lord Kelvin

The energy produced by the breaking down of the atom is a very poor kind of thing. Anyone who expects a source of power from the transformation of these atoms is talking moonshine.
- Ernest Rutherford

Famously Wrong Predictions

Top 30 Failed Technology Predictions - Listverse

 

[Jeff Davis]

I have to make this criticism too Jeff

Whats happening here is youve developed a pet theory about conciousness being the cause, and in order to make the case for this you are trying to disprove competeing theories rather than provide evidence that directly supports yours.

Thats bad science, and postulating absolutes like "its not possible" to do this or that, doesnt directly support your theory. eliminating competing possibiltys by claiming they are not possible doesnt by default make yours correct via the last man standing logic.



Neither does using terms like science "fiction" when real science is saying its likely to be science fact

Theories are proven by providing direct evidence that supports it, not by eliminating all competing ideas as scifi or not possible.

If history tells us one thing, its the claim of not possible is often wrong

"There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement." - Lord Kelvin

The energy produced by the breaking down of the atom is a very poor kind of thing. Anyone who expects a source of power from the transformation of these atoms is talking moonshine.
- Ernest Rutherford

Famously Wrong Predictions

Top 30 Failed Technology Predictions - Listverse

Mike,
The first thing that I did here was to make clear that my own views were speculative and nonfactual. Not sure where you are coming from apart from typical faction based anti horn tooting hopes that you might have concerning my speculative UFO non-conformist view points. I certainly never made any claim concerning "science". My ONLY point is that just because we ourselves find contemporary and contextual relevance within the concept of our present technologically enabled air travel locomotion, does not mean that this represents the most likely speculation for what are UFOs. That's it. Where are you getting this bad science stuff from? I am discussing speculative reasoning with respect for predicting paradigmatic stages of progress. That is not a science that I am aware of and I certainly never claimed it was.

Regarding science & UFOs: The study of UFOs, in and of itself, cannot be a science, or an "ology", until the unidentified becomes identified. If we start with a false premise, we are bound to get false, or disingenuous results. This is how you must "study" or derive real learning from anything. You have to be able to identify what you are studying first. So the best we can do is to use currently existing branches of science to study UFOs from what is strictly an observation oriented stance due to them being represent of a phenomenon. What is the act of observation? I would state emphatically that it does in fact occur within the realm of consciousness, correct?

In all ages of humankind's history we see (quite literally) the paranormal manifest itself according to context. Why? Yes, I understand that it's a matter of relevance, but that's not the real "how and why" of the matter, is it? I would like very much to understand this aspect of our observation based existence within what we call reality, namely, our intersection with the phenomenal. UFOs are of a phenomenal nature due to being undefined apart from the act of observation.

All of the above Mike, does in no way, deny UFOs as being humanly exterior in nature. I am simply wondering, and I feel justifiably so, whether they utilize a significant portion of our reality that we are as yet unaware of. I simply believe that understanding our own experience within the realm of consciousness will bring us much closer, if not absolutely to, a definitive understanding for what are UFOs.

 

[mike]

None the less Jeff you have used the last man standing logic to support your premise

Something else is going on, and when we eliminate the impossible, what remains is quite possibly a unique or completely different stage of possibilities that we are not at all familiar with yet.

 

[Jeff Davis]

None the less Jeff you have used the last man standing logic to support your premise

You mean like this one? Any takers?

Now *this* is fascinating. How about doing away with the notions of our environmentally binding agreements with relative mass and distance? Achieving great speed while going slow. This makes so much sense with respect to so many UFO observations. Many, many, MANY, times I have read where UFOs were observed just blinking out. vanishing, and then reappearing some distance away almost immediately while being observed by the same individual, or group of individuals. Common sense tells a parson that speed itself has nothing to do with their real maneuverability. Rather what they may do is to use aspects of the natural environment that we are unfamiliar with to make mass and distance irrelevant while navigating that same environment.

Honestly Mike, I have no idea what "last man standing logic" is, but I do know what the best definition for insanity is IMO. That's doing the same thing, or adopting the same approach, over and over, and expecting different results.