• SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY A PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+! For a low subscription fee, you will receive access to an ad-free version of The Paracast, the exclusive After The Paracast podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, plus show transcripts, the new Paracast+ Video Channel, Classic Episodes and Special Features categories! We now offer lifetime memberships! You can subscribe via this direct link:
    https://www.theparacast.com/plus/

    The Official Paracast Store is back! Check out our latest lineup of customized stuff at: The Official Paracast Store!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Disclosure



ProphetofOccam

Paranormal Adept
#21
Voilà it has a new brother, Unique and created in the same fashion as it was.
If that were the case, why start over from scratch?

The history and development of life on planet Earth is pretty reliably tested, documented, and theorized (scientific definition). The history of human development even more so.

If they started that concept about a million years ago, or just 250,000 years ago if they ever only influenced human development, what would be the benefit of going about it from the "beginning?" Just to see if they could?

When i ask these questions, i ask your thoughts. I'm not asking anyone to tell me what hypothetical aliens do, as some of the answers I receive suggest people think I am.
 

USI Calgary

J. Randall Murphy
Staff member
#22
I was saying they wouldn't care if we've seen them or if we know about them, being that they're apparently exceptionally terrible at hiding, and our seeing and knowing has absolutely no apparent bearing on anything. If there were aliens here, they'd probably be observing. We're not super careful not to be seen when we study ants for similar reasons.
UFOs are generally evasive when approached, and when they want to hide they can do so with ease. They tend to avoid high population density centers in the daytime, and don't usually hang around long enough to be studied. This sort of behavior suggests pretty much the opposite of what you're suggesting. Also, we humans often do conceal ourselves when studying the wildlife in order to capture their behavior in their natural environment. All this suggests that it matters to the aliens just how much exposure and contact we have to them. It also suggests that when they reveal themselves it's for a reason.
 

ProphetofOccam

Paranormal Adept
#23
And I’m not appealing to authority. I’m simply observing that while many liars and fools do in fact exist, dismissing *all ufo witnesses* as liars and fools, is BS.
That's being overstated, regarding the general position of science-based skeptics.

Dismissal isn't what's happening. The testimony is interesting, but it's not scientifically valuable -- it can't be tested, it can't be re-referenced, and as a result it can't be contextually cataloged or measured to account for any variables or "controls" that would help to develop any sort of metric for future scenarios. It's just a bunch of words, truth or lies.

I've been coming to this forum for six years. before it, I frequented many skeptic and cryptozoology (more my interest than UFO's, but I like all of the paranormal) forums. One trend that seems to appear over and over is the confusion, or intentional crossing, of the scientific method with the investigative and evidence processing methods of law.

In law, witness testimony has value for two reasons. The first is that cases have no real bearing on human knowledge, and the weight of the evidence is restricted to the impact of the individuals involved, and how the laws involved may be interpreted in the future (but this is usually the case-by-case, subjective decision of a judge, which is #2). The second is that the decision of what is "correct" or "incorrect" in a courtroom is the subjective decision of a judge. Judges may choose to follow precedent, and a judge's ruling can be overturned by higher courts (per that court's subjective decision), but what is an is not a fact, and how important those facts are, is determined by a single individual who studies rules for a living. That is no real goal, in law, to achieve a state of objective understanding or awareness, so it doesn't require the methodology or levels of scrutiny that science does.

Nobody is dismissing eye-witnesses as liars or fools. Tyson and others aren't saying, "show me a body and I'll believe you." There just isn't anything objective to latch on to within the nature of testimony that would help form developing models of approach to the problem being studied. Scientists don't study UFOlogy, because there isn't a scientifically viable way to do it without alien technology, a body, or materials that can be used to develop these kinds of methods and models.

However, you are of the understanding that the United States government does have objectively identifiable items that could be used to conduct legitimate scientific study?

How much would you speculate the government knows about these topics?
 

ProphetofOccam

Paranormal Adept
#24
They tend to avoid high population density centers in the daytime, and don't usually hang around long enough to be studied.
There are countless reported sightings, videos, and photographs of craft in major cities all over the world. There are entire databases dedicated to just UFO sightings in the Five Boroughs (here is a recent sighting: in Brooklyn). There are more so in suburban environments all over the world. Rural areas, while not New York City, still have citizenship in the thousands and more.

Saying sightings largely take place in secluded areas just isn't true, unless you've got a reason you don't count certain types of sightings. If so, what are your criteria?

Also, we humans often do conceal ourselves when studying the wildlife in order to capture their behavior in their natural environment.
Generally only when after specific information. Wildlife tends to ignore human beings for the most part. Often, humans get right into the thick of things to make observations. There's no real reason to believe a lion acts entirely differently when being observed than when not, for instance. I'd think humans probably don't really either.
 

mike

Paranormal Adept
#25
If that were the case, why start over from scratch?
Because that's how you create anything unique. From scratch.

And if you are replicating a process, you might want to duplicate its timescale factors too.

To a post biological entity long time frames are not an issue. Nor would they be for entity's who can time travel, as another scenario.

If and its still only an if at this stage of our knowledge the vast majority of galactic sophonts are post biological as SETI and others are now suggesting, Then taking much interest in us may not be something that they want to do.

Just as different country's have different languages and cultural flavors, SI's are likely to carry the cultural uniqueness of the biologicals that birthed them.
Like paintings in an art gallery. They all involve the basics. Canvas and paint, they are all "paintings". But each one has its own special nature.

For SI's simply copying oneself doesn't do that, It would be like conversing with ones own reflection in a mirror. Or hanging a Photo of the Mona Lisa in a gallery. It looks the same but it lacks the gravitas of an original.

The question regarding finding a pre-sentient biological species and uplifting them to sentience and then guiding subtly their technological progress, or simply seeding a new planet with life and letting it develop would imo come down to supply and demand.

If there are plenty of wild mushrooms to pick you don't need to set up a farm. But if such scenarios are rare, you might want to simply grow your own biological's from scratch.
 

USI Calgary

J. Randall Murphy
Staff member
#26
There are countless reported sightings, videos, and photographs of craft in major cities all over the world. There are entire databases dedicated to just UFO sightings in the Five Boroughs (here is a recent sighting: in Brooklyn). There are more so in suburban environments all over the world. Rural areas, while not New York City, still have citizenship in the thousands and more.

Saying sightings largely take place in secluded areas just isn't true, unless you've got a reason you don't count certain types of sightings. If so, what are your criteria?
Maybe you're right. I didn't say there haven't been sighting over urban areas, just that they tend to avoid them, but to tell you the truth, I don't have a statistical breakdown of all the unknowns divided into location. So maybe my assumption is wrong. Do you any actual stats for this?
Generally only when after specific information. Wildlife tends to ignore human beings for the most part. Often, humans get right into the thick of things to make observations. There's no real reason to believe a lion acts entirely differently when being observed than when not, for instance. I'd think humans probably don't really either.
There are lots of examples where humans observe wildlife from a long distance, remotely, or from a concealed position.
Former Cornell graduate student Marita Davison describes the camera trapping technique that saves her from sitting outside in a harsh high-altitude climate for months at a time counting birds. Combined with GIS technology, camera traps allow her to collect large amounts of data over long periods to help understand how the rare flamingos use their habitat. - Spying on Flamingos: Tools of the Wildlife Biologist | Bird Academy • The Cornell Lab
 

mike

Paranormal Adept
#27
There are lots of examples where humans observe wildlife from a long distance, remotely, or from a concealed position.
And that might also come into play in the scenario i posit. It may be desirable to keep the contact as limited as possible so's to ensure you don't contaminate the culture that's creating the new SI for you with your own.
But at the same time they may need some subtle help along the way.
Getting that balance between not contaminating the project while at the same time providing the equipment and inspiration to meet the goal is imo consistent with what we currently see in the UFO genre today.
 

mike

Paranormal Adept
#28
And take Mars as a local example.
It circles the same celestial campfire we do, But we have yet to send a single member of our biological species there.
Instead we have sent a number of increasingly sophisticated robots.
I have no doubt that if we had the technological ability to send what amounts to advanced sea monkeys (which is what i suspect the grays might be).
Semi autonomous programmable biological robots to collect information, then i reckon we would do it.

As biologicals ourselves we may not be viewed as important enough for contact, For the same reason we don't sail out to a pod of dolphins and say take me to your leader.
Or disclose ourselves and set up cultural exchange with apes.
 
#29
In the standard model perhaps.

But ive always given consideration to the post biological model.

ET is post biological - Google Search

In that scenario they may well care.
If our biological existence is simply a transitory phase, a "hatchery" of consciousness then our "infancy" phase might be something to preserve.

Or

We may simply be the factory workers in a construction project.

For example and of course hypothetically speaking.

An alien race creates artificial intelligence, This synthetic consciousness outlives its biological progenitors who like all biological species eventually die out.

It gets lonely.

It could just copy itself, but that's just playing chess in the mirror.

So it replicates its own creation process.

It seeks out or seeds biological life on a planet somewhere. It coaxes and teases that bioform to technological proficiency. It lets them create synthetic intelligence (SI) in "their own image"

Voilà it has a new brother, Unique and created in the same fashion as it was.

"I think it very likely – in fact inevitable – that biological intelligence is only a transitory phenomenon, a fleeting phase in the evolution of the universe," Davies writes in The Eerie Silence. "If we ever encounter extraterrestrial intelligence, I believe it is overwhelmingly likely to be post-biological in nature."

"Biological Intelligence is a Fleeting Phase in the Evolution of the Universe" (Holiday Weekend Feature)

In that scenario it would care, it would want to coax the target biologicals to its ends, but not outright contaminate the process.
Mike,
Agree , the possibility the unknown life forms could be inhabiting our planet and we would not know what the hell they are? Like Dr.Michio Kaku suggests , humans are advancing in technologies and so would other civilisations therefore we never actually catch up to other existence life forms unless they helped us . This would lead me to think eyewitness such as whistleblowers like Mr Lazar has elements of plausibility like the late Col Corso filled with muddy info . The fact UFOs are real and one day we might find out the answer . Also like paranormal researchers Mack Maloney suggest they seem to appear more often during wartime. Could the fact ongoing explosions /combustions be a key attractant to the phenomena? Mechanical interactions and fuels ? Electrical and heat? Humans and machines? Metal's and its origins to the Earth? Also is higher number of UFO sightings during storms on the high seas by naval shipping and submarines below with regards to USO ?
 
Last edited:
#30
That's being overstated, regarding the general position of science-based skeptics.
I’m a science-based skeptic. I don’t know how the definition of “skeptic” shifted from “someone who lets the data determine their conclusions” to “someone who disbelieves everything until the scientific consensus has confirmed its existence,” but I refuse to accept that new definition.

Because the early stages of a scientific investigation are critical, and the second definition hobbles it. Real science begins at the edges of the known, where anecdotes and modest evidentiary data like radar returns and trace evidence and other factors have to be carefully scrutinized and sifted for significance. At this stage, the available evidence has to be carefully weighed against the reasonable expectation of available evidence. And if a question remains after that’s been done, the formal scientific process can begin: a team can be drawn together, detection systems can be designed and built, and personnel can begin collecting and studying hard data.

This subject stalled in the first phase because the government/military wanted to bury it. That error needs to be corrected: science should never be derailed for strictly political reasons.

Dismissal isn't what's happening. The testimony is interesting, but it's not scientifically valuable -- it can't be tested, it can't be re-referenced, and as a result it can't be contextually cataloged or measured to account for any variables or "controls" that would help to develop any sort of metric for future scenarios. It's just a bunch of words, truth or lies.

I've been coming to this forum for six years. before it, I frequented many skeptic and cryptozoology (more my interest than UFO's, but I like all of the paranormal) forums.

One trend that seems to appear over and over is the confusion, or intentional crossing, of the scientific method with the investigative and evidence processing methods of law.
Legal standards are different from the scientific method – I understand that perfectly. There’s no confusion in our discussion about it, so let’s not go over it again.

My point is simple, and I’ll restate it. The publicly available data does not meet the scientific standard of proof to determine that the Earth has been visited by extraterrestrial devices in recent history. Everyone knows that. But many thousands of eyewitnesses, in addition to radar confirmation cases and multiple independent witnesses case, etc, is a sufficient basis to *merit* a scientific investigation. And that hasn’t happened. Instead, we got a couple of bogus and heavily biased non-scientific assessments from the government, denying the whole thing without any valid scientific work on the subject.

So on one hand, we have scientists saying that there isn’t scientific evidence for the ETH, but on the other hand, we can’t collect that evidence without a scientific investigation. It’s a Catch-22.

And this is doing *no favors* for anyone, least of all the scientific community. Because it adds up to a gigantic PR nightmare for science. Maybe you’ve noticed: a huge portion of the American public now distrusts science and dislikes scientists. From 1950 to now, the public perception of scientists has transitioned from that of the noble and dashing leading man that we saw in “This Island Earth,” to Brent Spiner’s twisted freaky shut-in from “Independence Day.”

That’s not an accident. Most Americans believe that ufos have visited the Earth in recent history – they have a close friend, or a beloved family member, or a personal hero, who has reported a sighting that clearly suggests “we are not alone.” And recently the astronomical evidence has proven that Earth-like worlds are shockingly commonplace throughout the known universe.

But the science community keeps parroting the line “insufficient evidence,” while the public cringes at the hubris of refusing to investigate a hypothesis that’s supported by; astronomy, untold thousands of eyewitness reports, and in some instances radar data and trace evidence.

You want to know why so many people are no longer swayed by the scientific consensus of vital issues like anthropogenic climate change? Well, this is a Big part of it. Trust is a two-way street, and the decades of spitting in the faces of the majority of the people on the planet who believe that we’re being visited, has caught up with the scientific establishment. The science community was given a choice: side with the government on this (who clearly wanted the subject buried), or side with the people. And they chose to side with the government, aka their primary funding source. So in the public mind, scientists aren’t much different than the politicians who have sold them out for money.

I don’t want any of this. Scientific thinking is our one and only hope for creating a sustainable and fruitful civilization.

But until the science community makes a proper scientific investigation into this subject, instead of sniggering in the faces of the majority of the American people who believe for good reasons that a scientific investigation is long overdue, then people are going to keep looking elsewhere – like the odious lies of an orange-faced baboon – for an ally who will listen to them, rather than mock them.

Scientists don't study UFOlogy, because there isn't a scientifically viable way to do it without alien technology, a body, or materials that can be used to develop these kinds of methods and models.
Come on. We can smash protons into a quark-gluon plasma that existed in the first instants of the Big Bang, and detect a tiny gravitational repulsion field by taking precision measurements of galaxy cluster velocities across the entire span the visible universe…but we can’t detect an alien craft in our own atmosphere? Who do you think we’re kidding here?

However, you are of the understanding that the United States government does have objectively identifiable items that could be used to conduct legitimate scientific study?
Of course. The military has everything we’d need: precision passive radar systems, supersonic jet interceptors with high-resolution cameras, satellite surveillance cameras that can read your license plate on a clear day, and undoubtedly hundreds if not thousands of film and video and radar records of events that can only be explained by an advanced technology entering our airspace. But neither the public nor the scientific community has access to any of it.

As this thread’s title suggests, disclosure of the existing hard data would change everything, and provide us with all the raw material required to assess the phenomenon scientifically. But I don’t see that happening. So we need to build our own detection systems.

How much would you speculate the government knows about these topics?
We know they have a lot of good film footage and radar data – there were active investigations into this topic by the military in the 50s and I think the 60s as well, with aircraft fitted with equipment to gather real-time, up-close data. They must have classified scientific assessments already, which conclude that we’re being visited. But beyond that, I doubt that they know much. It’s possible that they know more, if there’s actually been contact, but I haven’t seen any compelling indications of that.
 
Last edited:
#31
We need people who are looking beyond disclosure in a way that doesn't depend on it happening. Ideas?
Personally, I’m working to advance theoretical progress on gravitational field propulsion, because I expect two very important things to come from a paper that clearly defines a method of achieving it (without invoking a form of negative energy that probably doesn’t exists in nature, as Alcubierre’s description requires):

1.) It’ll make such a system technologically inevitable. It would probably still take centuries before we can harness the energy required to build such a thing, but once we have essentially a blueprint, it will happen one day.

2.) Once we know that it can be done, and how it can be done, the silly argument “ufos can’t be exosolar in origin because interstellar distances are too vast to cross in an efficient and timely manner,” will be thrown out the window. If we can do it, then they can do it. Scientific opinion regarding the ETH will change dramatically at that point in the conversation.

There are other things we can do though. As I’ve said before, I have a plan that would work quite well:

Stage 1.) We need to design a simple and cost-effective passive radar system (as Peter Davenport has suggested for years) that can connect to the interent via a custom passive radar computer program that can run in the background of any PC, and make it available to everyone in the country who’d like to participate in Stage 2.

Stage 2.) Set up a dedicated computer server to process the incoming data from every passive radar antenna in the field, and produce a real-time map of all the activity in US airspace. The system will require algorithms to match transponder signals with each target (and tag any craft not broadcasting one), and to red flag aerial objects that accelerate with magnitudes beyond the known limits of human aircraft capabilities. When an object triggers the system, an alert will let users know that there’s a candidate in our airspace that may be of unknown origin. Naturally, all data will be saved and red flag events will be listed on a sidebar for anyone to study at their leisure. With a sufficient density of passive radar antennas sending in data, air speeds, accelerations, and even aircraft profiles can be determined and displayed for anyone to see.

Stage 3.) A free phone app can be written to alert users within a given geographical range of any red flag activity nearby, and display the altitude, air speed, direction and distance to the object. An alert can sound on the user’s phone so they can see what’s going on when something anomalous is detected in their area, and they can collect photo and video data of the event. It’s possible that other sensors on a smartphone might be able to detect other information, and magnetic anomalies – such capabilities should be evaluated and, if useful, incorporated into the app.

Stage 4.) Portable wide-spectrum data collection units can be built and distributed around the country and linked to the online detection system via the cellular network. Volunteers in any given region can attempt to get the unit within range of anomalous aerial activity so we can collect a broad-spectrum range of EM signals and other forms of precise scientific data that may provide clues to the operation of the anomalous object. Tracking software and an on-board radar system could focus telephoto lenses on the target to get clear footage of the event. Christopher O’Brien has been working on a prototype that sounds ideal for this application.

I think that with the right people involved in a project like this, a crowd funding project could get the whole thing rolling. People want a scientific study of this subject, and this is the way to do it.
 
Last edited:

USI Calgary

J. Randall Murphy
Staff member
#32
Personally, I’m working to advance theoretical progress on gravitational field propulsion, because I expect two very important things to come from a paper that clearly defines a method of achieving it (without invoking a form of negative energy that probably doesn’t exists in nature, as Alcubierre’s description requires):

1.) It’ll make such a system technologically inevitable. It would probably still take centuries before we can harness the energy required to build such a thing, but once we have essentially a blueprint, it will happen one day.

2.) Once we know that it can be done, and how it can be done, the silly argument “ufos can’t be exosolar in origin because interstellar distances are too vast to cross in an efficient and timely manner,” will be thrown out the window. If we can do it, then they can do it. Scientific opinion regarding the ETH will change dramatically at that point in the conversation.

There are other things we can do though. As I’ve said before, I have a plan that would work quite well:

Stage 1.) We need to design a simple and cost-effective passive radar system (as Peter Davenport has suggested for years) that can connect to the interent via a custom passive radar computer program that can run in the background of any PC, and make it available to everyone in the country who’d like to participate in Stage 2.

Stage 2.) Set up a dedicated computer server to process the incoming data from every passive radar antenna in the field, and produce a real-time map of all the activity in US airspace. The system will require algorithms to match transponder signals with each target (and tag any craft not broadcasting one), and to red flag aerial objects that accelerate with magnitudes beyond the known limits of human aircraft capabilities. When an object triggers the system, an alert will let users know that there’s a candidate in our airspace that may be of unknown origin. Naturally, all data will be saved and red flag events will be listed on a sidebar for anyone to study at their leisure. With a sufficient density of passive radar antennas sending in data, air speeds, accelerations, and even aircraft profiles can be determined and displayed for anyone to see.

Stage 3.) A free phone app can be written to alert users within a given geographical range of any red flag activity nearby, and display the altitude, air speed, direction and distance to the object. An alert can sound on the user’s phone so they can see what’s going on when something anomalous is detected in their area, and they can collect photo and video data of the event. It’s possible that other sensors on a smartphone might be able to detect other information, and magnetic anomalies – such capabilities should be evaluated and, if useful, incorporated into the app.

Stage 4.) Portable wide-spectrum data collection units can be built and distributed around the country and linked to the online detection system via the cellular network. Volunteers in any given region can attempt to get the unit within range of anomalous aerial activity so we can collect a broad-spectrum range of EM signals and other forms of precise scientific data that may provide clues to the operation of the anomalous object. Tracking software and an on-board radar system could focus telephoto lenses on the target to get clear footage of the event. Christopher O’Brien has been working on a prototype that sounds ideal for this application.

I think that with the right people involved in a project like this, a crowd funding project could get the whole thing rolling. People want a scientific study of this subject, and this is the way to do it.
I like your enthusiasm. I once had similar ideas and that's how USI got started. Since then I can't count the number of similar proposals I've seen that nothing has come of, and I can't help but think that if everyone who has tried to claim their own little piece of turf would have put their effort and resources into a single project, maybe something might have materialized. One exception is the UFO Stalker site, which I imagine can be accessed from a cell phone. The other is Chris' SLV Camera Project.

Again however, getting UFOs captured on video isn't likely do accomplish anything other than bragging rights. I say this because I don't have any doubt that the PTB have had UFO video for years, and if anyone could use it to figure out how UFOs work, they could. But instead they're still building increasingly complex jets at tens of millions of dollars a pop. So how would a comparatively lousy civilian video help civilians with comparatively lousy resources build something that the best minds in the business with billions of dollars haven't yet figured out?


It's questions like that that make me think the whole push for disclosure is a waste of time. We already know they have more evidence than we do. We don't need to prove it. And even if we got our hands on it, it wouldn't help us figure out much more than we already know. About all we'd be able to do is stuff it in the nose of the skeptics and tell them "We told you so." That's pointless ( though it would feel good for a few days ). Instead, what I'd like to see is some sort of collective focus on something that can bring us into direct meaningful communication with the aliens.

I don't know what that might be, but for some reason I think that some sort of collective effort might have some sort of impact. I really dislike the analogy that we're like ants to the aliens so why would they care, but imagine for a moment if someone looked down, and a group of ants formed the words, "We know you're watching us." I imagine that would get some serious attention even if they are only ants. Then imagine if the ants morphed into other sentences, and someone caught that all on video. It wouldn't matter if it was only ants. If they started talking to us it would go viral.

So I'm wondering how to translate that sort of thinking into the UFO problem. It's a completely different approach that focuses on the phenomenon rather than on governments and skeptics. BTW I also think the endeavor to figure out their propulsion system is another approach that has practical value. I've said this before: Maybe all it will take is the right inventor tinkering around in his or her garage to stumble on the solution. I mean there have been reports of tiny little probe like UFOs, so if those are true, the power requirements are well within reach of the average citizen. It's the working principle that is still a mystery.
 
Last edited:
#33
Since then I can't count the number of similar proposals I've seen that nothing has come of, and I can't help but think that if everyone who has tried to claim their own little piece of turf would have put their effort and resources into a single project, maybe something might have materialized.
Well I’m certainly not interested in any claiming any turf – I put these ideas out there to get people thinking about it, and hopefully somebody will run with something like this someday.

Part of the problem with gaining traction is probably the limited scope of the project.

To me this is about achieving clear real-time coverage and public awareness of everything in our airspace. If we’d had this system in place by 2001, everyone in the public would’ve been alerted of all three jets when they turned off their transponders, and we would’ve seen them flying to NYC and the Pentagon long before the impacts. News coverage and real-time coverage of the aircraft positions might’ve saved thousands of innocent lives.

With this system, we’d also have live real-time detection of any incoming missiles, or meteors, or anomalous weather phenomena. And anyone who saw anything in the sky could get the map on our website, get an instant close-up on their vicinity via their cellular location service, and see what the shape of the object is, how high it is, how fast it’s going, and the direction it's headed. And all of that information would be available with a couple of clicks so everyone could look at it later by clicking a link to the event after-the-fact.

It could also detect forming tornadoes and alert people in the area, showing them exactly what was happening and where, in real time.

Precision data of everything going on in our airspace has all kinds of practical and scientific value. I think that collecting data on unknown objects is only an interesting side benefit of such a project.

Again however, getting UFOs captured on video isn't likely do accomplish anything other than bragging rights. I say this because I don't have any doubt that the PTB have had UFO video for years, and if anyone could use it to figure out how UFOs work, they could. But instead they're still building increasingly complex jets at tens of millions of dollars a pop. So how would a comparatively lousy civilian video help civilians with comparatively lousy resources build something that the best minds in the business with billions of dollars haven't yet figured out?
Lots to unpack here.

- if there is a cover-up (and I think that’s very hard to argue against at this point), then the fruits of the cover-up also have to be covered up. You can’t suddenly replace all of your jets with antigravity devices without tipping your hand that you’ve back-engineered alien craft. This is one of the reasons that the breakaway civilization concept is so compelling; it makes perfect sense.

- if we’re talking about all four stages of development listed above, we’re not just talking about collecting video (although it might be useful to collect clear video so we can analyze any visible artifacts of the propulsion system, like any lensing or optical disturbances surrounding the craft). The complete system would also give us a real shot at detecting electrical, magnetic, infrared, ultraviolet, radioactivity, and gravitational data, via the portable sensor units. That’s scientific data, which could be invaluable in estimating energy densities and physical characteristics of the field propulsion mechanism, especially at critical moments like sudden accelerations and other behavioral changes.

It's questions like that that make me think the whole push for disclosure is a waste of time.
It is, because it’s not going to happen. At this point half of all documents generated by our government are classified. These people are in the business of keeping secrets, not exposing them. Same goes for the press, which is nothing more than a megaphone for the Deep State at this point.

About all we'd be able to do is stuff it in the nose of the skeptics and tell them "We told you so."
But y’know, vindicating all of us who have been persecuted and derided for decades because we dared to tell our story as accurately and as honestly as possible, would be justice. And I think that a Lot of people would like to have the hard evidence to back them up when they tell the government: “hey, you’ve been lying to us about this for decades, and now we have the proof.” Who knows – maybe once we can do that, the government will release some of what they have, because keeping the secret at that point would be moot. And that’s the only way we’ll ever get any disclosure – once it’s a totally moot point.

I'd like to see is some sort of collective focus on something that can bring us into direct meaningful communication with the aliens.
I think that if they wanted to communicate with us, they’d have done it long, long ago.

I don't know what that might be, but for some reason I think that some sort of collective effort might have some sort of impact.
That’s why I think that crowdfunding would be the way to go.

I really dislike the analogy that we're like ants to the aliens so why would they care, but imagine for a moment if someone looked down, and a group of ants formed the words, "We know you're watching us."
I don’t like that analogy either. We’re a sentient intelligence with rapidly evolving technological capabilities that will, one day, be traversing the stars. Ants aren’t evolving in that direction: we are. That makes us an emerging threat (or nuisance) at the very least.

But at this point, all we can say is “We think you’re watching us.” It will take a major technological effort to actually prove it, but as we’ve been discussing, it can certainly be done.

BTW I also think the endeavor to figure out their propulsion system is another approach that has practical value. I've said this before: Maybe all it will take is the right inventor tinkering around in his or her garage to stumble on the solution. I mean there have been reports of tiny little probe like UFOs, so if those are true, the power requirements are well within reach of the average citizen.
Oh we can’t say that at all – an object’s size tells us nothing about the energy content: energy density is virtually unlimited by physics. And the more advanced a civilization is, the higher the energy density it can generate, contain, and precisely manipulate. Energy density is also a key factor in the Einstein field equations – in some ways it’s even more important than the magnitude of energy. A civilization with sufficient control of energy can engineer with the principles of general relativity, aka the physics of gravitational fields.

It's the working principle that is still a mystery.
But perhaps not entirely. Alcubierre’s 1994 warp field propulsion paper formally described a method for producing all of the kinds of effects that we’ve seen with ufos – levitation, instantaneous accelerations with no g-forces…and it was the first genuine glimpse at a theoretically viable method of superluminal interstellar spaceflight. Further work will be done, and eventually we’ll build something that works.

The reason that Alcubierre’s paper didn’t tip the scales, is because his model requires negative energy, which is apparently nonphysical. But four years later astronomers detected the dark energy effect, which is a negative gravitational field effect. That has the exact key property that Alcubierre’s concept requires, and we now know that the universe exhibits that property. That’s huge – it means that gravitational field propulsion is truly theoretically possible. If we can figure out what dark energy is and how it does what it does, then we *may* be able to amplify that effect in the lab. And at that point, we’ll know how to build a ufo.

To me, that’s the objective. The subject of alien visitation is interesting, but the technological control of gravitation would absolutely elevate and transform human civilization. And god knows – if we need anything, it’s to elevate and transform human civilization.
 
Last edited:

USI Calgary

J. Randall Murphy
Staff member
#34
- if there is a cover-up (and I think that’s very hard to argue against at this point), then the fruits of the cover-up also have to be covered up. You can’t suddenly replace all of your jets with antigravity devices without tipping your hand that you’ve back-engineered alien craft. This is one of the reasons that the breakaway civilization concept is so compelling; it makes perfect sense.
I find it very doubtful that the US military would be sinking 80+ million dollars a pop into jets or rocket launches when they could build craft that outperform them at every turn. It makes no budgetary or strategic sense. Yes, there have been secret projects, but they're also rockets or jets, and it didn't take long to find out about them either. Not to mention that UFOs have been reported since the days of prop aircraft, and if the mythology can be believed, even before that. So to suggest they've had antigravity propulsion all along, and developed a whole aerospace industry as a cover is IMO completely beyond reason.

I also don't find the breakaway civilization hypothesis compelling, because no society with that level of tech could have broken away without someone keeping tabs on it or keeping us from finding it here. There's too much surveillance including ground penetrating scanners in space. The only feasible scenario is some sort of parallel system working within our own civilization, and if that were the case, the military would know about it and simply conscript anything of tactical value and add it to their inventory.

So to me there's no reasonable argument that can be made for the PTB having knowledge on actual UFO propulsion. Perhaps they have made some advances in other areas like high-tech coatings ( plasma deposited diamond or graphene ), but I doubt either came directly out of an alien vehicle they have in their possession. If anything it's more likely inspired by sci-fi or UFO experiences. I'm fairly sure at least a couple of engineers were inspired either by UFO reports or personal experiences, but I don't recall their names at the moment.

All that being said, the breakaway hypothesis is sort of entertaining, and at least it's something possible ( unlike transports from Hell and other nonsense ). I suppose I could also have missed some angle that could make it all seem more plausible too. But I don't think so. If you can think of one I'm always open to discussion!
 

USI Calgary

J. Randall Murphy
Staff member
#35
... But perhaps not entirely. Alcubierre’s 1994 warp field propulsion paper formally described a method for producing all of the kinds of effects that we’ve seen with ufos – levitation, instantaneous accelerations with no g-forces…and it was the first genuine glimpse at a theoretically viable method of superluminal interstellar spaceflight. Further work will be done, and eventually we’ll build something that works.

The reason that Alcubierre’s paper didn’t tip the scales, is because his model requires negative energy, which is apparently nonphysical. But four years later astronomers detected the dark energy effect, which is a negative gravitational field effect. That has the exact key property that Alcubierre’s concept requires, and we now know that the universe exhibits that property. That’s huge – it means that gravitational field propulsion is truly theoretically possible. If we can figure out what dark energy is and how it does what it does, then we *may* be able to amplify that effect in the lab. And at that point, we’ll know how to build a ufo.
I'm not convinced that a warp field is necessary. It's an interesting theoretical idea, and I'm certainly no expert, but personally, I don't think math and the real world are the same thing. I think the math for spacetime geometry is an abstract way of looking at the behavior of things in space, not the way space actually is, which means I don't think space isn't actually curved. Things just behave as if it's curved. It's like relativity theory where acceleration and gravity are mathematically indistinguishable, yet gravity isn't acceleration. So there may be no huge energy requirement. I can't help but think there's something fundamental that we're missing.

It should also be noted that FTL isn't really necessary if the craft has a long service life or the distance is only a few light years. At even half light speed there are a number of stars that could be reached within a human lifetime. Plus who's to say that aliens only live as long as us. For all we know they're immortal and can just lazily drift around the galaxy at sub-light speed checking out whatever interests them. However if there is an FTL drive out there, then I think it works with some combination of electricity, superconductivity, and magnetism. Either that or it works on some sort of interface with the workings of the universe beyond this one. But that's a whole other kettle 'o fish.
 
Last edited:
#36
I find it very doubtful that the US military would be sinking 80+ million dollars a pop into jets or rocket launches when they could build craft that outperform them at every turn. It makes no budgetary or strategic sense. Yes, there have been secret projects, but they're also rockets or jets, and it didn't take long to find out about them either. Not to mention that UFOs have been reported since the days of prop aircraft, and if the mythology can be believed, even before that. So to suggest they've had antigravity propulsion all along, and developed a whole aerospace industry as a cover is IMO completely beyond reason.
I never said that the military has had gravitational field propulsion technology all along. I don’t understand why people keep putting words in my mouth. I have no idea if the military has that kind of technology even now, but I doubt it.

I just said that if they have such a thing, they’d hide it. You don’t use your best weapons for routine ground wars, or they lose their strategic value. Your biggest advancements should be kept secret so that when a real existential threat comes along, you can surprise the enemy with a capability that they didn’t know you have. We do this constantly, which is why we never have any idea what the current top-secret reconnaissance plane in service is - is it the Aurora (which could just be a cover story for something else), or it is something we've never even heard of? Who knows? Not us, and they're not telling. And that's just dumb stuff like better ramjets. Some genuinely radical advancement wouldn't be flown over Iran, and risk handing over something like a gravitational propulsion system to a hostile state that could use it to nuke Tel Aviv in 30 seconds flat.

I also don't find the breakaway civilization hypothesis compelling, because no society with that level of tech could have broken away without someone keeping tabs on it or keeping us from finding it here. There's too much surveillance including ground penetrating scanners in space. The only feasible scenario is some sort of parallel system working within our own civilization, and if that were the case, the military would know about it and simply conscript anything of tactical value and add it to their inventory.
I see – we have different definitions of “breakaway civilization.” I take it to mean “the highly classified government/defense/military industry, which is coveting god only knows what kinds of technologies under the faux banner of national security concerns” – which is in a sense a civilization within a civilization.

I’ve seen something like this in my own life, dealing with a petulant billionaire who lives within our society, but not among the public – it’s a separate world for billionaires, and I presume for very powerful people in government and industry also. They travel on their own private jets, go to their own private mansions all over the place, have personal chefs make all of their meals, and they usually only meet with other rich and powerful people at places like Bohemian Grove and the Bilderberg group meetings. They live in a bubble. I suppose it’s an even more completely removed bubble when you’re talking about people who live in “the black world” of special access programs and underground bases. But I assume that they live in mansions around our cities and raise families in exclusive suburbs, while remaining pretty well-insulated from rabble like us.

So to me there's no reasonable argument that can be made for the PTB having knowledge on actual UFO propulsion.
Yeah I don’t think that’s logical. I’m sure that top military research scientists have analyzed all of their data and tried to replicate the technology. It would be a gross dereliction of duty to ignore the prospect of a game-changing military advantage. And they might have made some progress. Like I said before, the biggest step forward for physics is learning that something can occur in nature. Add to that the general theory of relativity, which we know is an extremely accurate model of gravitational fields, with some brilliant scientists like Robert L. Forward who was writing groundbreaking papers on this subject in the early 1960s, plus hundreds of billions of dollars in black budget program funding, and you could probably produce a field propulsion device of some kind sooner or later. It’s easy to underestimate the power of an excellent scientific theory combined with the virtually unlimited resources of the US military machine, but I think it’s mistake to do it. I knew a guy who worked on deep black research science programs, and he made it perfectly clear that we’ve done things in the lab that we’ve only seen in science fiction movies.

I'm not convinced that a warp field is necessary. It's an interesting theoretical idea, and I'm certainly no expert, but personally, I don't think math and the real world are the same thing. I think the math for spacetime geometry is an abstract way of looking at the behavior of things in space, not the way space actually is, which means I don't think space isn't actually curved. Things just behave as if it's curved. It's like relativity theory where acceleration and gravity are mathematically indistinguishable, yet gravity isn't acceleration.
I feel the same way, and in fact Caltech professor Carver Mead has recently developed an alternative formulation of the gravitational field called G4v, which describes gravity in terms of 4 vector potentials acting in flat Minkowski spacetime, which makes predictions so close to those of general relativity that we won’t know which theory is correct until the LIGO facilities determine the polarization of gravitational waves (they’ll be able to do that soon, probably within the next year or two).

But it doesn’t actually matter which theory is correct at this point, because either way, the energy distributions and the physical consequences of them are virtually identical in both theories, so in practice it's more like a difference in interpretation. There might be some observable differences in the extremely high mass-energy regime, like the radius of a supermassive black hole, but it’ll be quite a long while before humankind could ever harness energy at that scale anyway.

So there may be no huge energy requirement.
As I just explained, that doesn’t follow: any theory that accurately describes gravitation must have virtually identical properties in practice, in order to conform to all of the known and very precise observations. But we're an ingenious species; at any time we could devise some novel concept to allow us to modify parameters of our gravitation theories so we can reduce energy requirements somehow – like if we could figure out how to influence the effective electric permittivity of the vacuum so it’s no longer a constant, or to alter the magnitude of the gravitational constant somehow. Sadly, no credible proposals have been forwarded to achieve such things, even in theory - but perhaps that will change one day. Dr. Forward has already proposed a very interesting strategy for amplifying time-varying gravitational fields by developing new materials with nonlinear gravitomagnetic permeability (which would be analogous to the iron cores in electromagnetic inductors that amplify the magnetic field strength), so maybe we'll figure out a way to amplify the coupling strength of mass-energy to spacetime someday. But even that won't change the dynamics of the underlying theory, because those kinds of adjustments are simply quantitative, not qualitative.

I can't help but think there's something fundamental that we're missing.
Jeez – there’s a lot of fundamental stuff that we’re missing, and that may always be the case as science progresses. It seems like we find new physics whenever we make ever larger strides in energy level, and when we explore more extreme scales of observation both larger and smaller. Right now we’re certain that 96% of the universe is a mystery to us because dark matter and dark energy are mysteries to us. Interestingly, the action of both is strictly gravitational in nature, to the best of our knowledge.

It should also be noted that FTL isn't really necessary if the craft has a long service life or the distance is only a few light years. At even half light speed there are a number of stars that could be reached within a human lifetime. Plus who's to say that aliens only live as long as us. For all we know they're immortal and can just lazily drift around the galaxy at sub-light speed checking out whatever interests them. However if there is an FTL drive out there, then I think it works with some combination of electricity, superconductivity, and magnetism. Either that or it works on some sort of interface with the workings of the universe beyond this one. But that's a whole other kettle 'o fish.
Well, we know that general relativity permits a gravitational field propulsion mechanism, so I don’t think we need to invoke other universes. Besides, if there is a way to access something like that, it would appear that it would take far greater energy than anything we’ve ever observed before, because we’ve still seen no signs of such a possibility (and we’ve created conditions equivalent to those of the early universe within an instant of the Big Bang).

But here’s the important point: the craft that we observe are exhibiting all of the predicted characteristics of a gravitational field propulsion system, and we already know that such a system, by its very nature, is not limited by the speed of light, as things like rockets are. So it makes perfect sense that they’re using that kind of propulsion principle, and they could be getting here from a nearby star in a matter of hours, or less – it’s theoretically possible, and the time frames are limited only by the energy densities that a civilization can produce and control, and by technical issues like shielding.

The special relativity model is modestly interesting – at a constant acceleration of only 1g, a craft could circumnavigate the observable universe within the span of a human lifetime, from the frame of reference onboard the device. But of course the Sun would’ve exploded and the Earth would be a cold cinder long before it returned to its launch point. And sure, aliens could use that time dilation effect to visit us in rocket ships, especially if they lived a long time.

But they’re not using rocket ships. By all observable indications, they’re using gravitational field propulsion. No other kind of propulsion mechanism can generate acute angle maneuvers at thousands of miles per hour without generating extremely crushing g-forces. But gravitational field propulsion, by definition, uniformly accelerates all of the matter within the field – so there are never any g-forces using such a system: the craft and its contents are simply in free-fall at every instant, no matter what kinds of drastic accelerations the craft is producing. Only gravitational fields have that intrinsic property. Plus, this method would generate no emissions or turbulence, which is also what we observe.
 
Last edited:

mike

Paranormal Adept
#37
A free phone app can be written to alert users within a given geographical range of any red flag activity nearby, and display the altitude, air speed, direction and distance to the object. An alert can sound on the user’s phone so they can see what’s going on when something anomalous is detected in their area, and they can collect photo and video data of the event. It’s possible that other sensors on a smartphone might be able to detect other information, and magnetic anomalies – such capabilities should be evaluated and, if useful, incorporated into the app.
Thats a good aspect for consideration, and it was raised by NARCAP many years ago.

Because of our experience blinkers, we would naturally assume an object that was seen on the east coast of the US, and then seen 1 minute later on the west must be two separate craft of the same design. But if the craft were using some exotic propulsion system it could be the very same object.
 

mike

Paranormal Adept
#38
But they’re not using rocket ships. By all observable indications, they’re using gravitational field propulsion

Gravitational Shocks, Shock Waves, and Exotic Space Propulsion


https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1101/1101.1063.pdf

Six reasons why the latest gravitational wave discovery is huge

Now an international team of scientists has detected gravitational waves from a new source: the cataclysmic collision of neutron stars, the smallest and densest stars in the universe.

And this is much more than just the fifth in that historic series of detection's.

Scientists say this is a game-changer, which arguably rivals the original Nobel Prize-winning detection.

Not only has it produced an unprecedented amount of data and opened a new window on the universe, it will revolutionize science for decades to come.
 

Top