Pentagon Has ‘Off-World Vehicles Not Made on This Earth’

The planet has never been visited by anyone from beyond the planet or by anything made from beyond the planet. The distances are simply too great. Any astronomer can tell you that.

 

I probably did say something like that - more that claims that our laws of physics have been broken would require especially strong evidence and testing. Scientists get to have normal human lives, of course. They can have their opinions about the likelihood of various events, but it isn't science just becase a scientist had that opinion.

I don't know of any date or more specifics concerning the plasma device.

Chemical rockets have been around for a long time. Anti-gravity breaks physics. I'd say that is a MONUMENTAL leap.

[/QUOTE]
You can try. I don't believe that will work, though. Scientists aren't whores. They care about their science. There are globally accepted standards for what is considered legitimate science. And, grant applications are graded based on reasonably concrete criteria.

And, the military isn't going to open up state secrets to the world of science. Without that, it becomes an internal military issue, not one that meets requirements of how science works.

 

I don't know how a plasma device would work.

However, if I were to guess it might be a method of focusing energy on a location in the atmosphere causing a plasma. The aim of the device might then be modified. It might then look to a viewer or maybe to detection devices like a moving object. That would not require an actual object from moving in the sky. Thus its characteristics may depend on factors like the power available, the distance from the device, etc. and would not have to do with propulsion of a craft (sicne there would be no craft).

I have NO idea who far the military has gotten with this kind of technology, hologram projection, etc. I brought it up as I'm not so sure these sightings even involved a moving object, and the military is highly unlikely to inform us of that.

I'm glad you are attempting to eliminate the garbage, but I'd point out that you have posted cases that are known fakes.

Finally, let me just point out that gravity is the CENTRAL issue of all modern physics.

The very idea that someone in ANY kind of control of ANYTHING isn't interested in gravity is just plain NONESENSE.

The reason is that we have TWO models of physics today - Quantum mechaics and gravity. And, we have ONE reality (obviously). The holy grail of all physics is to get to ONE physics. And, gravity is central to that.

Suggesting that science isn't interested in gravity is the most profoundly ridiculous, most totally uninformed, assumption that could possibly be made about science.

 

Mysteries don't establish ETs. They merely beg explanations.

 

Oh, wiat - maybe you're referring to the date I gave for unmaned jet aircraft - the ones that were used over Vietnam and Korea, and could not be shot down by the pilots at Top Gun or by the ground and air based weapons used agains us in actual combat.

Without humans, these craft can turn FAR faster than manned aircraft. Today's jets can turn far faster than is survivable by a pilot. And, that is even with the significant weight and craft size needed by manned craft represented by the human requirements of body weight and all the equipment needed to keep the pilot alive.

The Top Gun pilots found that they could not lock onto these unmanned craft. And, when they had a drone in their sights, the jet powerd drone could be on their 6 in a fraction of a minute.

The drone manufacturer of the time said they could turn far sharper than that if they simply used more robust design - that the turn rate was being limited by the strength of the drone in undergoing g forces. They hadnt made it stronger, because there wasn't anything in the sky that could toch what they already had.

That was in the Vietnam era. What do you think the maximum turn rate for a jet powered drone might be today? How many seconds would it take a jet powered drone of today to do a 180 onto the tail of an f35? Surely it would take a lot less than the 12 or so seconds required 50 years ago.

What do you think the maximum turn rate for a slower prop driven drone might be today, since they could turn without having the momentum produced by jet speeds?

Since one must presume that they can go faster, accellerate faster and/or turn sharper than any other craft in the sky, it seems like an interesting issue.


I'd be seriously interested in knowing what the military versions of these craft could do.

As Elon Musk has pointed out, the era of humans in jet fighters is nearing its end. A human driven craft would be just far too easy a target.

Had they not been told, would the Top Gun pilots have guessed they were failing to shoot down an Earthly drone?

 

There were unmanned drones in the Vietnam war? I've never heard of that before. I don't often look up history from before I was born.
But today I looked up that war and found out that it was 20 years long. Shockingly long. And people today complain about the length of the war on terrorism.

 

There is a lot we should have learned from Vietnam.

But, one has to be careful about comparing that war with opposition to terrorism.

Vietnam was about the government of the country of Vietnam. Somehow, we thought we could conqure not just the government, but the people. Vietnam had a LONG history of opposition to China, Japan, France and finally America. They demanded freedom and respect as an independent nation.

Oher cases of terrorism (IRA, Mandella) are also about fighting for the very principles that WE fought for - excpet with the extreme and immoral methods of the powerless.

The majority of terrorist acts in the US have been about white supremacy. 911 was an exception - an effort by AQ to cause us to stop our support for SA, which is a hugely antihumanitarian dictatorship.

so, I think we have to take care to undersand what the motivations are. And, that's not because terrorism can ever be justified, but because what we do about it has to be informed by what the issues actually are.

The methods used to end the "troubles" between Ireland and England, the metods used to resolve Mandella's terrorism, the methods used to end white supremacy inthe US, the methods used to resolve the ethnic cleansing Israel is carrying out against Palestine (and the resultant terrorist acts), the methods used in Afg, Iraq, SA, Egypt - these are all going to be different.

In other words, terrorism is a methodology, and there is no way to have a war against a methodology.

 

I realize it's hearsay, but is McCandlish lying when he talks about a military friend who saw 'alien reproduction vehicles' which were antigravity vehicles? Did you watch that MUFON lecture? Maybe he is lying, but I can't think of why he would be. Very interesting, if true.

 

That would be "hearsay" and not allowed in court without a specific exception necessitated in the case, right?

Yes - one of the people involved could have been flat out lying. But, it's also possible that the first person witness may have misidentified what was seen or could have relayed his/her story in a way that was misconstrued. And, for various reasons the first person witness may not correct written transcriptions of what others think he said.

Or, there could be an explanation for what was actually seen.

Did you ever play "telephone" - a game where a group of people wisper a statement to the next in line with every intent of the message being conveyed accurately all the way to the last person?

Nobody should accept stories of aliens on that kind of "evidence".

 

Reminds me of the folks disbelieving nothing can travel faster than light by using shadow examples or the example of shining a laser on a spot on the moon and then moving the projected spot 100’s of kilometers to a different point by redirecting the laser, noting to an observer on the moon, the laser spot would have moved instantly, thus exceeding the speed of light. The effect has been demonstrated. Proof of FTL speed? I will let that sink in a bit.

Ah... one of the ingredients to a good conspiracy theory. Things unexplained must mean something. No unlike the challenge to atheists, you can’t prove God doesn’t exist, so...
Then, there are ghost sittings, Bigfoot, the Earth is Flat, the grassy knoll shooter and JFK government coverup, and, and...
All, remain with some elements unexplained, so...

When I was doing fieldwork in the Orinoco region of Venezuela, I knew a Shamman who reputedly had special powers who could see and communicate with the various spirits of the Jungle. I was assured I could learn to do so as well.... just needed to ‘pay’ for the instruction on the secret rituals and snort this powder from a special vine (Wow, I saw something... just had to be shown how to interpret it).

Anti-Gravity. I wonder how many thousands of years humans have wanted to fly, dreamt of it, and even claimed to be able to do so when not interrupted by the bad vibrations of observers. I’d say, better than anti-Gravity, would be the ability to develop a matter transporter. Who gets that first wins. Just need a bit of investment to get going; a couple Billion to start would give us a leg up on the Ruskies and Chins. I can furnish a bank account# for the wire. As for developing the tech, first we will have to find the error in Einstien’s work and set Theory right to begin working on the practical tech. Or... just take the found UFO tech out of mothballs. Or better yet, the President could simply as the extraterrestrials from Zeta Reticulum/Rigel that Eisenhower signed a treaty with back in the 1954 to sell us one of their craft., if that hasn’t already been done.

 

You can try. I don't believe that will work, though. Scientists aren't whores. They care about their science. There are globally accepted standards for what is considered legitimate science. And, grant applications are graded based on reasonably concrete criteria.

And, the military isn't going to open up state secrets to the world of science. Without that, it becomes an internal military issue, not one that meets requirements of how science works.[/QUOTE]

Good we can find areas of agreement.

I think many scientists would jump at the chance to study UFO tech and performance if shown the evidence since the late 40s that our military has including the events at ICBM sites in the 70s and supplied with grants.

After all physicists like Puthoff already believe in UFOs. And has worked on secret govt research..

Yes antigravity tech for propulsion is a quantum leap in technology. And if these craft are not some unknown natural phenomenon, it is clear they don't use jet propulsion. Nor wings for lift.

 

Not sure what the pilots would have thought but given the drones are propelled by known propulsion ,I doubtthey would have thought it was non human made craft. I would think our state of art targeting would lock on today.

Fravor acted like a pilot when he said he sure wanted to fly that craft he interacted with , lol. The speed it used to go to the next location where Fravor and company were supposed to go in their exercise was super sonic speed. Far faster than our fighters. I'd like to see the estimate. I did read the speed of dropping from 60,000 feet to right above sea level was done in less than one second! Not sure how fast that is. And the craft could handle those G forces. Sounds impossible to me.

But as Clarke said, any sufficient technology is indistinguishable from magic. Even if our knowledge has not been able to replicate that tech.

I think there has been too many interactions by our military with these craft to say they don't exist

The Iranian interaction that is documented and how that UFO shut down electrical power to the fighter when it went into attack happened. Well documented . If that happened in the US we would never hear about it.

 

Well that famous or infamous British physicist made the stupid assertion that physics was complete with nothing new left..to be understood!

This was a few years before quantum physics and mechanics! Lol

 

Puthoff isn't a physicist - or a scientist. His PhD is in electrical engineering. There is a big difference between engineering and science. And, he spent most of his career in issues of parapsychology. Was he good at that? I don't think so. After studying Uri Geller he came to the conclusion that Geller was for real!!

Physicists absolutely DO study gravity. It's one of the hottest topics in physics. It's at the root of the dichotomy between the two models of physics we have today - quantum mechanics and Eintstein/gravity.

So, there are armies of physicists the world over working in theoretical physics as well as experimental physics with one of the major objectives being to unify the two models of physics we use today.

Grants are something that scientists apply for.

So far, physicists have shown essentially zero interest in studying these UFO reports.

Organizations that are willing to fund UFO research just haven't attracted much of any attention. And the research that does get funded by organizations such as FUFOR tends to be more oriented to questioning secrecy and sourcing issues, not physics.

This is a strong indication of the view of science toward these various claims and whether they are wroth studying.

They don't even attract the attention of those whose whole careers are dedicated to finding life of unEarthly origin in our universe.

 

True but a war against terror is a lavish money pit. And the perfect racket as in Gen. Butler writing...war is a racket.

Back to topic... whoever gets tic tac tech first will rule this planet. If China or Russia we will be speaking a different language than English.

The UFO tech witnessed can shut down our ICBM weapons or even launch them at will. According to the retired officer Sala and the Russian official the reporter Knapp met with after the end of the USSR. Knapp even sneaked out old top secret USSR documents out of Russia in regards to the USSR and their interactions with UFOs. He turned them over to our govt later.

Knapp was told that the USSR pilots were told to shoot down UFOs years ago but never were able to, yet lost several men by counter attack until they stopped trying to take out the UFOs.

Now, is this true? I don't know but the USSR documents were legit. Unless a well planned elaborate hoax back when Russia and the US were on temporary better relations.

The physicist tom Campbell believes our universe is a VR. Created by a computer outside the VR. If he is right, the computer, the creator, is a trickster perhaps and includes UFOs in this game we call reality.

 

I remember a serious physicist did say that.

What a major blunder!

 

Thanks. I have heard UFO people call him a physicist.

When I heard him tell the story of Geller using his mind to bend spoons that Half observed , Hal lost creds with me. A scientist or engineer should not have been fooled ! Yet he was.

He believes in remote viewing too. And was involved in that research by our military or Intel.

The only telepathy that might be true involves coral reproduction. But acts also like entanglement.

You can separate a species of coral and have some of it moved to the other side of the earth and yet when it goes into reproduction both will do that exactly at the same time. And the time of reproduction varies from year to year.

It is still not understood so some say its evidence for telepathy.

And unless something has changed we still don't know how homing pigeon's find home. And Every idea has been tested. And there were several tested. Magnetic fields , sight, etc. Course no one claims telepathy with pigeons. As far as I know.

 

Yes, lol. But scientists are humans too with our weaknesses and human nature.

I have listened to scientists who expressed certainty on issues where there can be no certainty. But then later on in long conversation when put in a corner lose the certainty of ego arrogance. As I said they are not above human nature.

I doubt most scientists are any more objective than another educated person.

 

There are serious reports that jet fighters made every effot to shoot down US jet drones flying missions during the Vietnam war.

Our military cleaims several state of the art enemy fighter jets were downed by inadvertant collisions and other accidents in the attempt, though our drones were totally unarmed, being used for surveillance only.

Were they Russian pilots? I don't know. But, they may well have been Russian aircraft, as I believe China was flying aircraft they bought from Russia.

How do you know that tac tac isn't a record of a US caused event? You keep dodging issues such as training exercises, radar jamming, plasma technology, jet drones, and whatever other technologies our military isn't telling us about.

Here is a Chinese drone that can fly close to 3X the speed of a US F-35.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...ered-and-all-about-doing-what-satellites-cant

That one is probably made to cover for the fact that in the event of a modern era full on war, pretty much every GPS/reconnisance satellite will be eliminated as the first act. So, high altitude assets will be required.

Obviously, it's not built for maneuverability. I wonder what could be done if maneuverability were the objective.

 

Sure. Scientists are humans and like all humans have their various beliefs - both religious and secular.

But, that is why science is designed the way it is.

It makes strong requirements of experimentation that is duplicated, of assaulting hypotheses with the strongest possible vigor, wieth review by fully informed experts., etc.

The results of science that reach the point of publication are not the same thing as the opinions of the scientists - or at least that is the full aim of the design of science. Mistakes happen. There is even mischief, such as Piltdown Man. But, the design is oriented to refuting these mistakes in the fastest way humanly possible.

I disagree with your last sentence. An advanced degree in science requires a personal pattern of thought and perspective that is trained, not likely to be natural. I certaily would not make value judgement on this in general, but I would suggest that the patterns that lead to success in a particular field of study can be different than those that lead to success in some other field.

For eample, engineers and scientists look at problems quite differently. Engineers and scientists don't sound the same. Their objectives are not the same. Their methods are not the same. Their evaluations of issues are very different.

 

Yes. Humans dont know everything. There are phenomena where we have to say, "I don't know".

There is a lot that science can not even address!! There is everything about God, string theory, what caused the big bang, whether there are other dimensions, etc. Other questions have incomplete answers - abiogenesis, dark matter, etc.

I dont accept the notion that we should jump to the supernatural out of a perceived rquirement to have an answer that isn't, "I don't know" (even when "I don't know" IS the whole truth).

If somebody thinks it's telepathy, not magnetism, then they have to prove that. Otherwise, all they are saying is that it is magic. And, thats just a self serving way of saying, "I don't know."

 

I don't think the tic tac was ours because we have seen its kind of performance since right before we started using jet propulsion.. This isn't new, we have known about it for 70 years. Tic tac performance has been seen since late 40s. I therefore see no reason in thinking this was a set up by the navy. In 04.

Also these craft are not burning fossil fuels. Nor are they designed to use lift from wings . And I don't believe we have discovered antigravitics in secret. It would take such a leap in physics and probably not likely unless there was a world wide paper trail of the research and documentation of its history with many in physics working on it.

Then there's the question of energy source used in these craft. No traces of fossil fuel combustion. And no sound.

BTW operation north woods by the CIA involved bringing down a drone air liner and blaming it on Castro. So we had some drone tech in early 60 s.

I am not surprised a drone could be built that a manned fighter might find difficult to shoot down. By just not having a human on board subject to G forces.

 

Telepathy? How do you prove something that takes place inside your own head? Well, maybe one day after Elon Musk's Neuralink (https://www.neuralink.com/) can create a working brain-machine interface.

 

I am not comfortable with the supernatural. If telepathy is ever discovered to exist , even limited to one species, it will be natural, not supernatural, right? And even then we may never understand how it works.

I am not comfortable with ETs either given they were in sci fi from the imagination of writers long before they started abducting people and putting them on a table to probe! I ain't buying into those tales. And then these creatures have god like powers to boot! They wipe most memory, but hypnosis over rides it? Lol Hypnosis may create aliens and abductions.

For me it is easier to think consciousness is fundamental not matter , and our consciousness is creating UFOs not as illusion but creating matter and what these craft can do. I can accept that over bug eyed aliens with no sex organs that use telepathy while us humans are not telepathic! And can get us at night passing us through walls! Trying to groom us to be members of a galactic brotherhood!

Or worse using us to make hybrids that can control our minds once they mix in with humanity.

 

There's no reason to worry about hybrids. There's no indication, public indication, that a hybrid would be able to expand their "mind powers" beyond the abilities of their least evolved parent. Which in most cases would be us humans.