UAP/UFO thread - Non-Human Intelligences

FlemishDuck said:
If you humbly speak for what you think to know with intention to inform as you seem then i'm quite willing to take youre word for it. I'm hardly all that informed on evolutions in nuclear science. But i do wonder wether my assertion is right from a different perspective, that is to say that the "flying tic-tac" in all it's weird propperty's regarding how it deals with physics as "seemed to have been observed" don't need to be contingent nessecarily on a "number of unknown advancements" to achieve it rather than 1 key advancement that isn't terrestially known to exist, that being a power plant that allows the vehicle to achieve far greater energy outputs in regards to the mass of its fuel and therefore thrust to weight ratios. If we had the "micro fussion engine" i think we could perhaps design this as a egg shape that has a drill on both ends turning at extreme revolutions and both have similar cutting angles irregardless of that the front drill and back drill turn opposed to eachother to cancel out the movement at it's center engine and control area whereas the drill thread almost connects at both ends so to have it all along the lenght of the vehicle, with that in mind that it needs a little bending axial bending space to be able to do (potential complex) turns. It's like when you push a drill into some material the drill can pull itself into it at a velocity that is greater than that of the user pushing it into it, that pull can be greater according to sheer amount of revolutions, i guess it would only take a certain point of where sheer revolutions would pull it into water even if you shot it at water at high speed, or where it would drill trough air and fly accordingly. I guess the principle could perhaps be tested trough ballistics tests by making a drill like projectile that is launched trough a threaded barrel so that the projectile aquires a high amount of spin, as to test if that increases range or even penetrative potential.
Click to expand...

I’m not disputing that to have this kind of inventory available would allow the “builder” to propel craft and achieve feats that are probably indistinguishable from magic to a mere layman like me. This is why I said you can never definitely prove such a technology doesn’t exist because the possibilities of what you could do with it are difficult to ascertain. Proving negatives is notoriously hard (technically impossible) to achieve.

Therefore, the interesting question for me is that if we take for granted the (sizeable) assumption that these craft are out there and they are being witnessed - who is more likely the originator of such technology? And I think, on the balance of probabilities, extra-terrestrial origin feels just as likely, if not more likely, than some hidden technological leap from a global superpower for the reasons I’ve cited.

That said I’m still not convinced of their existence as I still think faulty instrument measurements or misleading eye witness testimony is simply a fact of life and far more likely. It’s the old extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence shtick :)
 
TinFoilHat said:
www.youtube.com

NASA Live: Official Stream of NASA TV

UPDATE: Our 24/7 NASA TV broadcast is being phased out as of Aug. 28, 2024. We *will continue* to stream live events and share new videos on our YouTube acco...
www.youtube.com www.youtube.com


Nothing to see here as the US has to protect its military technology.
Click to expand...

I get that they’re never getting classified images for a public study like this but the jumping through hoops to talk about why that’s a “good thing” is quite funny.

“Why look at photos taken by fighter jet pilots when Mr Smith from Idaho has shaky footage of Venus taken with his 2006 Motorola Razr?”
 
SkyBlueFlux said:
I’m not disputing that to have this kind of inventory available would allow the “builder” to propel craft and achieve feats that are probably indistinguishable from magic to a mere layman like me. This is why I said you can never definitely prove such a technology doesn’t exist because the possibilities of what you could do with it are difficult to ascertain. Proving negatives is notoriously hard (technically impossible) to achieve.

Therefore, the interesting question for me is that if we take for granted the (sizeable) assumption that these craft are out there and they are being witnessed - who is more likely the originator of such technology? And I think, on the balance of probabilities, extra-terrestrial origin feels just as likely, if not more likely, than some hidden technological leap from a global superpower for the reasons I’ve cited.

That said I’m still not convinced of their existence as I still think faulty instrument measurements or misleading eye witness testimony is simply a fact of life and far more likely. It’s the old extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence shtick :)
Click to expand...
But space is just so so big, so big to comprehend. Millions of solar systems etc. It's probably likely there is life out there, and it's conceivable that it's life that's more advanced than us.
 
SkyBlueFlux said:
I get that they’re never getting classified images for a public study like this but the jumping through hoops to talk about why that’s a “good thing” is quite funny.

“Why look at photos taken by fighter jet pilots when Mr Smith from Idaho has shaky footage of Venus taken with his 2006 Motorola Razr?”
Click to expand...
I still think the anal probing cases down south in the 70s/80s was code for gay orgy as they'd all be killed admitting it.

As others have alluded to on here from our own history we've seen how this shit doesn't go well for indigenous people.
 
Nethermoor said:
But space is just so so big, so big to comprehend. Millions of solar systems etc. It's probably likely there is life out there, and it's conceivable that it's life that's more advanced than us.
Click to expand...
its likely theres a solar system never mind planet for every single person on the planet.what dofus would believe were alone? we live with mans limited knowledge of its own understanding of space and time.it always makes me laugh to hear the explaination of the birth of space when the new teliscope has already pushed back on the calcuklated date of the stars it can see not what it cant.we don't even know when this all started cos were the newbis in existense.we learn by what people agree seems to make sense so if we think it dont maske sense to what weknow by the smart guys then it gets ejected.its funny. the teliscope is still a teliscope and can only see so far froma certain place in space.well see what it shows in 10years whenits deeper into space.do we know whic direction the new teliscope has gone and if theres others gone in diferent directions?
 
have we stoped being ineterested.idoes make me wonder if all the lieing the us gov does has blunted peoples interest.
 
Blu35partan70 said:
have we stoped being ineterested.idoes make me wonder if all the lieing the us gov does has blunted peoples interest.
Click to expand...

I was considering this question whilst watching the NASA feed.

The way Sky News treated it made me think that if anything of significance came out of it it wouldn't make the main bullet points over a fat clown and nonce.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.