marduk
quelling chaos since 2352BC
Good point.
They also appear interested in nuclear technology, perhaps among others.
But again, they don’t approach institutions. Individuals and technology is their interest.
Which is interesting.
-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
January 7, 2018 — Col. John Alexander
- Thread starter Gene Steinberg
- Start date
They also appear interested in nuclear technology, perhaps among others.
But again, they don’t approach institutions. Individuals and technology is their interest.
Which is interesting.
Randall
J. Randall Murphy
Maybe I'm not clear on what you are referring to as "institutions". I'm thinking governmental, military, and religious locations would be considered institutions. But then again, with religious locations I'm not so sure which cases would be reliable. It seems fairly safe to say however, that with all the associated religious mythology from Ezekiel to Fatima that something has been going on there for a long time. The Bible has sometimes been referred to as one of the greatest UFO books ever written.
That leaves the educational institutions, but then we have the Westall and Ariel school cases. If transportation is considered an institution, there have definitely been sightings near aircraft and airports. If civic infrastructure counts as institutions, then we can add water reservoirs and power lines. Maybe these locations are simply incidental. I don't know. One thing I would say is that if they didn't want their presence to be known at all, they probably could have done that. But instead, their presence has become engrained in culture worldwide. I imagine the percentage of people who have never heard of them is now very small.
UFOs have become so commonplace as a cultural meme that a fair number of people simply don't care or even have an aversion to it. An acquaintance recently commented that they think the subject is boring and they wonder why I bother bringing it up when we've gotten together. It's not like I get evangelical about it, but I figure if they can go on and on about their latest trip or golf game, I can casually bring up UFOs. And of course UFOs are a significant focus for skeptical organizations. Anyway, why are you focusing on this aspect? Do you feel there is some special connection going on between individuals that transcends these sorts of examples?
Last edited:
marduk
quelling chaos since 2352BC
What I’m trying to get at is the dilemma of “if they’d just land on the White House lawn...”
They haven’t. They haven’t issued any kind of public decree. They didn’t go sit down with guys from MIT or Harvard. They haven’t gone to the newspapers.
They haven’t gone to the UN. They haven’t done a “day the earth stood still” and landed in the middle of a city in a public say. They haven’t done an Independence Day scenario where the first thing they do is hit our centres of societal power.
It’s like those things don’t exist or don’t interest them in the least.
But they do show up in isolated areas. They do show up to individuals or small groups (in general). The only engagement or interaction appears to be with individuals - unless the interaction is provoked (running away from fighter jets for example).
And to your point, they seem interested in certain human technologies.
And I find that fascinating. We are social animals, and our first bias would likely be to engage them on a social or societal level - with their institutions and leadership.
They aren’t.
Randall
J. Randall Murphy
Okay that seems like a fair observation. Even we try to communicate and develop relationships with creatures less intelligent than we are. Some days though, I wonder which one is more intelligent, the dog or its owner
. Then again we also use them for study and experimentation. I tend to keep coming back to the idea that if we're the experiment, then they could have reasons for not getting too personal. But maybe they have some social structure of their own. I would imagine there would have to be some sort of hierarchy involved at some level.
marduk
quelling chaos since 2352BC
Okay that seems like a fair observation. Even we try to communicate and develop relationships with creatures less intelligent than we are. Some days though, I wonder which one is more intelligent, the dog or its owner
Hmm... I guess I was inferring a general disinterest, but maybe it's more than that.
A hive mind might not even recognize individuals cooperating as institutions, for example. They may be looking for the other hive mind to respond to it, and be frustrated because it perceives it's being ignored - because there's no hive mind for it to respond to.
That kind of thing would explain a great deal, actually. We may be dealing with an individual entity with many fractal-like components.
Just a thought experiment, mind you.
Randall
J. Randall Murphy
I had the same thought and was going to mention it, so maybe we've got more of a hive mind going than we realize.
marduk
quelling chaos since 2352BC
Then we're thinking the same thing... that beer is on you!
Han
piscator ψ
Keep an eye out for a documentary called:
“Attenborough and the Empire of the Ants”.
Don't want to spoil it so won't say too much, but it changed the way I think about insects forever.
Here is a preview:
Attenborough and the Empire of the Ants, Attenborough and the Empire of the Ants, 2017-2018, Natural World - BBC Two
Which might be consistent with coaching us to technological parity.
Look at what i'm paying attention to, maybe you should be asking why ?
Maybe you should be interested too. An intentional giveaway as a clue.
As Hawking has said
“Meeting an advanced civilisation could be like Native Americans encountering Columbus. That didn’t turn out so well.”
Unless our level of technological advancement was on a parity with theirs.
Hence the tease of our aircraft and the "catch me if you can" game.
Maybe they want us to "Catch" up with them, not literally but technologically.
Ive often made this comparison. If the Australian aboriginal had developed the naval technology to travel to England and meet Cpt Cook there. The end results would have been different.
Perhaps they have learned the same lesson we have seen play out here countless times. Let the less advanced civilization develop their own technological parity and come to you.
The alternative always ends badly as Hawking says for the less advanced one.
Randall
J. Randall Murphy
I'm not so sure about the sort of speculation above. For one thing, the sorts of examples that Hawking gives are only examples of how things turned out badly, and the reasons can be seen not so much because of a technological difference, but rather as a combination of cultural and intellectual differences, and a lack of knowledge on both sides of the equation. Technology in and of itself isn't inherently bad, and today far more technologically advanced nations regularly make an effort to assist less technologically advanced ones. It doesn't always work out, but it's not really the fault of the technology.
One thing we're agreeing on however is the theatrical nature of many of the sightings. I'm hesitant to ascribe the same motivations as you however. Instead, I think it's more reasonable to assume that it's simply part of their studies on how we behave in response to the stimuli they offer. This would explain the wide array and bizarre nature of a lot of unexplained phenomena, including phenomena normally associated with other areas of paranormal inquiry, such as poltergeist activity. The silently hovering ship over the field and the table that rises off the floor during a séance aren't so dissimilar, yet the explanations we come up with for each are so different as to be deemed unconnected. But are they really?
marduk
quelling chaos since 2352BC
Nuclear power is really just a heat engine though.
And nuclear bombs are perhaps the least efficient means at releasing energy. They just do it really fast.
I calculated somewhere here what it would take the direct conversion of several kilos of lead per hour to keep a disc in the sky - and that’s with 100% energy efficiency.
Nuclear power wouldn’t even come close to being good enough.
There are of course many reasons, Diamonds Guns, Germs, and Steel - Wikipedia is an excellent source of info.
But even he makes this point about technology being a factor
The less technologically (and thus socially) advanced cultures tend to get overwhelmed by those more advanced
Cargo cult - Wikipedia
It may be this dynamic they want to avoid.
And the example translates to this case. Had the Melanesian's developed air craft of their own, they would not have seen US technology as "magic" they would have had a frame of reference that would have given cultural and technological parity instead.
Had the Melanesian's flown to the US in planes of their own creation, the US population would not react to them as they did to the US planes. Technological parity is a key factor in the cultural contact dynamic.
Thats true, a boiling water reactor is not much different to a steam engine in operating principle.
Randall
J. Randall Murphy
Okay, this is bizarre because I know I saw a video once that showed how the most modern nuclear submarines ( then ) have a system for converting nuclear energy to electrical energy without having to go through the steam turbine cycle. Same for some space probes. Now all I can find are theoretical papers. The same thing happened with SDI. There was a show that had a 747 outfitted with a laser cannon. Then when I went to look for it, it wasn't anywhere to be found. Then it showed up as a "theoretical idea" and then a few years later I found pictures of the original plane.
Same thing happened with a superconducting electromagnetic power storage facility. The thing was working excellent and proposals were to build more. Same thing seems to be happening with the immunotherapeutic cure for cancer I found when I was researching it because of my last life partner Patricia. Prime Minister Harper was supposed to have fast tracked it, but it's still "experimental" and now the video has been changed from the way it was originally, but at least it's still out there ( I think ). The guy in the video was cured ( over 5 years cancer free ). So the technology has been out there for at least around 10 years.
Has anyone else run across this sort of thing? Or am I losing my mind? It always seems to be stuff right on the cutting edge of high-tech. I'm starting to think that by the time I'm really old that the world will have reverted to the horse and buggy and everyone will think I'm totally nuts! Hey there's a kind of cool idea for a movie ... lol.
Last edited:
Its called the Seebeck effect:
Radioisotope thermoelectric generator - Wikipedia
Thermoelectric effect - Wikipedia
Randall
J. Randall Murphy
Thanks. Maybe I'm not losing my mind after all. Or maybe it's too late for that anyway ... lol.
Thomas R Morrison
Paranormal Adept
Yeah I've encountered this kind of thing before, and it's very frustrating. Back in 1985 or 1986 I saw a brief article in Science News describing the successful teleportation of a rubber ball at Hughes Research Laboratories, but when I tried to find out more about it, there was nothing to be found in the literature. About a year later I met a physicist who worked at HRL, but he said that he couldn't talk about any of their work (though he did say that "anything you can imagine, we've already done" - I think he may have trying to recruit me after graduation, haha). I've never been able to find a word about that experiment since.
Then in the late 90s there was an article in the Science Times section of the New York Times about astronomers who used the polarization of light to prove that the entire universe is rotating, and it even gave the axis of the rotation from one constellation to another. This would be huge news, because in 1949 Kurt Gödel proved that travel backward in time is possible within a rotating universe. But now I can't find any mention of this discovery.
There's a similar story in the US about a girl named Emily Whitehead who in 2012 was cured of a particularly lethal form of leukemia using CAR T-cell immunotherapy, but that story never disappeared from the press. It basically cured her overnight, and she's been perfectly healthy ever since. I can't fathom why we're not spending billions on developing this technology, and using it to cure cancer patients every day.
Last edited:
My honest answer is i don't know, But the prevailing theory I've seen is that its too cheap and too easy. That there is more money to be made in the current pharmaceutical approach.
Curtis Duncan: Planned Obsolescence: The Reason Why Capitalism is a Ecocidal and Genocidal Waste Factory
Planned obsolescence - Wikipedia
The theory is a one off cure for cancer is less profitable than repeated consumption of an expensive drug.
Its why i am cynical about Antigrav technology being made mainstream. There is just way too much money in the cyclical consumption that makes our current transport systems work.
Randall
J. Randall Murphy
Thanks for your reply on this. My opinion on the cures for cancer is that they're more focused on keeping the find the cure industry alive as well as paying off the cost for old technology. Who wants to see their big ticket radiation therapy equipment suddenly relegated to the recycle bin? We still have very different perspectives on time, space, and time travel, but if you can do the math in that paper without getting a migraine, then I'm impressed, even if there's insufficient reason to assume it reflects the sort of real world possibilities that are implied. I'm not sure if we'll ever be able to come to a common understanding there, but I have appreciated the opportunity to engage the topics.