[Newfie]

So here is the question. It seems these UFO’s are “real enough” to have garnered some serious attention. If there is anything to their reported performance it bespeaks some form of “alternate energy”, something with a very high storage density and high energy density to weight ratio.

No-matter their Provence, extra terrestrial or Earth borne, they are technically interesting and real game changers.

[Newfie]

A couple of points worth noting in the mostly double speak report.

1. At least 18 cases where the UAP appeared to he operating outside of what our technology can explain as possible.
2. Many sitings were observed by multiple sources.

At least 18 times we have seen stuff operating outside our known envelope.

To me that is pretty significant.

One if the things that has always baffled me is the wide array of described UAP’s. Disk, tic tak, triangle.

I would have liked to have seen these sighting broken down by form. AND I would like to know if that form is consistent in the 18 cases where weird flight behavior was noticed. This seems to me to be a very basic analysis question. That is was nit addressed is interesting.

If something or some one has some special power source that could be of some potential use to us in our up coming crisis.

[dissident]

If they are real and this is not a 1950s con to get more military funding, then they have probably acquired the physics knowledge how to propel against the space-time fabric instead of using primitive propulsion such as throwing mass from a rocket nozzle or spinning a turbine. Special relativity has created the myth that space-time is like some sort of subjective entity that exists for every moving observer separately. But general relativity is not even relativity.

The principle of general covariance is not subjectivist, and there is one space-time fabric that is universal. General relativity is not relational. This is in spite of the often repeated refrain that GR is locally SR. This actually means that the Lorentz transforms still apply and there is nothing about these that require subjectivist space-time. For example, Poincare's interpretation removes all the logical contradictions absurdly called "paradoxes" as if they can be resolved. A claim is made that the solution is lost in the acceleration stages in the usual twins paradox scenario. But this is nonsense since one can have both twins riding rockets in opposite directions with the same speed and returning to the same point. Both will claim the other is older. And the cherry on top of this logical contradiction is that a third observer will see exactly how both traveled and have a consistent age for both. So all three disagree fundamentally. The universe does not work this way since by definition all observers reside in it. The only empirical fact is the validity of the Lorentz transforms which are a property of Maxwell's EM equations since these equations are invariant under them. The rest is vapid philosophy.

Once you get past the absolute space-time phobia, you can deal with things like the quantum virtual particle sea. It may not be possible to extract zero point energy, but it may be possible to "walk" on the virtual particles. Clearly matter in regular states does not feel the zero point noise and Newton's first law is valid. So some sort of particle interaction effect or field effect is needed that may exist. So energy will still have to be spent for propulsion, which makes total sense.

[Newfie]

Dis,

Most of that is well above my head. Yet I get the point that there is a lot left to learn about our physics and that some things stated as facts are really guesses.

What is intriguing is that there is something out there moving in ways that are outside our known physics. We can see it but can not explain it.

That official report was not satisfying in many ways. Artfully crafted to say something but then to ignore other things. Which makes me look to those “holes” for information.

For example:

Did all the 18 events with unusual flight characteristics have a similar physical appearance?

Was there any commonality in how these 18 observations?

Did these same consistent observations show up in any other observations?

When such basic questions go unaddressed I get suspicious of the source.

Not drawing any conclusions, but not drinking the kool aide either.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Decades ago when computers started to make it much easier to make REALLY good fakes of photos and videos, I was certain it was just a matter of time until supposedly "real" pictures of "evidence" for aliens showed up in video and pictures that could have been sourced from practical jokers with the right equipment and software.

And here we are.

I'll believe this stuff is "real" AND evidence of alien ships as soon as I see far better evidence than such videos or pictures.

Naturally, like everything else, people are going to tend to believe or disbelieve re their natural inclinations. I'm not saying I know I'm right -- just color me VERY skeptical.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/03/us/p ... tagon.html

WASHINGTON — American intelligence officials have found no evidence that aerial phenomena witnessed by Navy pilots in recent years are alien spacecraft, but they still cannot explain the unusual movements that have mystified scientists and the military, according to senior administration officials briefed on the findings of a highly anticipated government report.

The report determines that a vast majority of more than 120 incidents over the past two decades did not originate from any American military or other advanced U.S. government technology, the officials said. That determination would appear to eliminate the possibility that Navy pilots who reported seeing unexplained aircraft might have encountered programs the government meant to keep secret.

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/ne ... s-skeptics

Crews on Navy warships have reported seeing unidentified aircraft similar to those captured on video. Other accounts detail mysterious drone sightings by the crews of Navy destroyers west of San Clemente Island. The island serves as a training base and ship to shore gun range for the Navy.

But as the videos revived decades-old theories of extraterrestrial visitation, the frenzy has been frustrating for those who specialize in debunking hoaxes and conspiracy theories. These skeptics point to more down-to-earth explanations.

“There’s nothing new here, it’s the same grainy videos we’re used to seeing,” said Michael Shermer, the founding publisher of Skeptic magazine.

Retired Navy Lt. Cmdr. Alex Dietrich, one of the Navy fighter pilots who said she saw an unidentified aircraft near San Diego in 2004, told the Union-Tribune’s Kristy Totten on her News Fix podcast recently she is wary of the UFO community’s jumping to conclusions.

“Just because I’m saying that we saw this unusual thing in 2004 I am in no way implying that it was extraterrestrial or alien technology or anything like that,” Dietrich said.

She also said she doesn’t expect the Pentagon report to provide the kind of answers many are looking for.

“I think that the report’s going to be a huge letdown,” Dietrich said. “I don’t think that it’s going to reveal any fantastic new insight.”

So maybe if (at least some of) the pilots seeing them aren't saying they're evidence for space aliens, the usual arm wavers should calm down a bit. But I can guess the odds that will happen.

[Newfie]

Outcast,

I am not saying they are extraterrestrial. I am saying that regardless of the origin I want to know if someone is doing something that cant be explained by our physics.

My question is:

Does this, should it make us question our knowledge base? If you have something flying with no discernible heat signature , that is interesting.
If something is pulling 30g turns that is interesting.
If it is accelerating much faster than a fighter that is interesting.

WHO is also interesting, but an entirely different question.

From what I see the report did a lot of hand waving around the “who” but ignored the seeming violation of our physics.

Which is why I titled this thread “Alternate Energy”, is there any evidence. Of that? Aside from who is who is doing it.

I am suspicious that the report was written to deflect attention from this question.

OTOH, they say these things are a threat. Which strongly implies they are real.

[Newfie]

Some interesting speculation. Why not??

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/15150222/ ... ea-aliens/

The New Yorker has an article that makes good points, does a good analysis of the government report. If you read it carefully it is more interesting.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-co ... ufo-report

PS

The best article I have read yet.

https://thedebrief.org/detailed-analysi ... phenomena/

[Outcast_Searcher]

Outcast,

I am not saying they are extraterrestrial. I am saying that regardless of the origin I want to know if someone is doing something that cant be explained by our physics.

My question is:

Does this, should it make us question our knowledge base? If you have something flying with no discernible heat signature , that is interesting.
If something is pulling 30g turns that is interesting.
If it is accelerating much faster than a fighter that is interesting.

You made it clear that you aren't saying it is space aliens. I wasn't "arguing" with you, just commenting, since the amount of belief in real aliens re UFO's is all over the map, depending on the person / group.

IF the photos are showing real objects AND they are actually pulling more G's than fighter jets are capable of, then yes, that is interesting. OTOH, one or both of the pieces I linked to and quoted (and some other pieces I looked at when searching on the topic for my reply) specifically said that whatever the videos show, they aren't some secret military stuff. I suppose I'll believe that, given how conspiracy theorists were just SURE the various Apollo videos proved no lunar missions occurred -- but they were 100% wrong.

By the way, I LOVED the cartoon in your OP. That was an absolute riot, and just PERFECT in the time of youngsters being completely obsessed with selfies.

[Newfie]

Thanks for that.

I guess I am less worried about aliens having some super powers than I am about some of we humans doing the same. Humans have a pretty awful track record of a acting humanely.

[Outcast_Searcher]

I guess I am less worried about aliens having some super powers than I am about some of we humans doing the same. Humans have a pretty awful track record of a acting humanely.

History, even likely highly biased history like the Bible, makes that point beyond any argument, much less potential refutation, IMO.

Unfortunately, just like when I believed Colin Powell re Iraq and WMD's, because I THOUGHT he had a well deserved reputation for honesty and crediblity (before his claims on that), maybe I'm giving the military vs conspiracy theorists more credit than they deserve.

It's just that, over time and re objective data, conspiracy theorists have SUCH a bad rap, as to whether I should trust them. Again, just IMO, and yes, I could be wrong.

[Newfie]

More objective info would he a very good thing.

[Outcast_Searcher]

More objective info would he a very good thing.

By objective, I mean what the claims (like that the lunar landings never happened) by the conspiracy theorists re UFO's say, vs. the objective scientific data, including their conclusions from the photographs they claim prove a conspiracy theory, say from actual scientific analysis of such photographs from the Apollo lunar missions.

What objective data are you looking for?

[Newfie]

Well for one very simple task a rating of each type of incident. We know 18 exhibited unexplained flight behavior. How many of those were also corroborated with additional sensor data and how many were just one persons report. Did all of those 18 look alike or were there variants and how many? Did any of the other UAP’s fit the description of the ones with the special ability?

That is just a quick swipe of obvious questions that they should be able to answer even with the limited data.

Think if two scenarios. In scenario 1 all 18 special flight characteristic instances looked different and were reported by a single person each. Scenario 2 is they all looked alike, all had been electronically tracked, and there were 49 other instances were similar UAP’s were observed.

That is info that should be readily a available.

My suspicion is that it tends toward the scenario 2 (not as extreme) rather than 1. If it was close to the first, very random, that would support it being just random stuff, and saying so would be easy. By saying that there is a potential threat then one wonders what they see that looks threatening and that looks more like scenario 2.

Unless they are pumping fear for research money to blow. Which is always a possibility.