UFO Design

[ChrisJohnsen]

In looking at these photos and the discussion around imperfect data you must realize that there is no difference between using Adamski's photos to determine propulsion systems than what you are proposing. How can you begin to derive anything of merit from unknown and unconfirmed photos?

Take a look at these critters I saw float through my living room window and into the house. What can be made of them or their propulsion? Are they living or dead, technological, biological or art?

The great problem with much of Ufological history is the construction of theorems based on weak, forged or erroneous data. Imperfect data gets us only to one place - and it's very far away from anything close to what the UFO might be. If there is not stringent approaches to data then all we have is fantasy, wedding cake UFO photos, gulf breeze and third phase of moon shenanigans and nothing more. This is the foundation of UFO consumer culture and really has little to do with the phenomenon itself. This approach is essential to making the UFO'S what we want them to be as opposed to what they are. And that has dominated UFO 'studies' for far too long.

However, I still greatly understand the need to drive theories this way for truly the UFO leaves very little by way of consistent hard core evidence behind, so what the hell. May as well take the ACME approach to catching a Roadrunner when you have so little to work with in the first place.

Robert, why did you feel the need to share a photo of your sperm? Not cool, bro. I think there's a Reddit for that...

 

[marduk]

Important consequence of the aerodynamic analysis of that TPoM's craft is that it was able to make predictions. It predicted those 3 other UFOs showing in pictures above and few other cases.

Since I first saw that bottom picture sometime in the 70's or early 80's, that one preceded yours with the circles on it.

 

[marduk]

That's not true at all.

Adamski's photos would not produce any predictions. The TPoM's photo that I've shown had produced prediction that some UFOs have two thrusters and that predictions was proven in subsequent 3 photos and few other cases.

Or take what Stanton Freedman said. Its a proof by overwhelming evidence. In a, say, 17-th century sailors were dying from scurvy. There was overwhelming evidence that if sailors eat lime they didn't get scurvy. Of course, in 17-th century they didn't know about molecules, vitamins, DNA etc. So they didn't have hard proof, but overwhelming evidence was practical enough.

Or even better, Great Britain didn't have a hard proof that Germany is preparing for WWII. But GB had overwhelming evidence that D was about to attack and rightfully GB did its own preparations for the war.

What you are asking for, is that UFO lands in your back-garden and that pilot comes out with PowerPoint and shows you how everything on inside works. Its safe to assume that UFO pilots will never do that. So we better do it on our own.

the two close sightings I remember were seamless vehicles. No 'thrusters' at all. No openings of any kind.

Also no sound, no apparent displacement of the air, no plasma, no nothing.

They were just there. Effortlessly.

 

[technomage]

I might be wrong, but it doesn't sound as if that will fly. Black holes would attract each other and create an avalanche into a bigger black hole. Than the big black hole would suck in the whole craft. Second, black holes would not reduce inertial mass. Inertial mass would stay exactly the same, but black hole can counter gravitational pull and reduce apparent weight.

How is one supposed to control these small black holes? By definition they are the most energetic objects in the universe. How does one create more energy than the universe itself?

Plus, whole string theory is just beautiful mathematics. 11 dimensions? You get stuck with maths? Can't find solution? No problem, just ad more dimension. We are lucky string theorist stopped at 11.

I mean, why bother with String Theory, when good old and proven General Relativity can provide the necessary answers.

I believe it's the gravitons rotating around the black holes that would reduce the inertial mass, not the black holes, but I could be mistaken. These would be micro black holes that evaporate very quickly. Aren't we potentially on the verge of creating micro black holes with the hadron collider?

 

[Burnt State]

Robert, why did you feel the need to share a photo of your sperm? Not cool, bro. I think there's a Reddit for that...

Please note my seed is electric and glows like neon in the dark. It powers UFO'S.

Ok wait second I just got all machismo like...see where these fake ufo photos lead to?! Drags you right into the sewer outside Jaques Vallée's house.

 

[Burnt State]

the two close sightings I remember were seamless vehicles. No 'thrusters' at all. No openings of any kind.

Also no sound, no apparent displacement of the air, no plasma, no nothing.

They were just there. Effortlessly.

Yeah, there's nothing like the effortless ufo floating above you. No sound of engines or anything goofy like that, just a pure magic machine gliding through the sky and right up into the stars. I still can't get those images out of my head.

 

[ChrisJohnsen]

I'm no Physics expert (shocker) but I really dug Robert Schroeder's theory on UFO propulsion that he offered on last week's show. Granted, my understanding of Physics is basic, at best, but he appeared to base his theory on current scientific thinking which, granted, involves concepts not yet proven, but nevertheless "explainable" by current, or fashionable, theoretical physics. That's more "grounded in scientific theory" than most guests' wild assertions based on no scientifically-based evidence. I am staunchly in the camp of "you can't tell anything about UFO propulsion or craft composition simply from a picture or film," let alone if it's actually a real entity. Even forum members alleging first-hand experience witnessing unknown, silent craft have no basis to definitively state what the craft was employing as a mechanism for movement. Sure, it's fun to speculate, but as has been often said on the show, and in the forums, anyone who claims to "know" what UFOs are and how they operate is simply full of shit. Finally, once someone references a discredited or highly dubious source, the well has been poisoned, and nothing originating from that source can be taken seriously. It's impossible to sift through TPoM or Secure Team 10 and try to find the pony in the shit. It's just all shit. In their, and many other cases, past performance DOES equal future results.

 

[DROBNJAK]

... Finally, once someone references a discredited or highly dubious source, the well has been poisoned, and nothing originating from that source can be taken seriously. It's impossible to sift through TPoM or Secure Team 10 and try to find the pony in the shit. ...

You are just hyping up peer pressure into full blown witch hunt. Why are we all than watching documentaries, videos, reading books etc. if they are all based on fake info? Something must be real.

I think most people in this thread believe in UFOs, but are afraid of being labeled negatively. If you believe UFOs exist, as I do, than stand up and declare yourself. Otherwise all constructive discussion is quelled by self-mutilation.

TPoM is not a source of its own material. Source is general public. Same as CNN & FOX News & CNBC don't produce all of their own stories, but they get stories from Associated Press. Than CNN & FOX NEWS etc. put their own 'bend' on these stories.

It is completely fair to assume that 1 in 20 of TPoM's submitted videos or photos are real. All but the best of CGI can be easily recognized.

Physics that I used is not fancy or fashionable. Its more like ordinary 19-th century engineering that one learns in graduate courses: Mechanics, Vectors, Electro-Magnetisam etc. Most non-engineers can easily relate to these things with intuition, without ever knowing that, mathematically speaking, force is a vector.

You are forgetting that we are talking here about Overwhelming Evidence, not a Hard Proof. One UFO photo doesn't prove anything, but 100 UFO photos prove everything you want to know.

 

[DROBNJAK]

I would be grateful if you could revise the above comment.

If you want a serious discussion and to be treated as an adult, then behave like one.

Revised. Guidance appreciated.

 

[Burnt State]

You are just hyping up peer pressure into full blown witch hunt. Why are we all than watching documentaries, videos, reading books etc. if they are all based on fake info? Something must be real.

I think most people in this thread believe in UFOs, but are afraid of being labeled negatively. If you believe UFOs exist, as I do, than stand up and declare yourself. Otherwise all constructive discussion is quelled by self-mutilation.

TPoM is not a source of its own material. Source is general public. Same as CNN & FOX News & CNBC don't produce all of their own stories, but they get stories from Associated Press. Than CNN & FOX NEWS etc. put their own 'bend' on these stories.

It is completely fair to assume that 1 in 20 of TPoM's submitted videos or photos are real. All but the best of CGI can be easily recognized.

Physics that I used is not fancy or fashionable. Its more like ordinary 19-th century engineering that one learns in graduate courses: Mechanics, Vectors, Electro-Magnetisam etc. Most non-engineers can easily relate to these things with intuition, without ever knowing that, mathematically speaking, force is a vector.

You are forgetting that we are talking here about Overwhelming Evidence, not a Hard Proof. One UFO photo doesn't prove anything, but 100 UFO photos prove everything you want to know.

Hmmm.....you are giving a lot of credit to disreputable spaces. There are a number of people here in the forum who have seen spectacular things, some pretty nearby and they've been forever altered by their experience.

And so yes, that's why I sift through a lot of UFO literature, but I'm not wasting anytime on speculation from weak sources. I appreciate critical and open minded thinkers in the field. And if Vallée is telling me we don't have one single legit UFO photo then we don't. All we have is a lot of intersting pictures and even the ones worth talking about have turned out to be forged or still have no absolute certainty to them.

The hardcore evidence of actual event phenomenon that Jerome Clarke talks about with radar trace and confirmed multiple witnesses are few and far between. Even with some of these Tim Printy has done a good job and providing alternative options.

So while I appreciate the enthusiasm for the cause if you are serious about the investigation then diversifying your souces is a good place to start. There's not much of value happening on YouTube. True cases reach a kind of threshold that places them in UFO history and there's a lot of good literature to sift through. But the bunk and bulk of UFO porn just wastes tine and keeps us spinning our wheels.

 

[marduk]

I believe it's the gravitons rotating around the black holes that would reduce the inertial mass, not the black holes, but I could be mistaken. These would be micro black holes that evaporate very quickly. Aren't we potentially on the verge of creating micro black holes with the hadron collider?

Gravitons likely can't orbit micro black holes. They're likely massless, if they exist at all.
Massless particles don't orbit.

Besides, it's hard to orbit an object that goes poof in sub seconds.

The energy necessary to produce such a black hole is 39 orders of magnitude greater than the energies available at the LHC, indicating that the LHC cannot produce mini black holes.

Micro black hole - Wikipedia

 

[marduk]

Yeah, there's nothing like the effortless ufo floating above you. No sound of engines or anything goofy like that, just a pure magic machine gliding through the sky and right up into the stars. I still can't get those images out of my head.

When I read HHGTG, I got the sense Douglas Adams has actually seen one. Because this is exactly it:

The ships hung in the sky in much the same way that bricks don't.

 

[marduk]

Physics that I used is not fancy or fashionable. Its more like ordinary 19-th century engineering that one learns in graduate courses: Mechanics, Vectors, Electro-Magnetisam etc. Most non-engineers can easily relate to these things with intuition, without ever knowing that, mathematically speaking, force is a vector.

You are forgetting that we are talking here about Overwhelming Evidence, not a Hard Proof. One UFO photo doesn't prove anything, but 100 UFO photos prove everything you want to know.

If what you are saying is true, it should be pretty easy for you to knock together a working proof of concept.

 

[technomage]

Obviously, these ideas are not coming from me (in case that wasn't clear). It would be good for Robert Schroeder to discuss his theory in the forums as I may be mis-characterizing it anyway.

 

[marduk]

I'm no Physics expert (shocker) but I really dug Robert Schroeder's theory on UFO propulsion that he offered on last week's show. Granted, my understanding of Physics is basic, at best, but he appeared to base his theory on current scientific thinking which, granted, involves concepts not yet proven, but nevertheless "explainable" by current, or fashionable, theoretical physics. That's more "grounded in scientific theory" than most guests' wild assertions based on no scientifically-based evidence. I am staunchly in the camp of "you can't tell anything about UFO propulsion or craft composition simply from a picture or film," let alone if it's actually a real entity. Even forum members alleging first-hand experience witnessing unknown, silent craft have no basis to definitively state what the craft was employing as a mechanism for movement. Sure, it's fun to speculate, but as has been often said on the show, and in the forums, anyone who claims to "know" what UFOs are and how they operate is simply full of shit. Finally, once someone references a discredited or highly dubious source, the well has been poisoned, and nothing originating from that source can be taken seriously. It's impossible to sift through TPoM or Secure Team 10 and try to find the pony in the shit. It's just all shit. In their, and many other cases, past performance DOES equal future results.

Actually, I thought 100% the opposite.

I was on wikipedia for the first half of the show finding most of the things he was claiming were nonsense or at least misunderstood, and then I gave up and stopped listening. Partly because he kept getting basic facts wrong about fairly well-known cases, but mostly because he came off a lot like Joseph Farrell. Very convincingly stated nonsense is still nonsense.

 

[technomage]

Can you give me an example of the most nonsensical thing he stated that was related to physics (not his UFO statements)?

 

[ChrisJohnsen]

Actually, I thought 100% the opposite.

I was on wikipedia for the first half of the show finding most of the things he was claiming were nonsense or at least misunderstood, and then I gave up and stopped listening. Partly because he kept getting basic facts wrong about fairly well-known cases, but mostly because he came off a lot like Joseph Farrell. Very convincingly stated nonsense is still nonsense.

Not having a background in physics and not having been as diligent as Marduk has been, I was definitely in the position of taking the guest at their word when it came to the concepts they were discussing. Clearly, if he was just confidently stating theoretical physics bullshit, as you assert, then I would change my assessment of the Schroeder episode from interesting and educational to enjoyable nonsense that was at least creatively entertaining in its delivery.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[marduk]

Can you give me an example of the most nonsensical thing he stated that was related to physics (not his UFO statements)?

Here's some of the stuff that bugged me, which also included the UFO stuff.
16:51 "I started to look at the work of some of the physicists who's names I've forgotten..."
Gee, that's great.
18:19 The Alcubierre drive wasn't just plagued by the high energy requirements (some have been solved), but because they need exotic matter, which may or may not even exist. It's easy to create propulsion mechanisms if you're allowed to use magic. That's the fundamental problem with the drive, which he didn't seem to understand.
31ish minutes when talking about the 1952 UFO incident, the pilot didn't come back because he was afraid, he came back because he was out of fuel. 'However, when the jets ran low on fuel and left, the objects returned, which convinced Barnes that "the UFOs were monitoring radio traffic and behaving accordingly."' - 1952 Washington, D.C. UFO incident - Wikipedia
35:53 Holes in clouds don't need a hot surface. In fact, the opposite is true. Fallstreak hole - Wikipedia
46:00 "American FAA guy..." Goggs responds "Is this the Japan Air Lines..." Sigh. Don't use sources that you claim are credible when you don't even know what they are.
1:09:58 "I think that all developing civilizations have a history of conflict..." Sigh.
1:27 "The universe consists of three things... matter particles, force particles, and space-time..." He then says "there are four basic matter particles... Quarks, Neutrinos, and that's about it..." Then he goes into the force particles, of which he correctly lists four. Oops, that one is pretty easy to check. He mixed up Leptons and Nutrinos, which is actually a kind of lepton. And there's six of them. So confused.

Gotta run to a meeting. Will keep going when I get back.

 

[technomage]

Thanks for the details! I like the chart.

 

[marduk]

1:30ish "we don't even know what spacetime is made of." Space isn't made of anything. It's the distance between two points. Asking what space is made of is like asking what colour a smell is. It's a basic category mistake. You can talk about if space is actually empty (vacuum fluctuations) and such but that wasn't what he was saying. Spacetime is a mathematical description that combines space and time and is defined as:

Mathematically it is a manifold whose points correspond to physical events. In a local coordinate system whose domain is an open set of the spacetime manifold, three spacelike coordinates and one timelike coordinate typically emerge.

Spacetime - Wikipedia

It's like making an x and y graph in grade 8 math, and asking what the mathematical abstraction in the graph is made out of. It's not made out of anything except math. It's axiomatic.

You're not gonna find a 'mathematical abstraction' particle.

Gotta run again, will come back.