Discussion in 'Alien Hub' started by bill.zen, Oct 17, 2018.
something odd in bishop's project beta:
never heard of that before....
So its a third hand account for a "tell all" book......does the book say where in New York they were being held?
Don't know. I haven't read the book.
Thanks.....but I'll pass on that one......
why so, I don't know much about him.
GOV disinfo agent as disguting as gray barker and james moseley
Do you think there have been any alien bodies retrieved from any crashed UFOs?...I know Roswell has been talked to death and there are many viewpoints and sticky points to that event, I do think at least with Roswell that there were alien bodies recovered, although they were likely dead bodies...
At one point it seems these things were just falling out of the skies.
Maybe they came up with the right patch for their flight control software.
What's the most recent crash report anyone's heard of?
Trying to think back to crash reports. In the 60s it was Kecksburg and Shag Harbor. Depending on what you want to include there are at least a few from earlier and later decades. I realize that witnesses will use contemporary vernacular to describe what they see but I find it interesting that the tech always seems to be just slightly beyond what we are using. That's hardly a new idea. In that era though we actually DID have s**t that crashed, some of which was no doubt supposed to be secret.
Drone storm strike on that Saudi oil refinery. Advanced drones. Fleets of coordinated drones. If the Iranians can do that with their tech imagine what sort of goodies we've cooked up to replace our aging fleet of drones. You look at the information that's publicly available and to my eye what was once amazing now looks fairly primitive. Wings, propellers, conventional control surfaces. Been around since WW2.
Know what you need to change that? Black budgets in the trillions, global conflict for more than a generation (beware the military industrial complex, right?) and a few decades of study.
Visual Anthology: The U.S. Drone Fleet
This chart shows the massive size and scope of America's drone fleet
That's a pernicious - and wholly inaccurate - myth. People like Gene Steinberg say this kind of thing because they have no idea what they're talking about.
The reports have involved craft that exhibit radical, reactionless, inertia-defying maneuvers...for over seventy years now. We still have no capability of even remotely approaching that, because those observed flight characteristics require a gravitational field propulsion system, i.e., engineering with general relativity. We still don't even have a wisp of a notion about how to do that technologically.
Most UFOs/AAVs aren't "just slightly beyond what we are using," they're a gigantic leap forward that may take thousands or even millions of years to replicate. Certainly no human technology can even vaguely approach the common performance characteristics of these vehicles.
This myth appears to originate with the unexplained zeppelin sightings of the late 19th century. We actually had viable zeppelin designs by 1874.
But it's been over 70 years since the first credible contemporary UFO sightings and we still have no idea how to engineer such a thing, but their performance characteristics remain eerily consistent - as if they are and always have been a fully developed form of technology far beyond our own.
I’ve danced around this now I’ll say it. Your overall tone is obnoxious and explanations pedantic. You want to disagree, fine.
You believe what you want. I submit you’re guilty of confirmation bias. Anything that even smells like it doesn’t agree with the narrative you prefer is wrong. A dose of humility goes a long way.
And no doubt this will spawn yet another tedious multi-quote multi-thousand word diatribe.
I could care less about your totally emotional responses to what I have to say - emotional arguments are both useless and meaningless.
I'm talking about physics. By 1874 we understood the physics of zeppelins, so any would-be hoaxer could easily draw upon the existing literature to fabricate hoax stories. I suggest that's exactly what happened in the late 19th century. People like Billy Meier and Bob Lazar have been around since the dawn of time manufacturing lies for attention.
But the key performance characteristics of AAVs have been eerily consistent for over 70 years, and although we've made progress in understanding the theoretical physics that could explain these devices, we've made zero progress regarding the design and technological implementation of such devices: they have been and remain a quantum leap ahead of all known human technology.
So your assertion is demonstrably false. It's perfectly normal to be annoyed by somebody pointing that out, but it doesn't render my point illegitimate.
Most recent one I can think of is Needles, CA in 2008. A witness stated that a bright object crashed near the Colorado River and government personnel were on the scene in minutes, the still glowing object was helicoptered away rapidly. Other witnesses, including a radio station owner, stated that unmarked vehicles with government license plates and plain clothes personnel remained in the area for a few days afterward.
I can see that. Not talking about UFOs I'm referring to your forum behavior. I've seen it both here and on the Paracast forums. Predictable pattern at work.
You could be less provocative and a more polite and still make the same point. But of course, everyone else and their reactions are clearly the problem so naturally I don't expect you to see it that way.
I was recently looking up crash reports with all this talk of metamaterials (before things got quiet fast about that lol), I didn't get far as something came up grabbing my attention, let me go looking again and posting my findings...
In my view, discussion forums like these serve their highest function as debate forums where opposing views clash in mortal combat and, ideally, the strongest idea, viewpoint, or meme prevails.
This is an intrinsically adversarial process. It’s used in both legal settings and in scientific circles because it’s the most effective way to arrive at the truth, which is by far my overriding concern. And just as a lawyer is required to defend their client zealously, the process is best served when the participants zealously represent their positions in a debate. To do otherwise would not do justice to the thousands of hours of thought and research that we put into them.
But it’s not personal, and it’s a mistake to take it personally. This article addresses it well:
"Be A Passionate Advocate, But Don’t Take Anything Personally
Have passion for your work, but don't take personal offense when you disagree with your adversary.
by Christine A. Rodriguez
Do not make it personal. It is always a mistake. It is great to have passion for your work and to be a zealous advocate, but to do so does not require you to either express your personal opinions or take personal offense when you disagree with your adversary.”
Be A Passionate Advocate, But Don’t Take Anything Personally
When I oppose an idea I’m only opposing the idea, not the person stating it. And I endeavor to state my argument with verifiable facts and logical reasoning so my adversary and other readers can see the basis of my argument and attack any aspect of it on explicit grounds.
You’re invited to do that at any time; I welcome it because that process performs a service for everyone here who is also looking for the truth. But attacking the person making the statement instead of the statement itself is widely regarded as an ad hominem argument, which is a form of logical fallacy. I haven't done that here, but you have. So are you really in a position to educate me about being more polite?
Let's just zealously debate our ideas and arguments, and leave the personality issues out of it.
To be fair, Brother Thomas, There is a lot I could say here, I will condense it into a palatable form, Firstly, Know, That I respect you and, More than others, I understand where you are coming from, I used to be A lot Like you in several ways.
It's hard not to build personal relationships with others when we all have known each other for years. Sometimes, It's simply not possible for people t to leave feelings out of the equation. You May not Fully Grasp what I am saying. So I will Express it With a story about myself. A lot Like You, I became Known for Science, Physics specifically, I ran a Youtube channel for a great while, As The community on Twitter and YT grew, I didn't understand that people were beginning to take my word more seriously the larger My name grew. In the end, I ended Up offending a woman greatly, Who simply had a negative comment about my content, And Truly All I meant with my response to her was to give back the same attitude and context that she had given me. When she read my comments, which weren't terribly offensive, They wounded her deeply, Because As it turns out she had been following me for months just trying to speak to me.
People are rarely fully aware of the impact their words have on others. We can assume, That I could say something to someone and you could say the same things to that same person that our words would affect that person in the same way, but that's not always the case, Sometimes, It's who says the Words and How the person regarded who said those words that make the most impact.
I don't know if you are fully aware, But You are regarded as a Physics/scientific authority of sorts, So When you shoot down someone's theory or ideology, It tends to sting more than some rando who just commented. You are a Qazi Celebrity when it comes to Science matters, Hell brother, I'm a Qazi celebrity when it comes to science, And even I look up to you. I say these things to you, Not to Blow happy sunshine up your ass, or as a form of unwelcome praise. Because I know you don't seek that. But It's only fair that you know, Your words tend to be more powerful and have more meaning than some others. hence people can be more easily offended when Debates go awry.
I say this only in the context, That, I'm not certain you know these things. And this whole post is only for your consideration. I'm not saying you should change. Personally, One of my favorite things about you is how you never back down from your point of view. I used to be like that myself, I find it admirable.
Lastly, I ask anyone who reads this to consider. I'm not an overly praise type person, I'm just stating legitimate facts. and afterward, I'm going to go get high.
Thomas, I am not here for conflict. Just the weird shit we all enjoy and let's get back to it. Politely without using our opinions to beat one another down. Let's take the 'adversarial' and 'zealous' knob and just turn it down a bit for the sake of polite discourse.
Thanks SP. It wasn't the message just the method.
This is an unending debate and no one will have their minds changed on this.
One of my late uncles was a WWII vet. This meant that he had the deep respect of everyone else in the family, so we all endured his fiery rants in which he often ended up pounding on the table. You could say he had the courage of his convictions, which were carved in stone long before I came along. You could also say he was dogmatic, even a fundamentalist on some issues. It was really tiresome because he had no interest in learning anything from his "arguments". They were simply exercises in who could shout the loudest. It was particularly annoying when he was completely full of shit. We are all completely full of shit sometimes. There is no getting around it.
Thomas, I don't engage you in discussion, let alone any sort of debate, simply because it's pointless. I do agree with a lot of what you post, but your delivery leaves a lot to be desired. We all think our opinions are based on logic and astute assumptions. We are all completely off base at times. When was the last time you changed your mind about something important?
Separate names with a comma.