they just destroyed the documents because they guessed they would have no use, that is until the 70's came and roswell was re-discovered
No that’s not right. Military records are preserved for historical and intelligence purposes and an official order is required to destroy them. In this case the records were destroyed from a 3-year period spanning 1946-9, iirc, and no order could be found.
I think we can assume that either an order was issued to destroy those records and that the order itself was classified (and therefore FOIA exempt), or the records were simply classified at a high level, making them unavailable to the GAO. But that doesn’t answer the question of “why” they were subject to this level of compartmentalization. Perhaps because the Cold War was heating up they felt that Project Mogul was sufficiently sensitive to merit that level of handling, or maybe it was something else. What I find suspicious is that neither the base records were found, nor was the destruction order found…and yet they did release the Mogul documents. Because if Mogul is the reason that those records disappeared, then the order should’ve become available when they declassified Project Mogul for public release. So it looks like two distinct classifications, with Project Mogul being the less sensitive classification, and the other still being classified.
it saddens me to the core to see a real scientist with a PHD like you to fall into the bottomless pit that is UFO mythology.
i have yet to see anything suspicious about the deaths of those fellows and consider that in the realm if alex jones-ish conspiracy theorism
I don’t have a PhD; I’m an autodidact. In fact I don’t like labels and I prefer to avoid them. I certainly don’t consider myself to be an “authority,” and I think that people should always look at an argument and weigh the facts and the logic behind it, offered by anyone, to draw their own conclusions about any topic under debate. To do otherwise would raise the “appeal to authority” logical fallacy, especially on a topic like this one. As far as I’m concerned, everyone in a debate is on equal footing and it’s only the validity of the facts and reasoning that they offer which matters.
it i have yet to see anything suspicious about the deaths of those fellows and consider that in the realm if alex jones-ish conspiracy theorism
I think your perspective here is naïve. I have no idea if any of those deaths were covert assassinations – they could have all been natural deaths.
But maybe not. If you don’t think that the national security apparatus would take lives to protect a highly sensitive secret, then you’re simply naïve – people who work on highly classified projects know better. Or perhaps you think that the national security apparatus doesn’t have covert assassination tools capable of eliminating targets in an untraceable manner – that’s also a naïve assumption; the US has had the most advanced intelligence and defense tools on the planet for many decades, and if they chose to give somebody an aggressive form of cancer or a heart attack, they could absolutely do it – there are a number ways to accomplish either one which would be undetectable in any ordinary kind of autopsy. So when you have the three elements of a crime: means (the technology), motive (a potential threat to national security), and opportunity (access to a public figure like Schiff), then you have cause for suspicion. I’m not saying that they did it. I’m saying that it’s a reasonable possibility. They’ve done worse.
this is something people have been saying for decades, i doubt a obscure singer and mr zondo will change that for the better
We’ve learned that the Pentagon had (and apparently still has) an official Pentagon program investigating AAVs, which concluded that these devices are real, and exhibit five signature performance characteristics. The military has declassified three short FLIR videos from jet interceptor missions which purportedly show AAVs operating in terrestrial airspace, two top fighter pilots have come forward with riveting testimony from such an encounter while serving in the Navy, and two of the radar operators have confirmed their testimonies, and we now have some legitimate official documents generated by the AATIP program, and the former Director of the program speaking out publicly.
All of that is disclosure, by definition. And all of that stuff has happened in the last nine months. It’s not “full disclosure,” but it’s a damn good start. Which is why even the recalcitrant corporate news media is suddenly taking this whole subject seriously for the first time in my life, which frankly I never thought would happen.
So it boggles my mind when somebody complains that nothing has changed. A lot has changed. If you can’t see that, then there’s something broken with your perceptual capability.
it would, but conveniently i have found none evidence for these cases, and what people claim to be evidence is actually paranoia fuelled thinking
No, there’s actual evidence in the public sector that crash retrievals have actually happened – Dr. Eric Davis recently talked about it in some detail actually. He must have some specific knowledge about it because professional physicists don’t make claims without having familiarity with compelling empirical evidence. He said that we had a back-engineering program based on several crash retrieval operations, and that this program was shuttered in 1989 because our science and technology needed to evolve before we could make any progress with it. He wouldn’t know the year that program shut down if he hadn’t seen an official document, or heard it from a reliable inside source. That’s my take on it anyway.
But we have additional evidence of highly anomalous physical trace evidence as well. Jacques Vallée recently described an analysis
that he was involved in recently regarding a case in Argentina, where they found an element consisting of a perfectly uniform distribution of three stable isotopes of that element. That doesn’t happen naturally, and it would be extremely difficult and costly to do, because that requires the separation of an element into its individual isotopes, and then recombining them in units of thirds. Human technology doesn’t require that kind of process, because our technology functions at the chemical level. So the sample that his team analyzed represents a nuclear technology. We’ve only made the first primitive steps in that direction with fission and fusion processes. We don’t even know why a perfectly distributed balance of three isotopes of one element would be useful, but you wouldn't go to that kind of trouble if it weren't essential for some purpose. So that’s physical evidence of a science and technology significantly beyond our own – beyond even nanotechnology.
We’ve also recently heard about a metamaterial with a similar level of sophistication, from Luis Elizondo. His statements confirm some of the claims that Tom DeLonge made about that metamaterial last year.
And the ADAM Project is analyzing some potentially exotic trace evidence samples recovered from AAV cases right now.
So it looks to me like we’ll have solid empirical evidence of advanced alien technology soon, probably within the next year or so. And if you believe Jacques Vallée, we already have it.
exactly, it isn't "magic", its just something that is so advanced and strange that humans will take centuries to decipher
So by “advanced,” you must mean technology.
Given that human technology has advanced from the incandescent light bulb to quantum engineering in just over a century, and that process is accelerating because of the expansive breadth of our technological capabilities, I think it’s premature to make any predictions about the timeline of future advancements. Especially if we begin to study recovered samples of this technology in the public sector, as the ADAM Project is beginning to do right now. That could cut your timeframe down to decades. And we might even make some progress in our understanding of this stuff within a matter of years. If professional scientists in the public sector can get hold of legitimate samples of this kind of technology, there’s no telling how quickly we might progress with it.
That’s why I’ve always advocated for the scientific study of this phenomenon, and why I defend these kinds of efforts so vigorously. It’s the key to all of this, and I believe, the key to a human future that’s worth fighting for. Because the end game here is manned interstellar travel, and that will change everything.
its a incomplete theory! to complete it we need to meet the thing itself
as for the last question, its clearly not life as we know it, i doubt it would evolve
There’s a big difference between an “incomplete theory” and an “unintelligible theory.” The ETH is an incomplete theory. The “extradimensional ultraterrestrial hypothesis” is an unintelligible theory. You can’t even tell me if this alleged single entity behind all exotic UFO cases is biological, if it evolves (it would have to evolve btw – it’s inconceivable that any intelligence could have originated from the Big Bang itself or earlier), where it lives, what its physical nature is, how it survives, or why it would masquerade as exotic alien devices evading our top jet interceptors. In short, your hypothesis can’t even approximately explain itself.
So in terms of explanatory power, which is the gauge of any hypothesis, it’s worse than worthless. It raises a raft of intractable questions, and answers none of the existing questions. It’s garbage thinking – there’s nothing useful, rational, or well-motivated about any of it.
yet they somehow radiate heat into nothing-ness
What does that even mean? The stars radiate heat into nothing all day long, so that’s obviously not a valid criticism.
have artificial gravity and a lot of others problems
You generate “artificial gravity” every time you squeeze a rubber ball; the effect is just too weak to measure. So that’s not a problem; it’s simply a question of magnitude. And science and technology routinely expand the available magnitudes of physical properties, so the advent of a gravitational field technology is absolutely inevitable. In fact an experimental proposal was published a couple of years ago that would produce a detectable "artificial" gravitational field in the laboratory, using a pair of large superconductive magnetic coils and a laser interferometer - it would be costly to perform, but we could do it now.
(not going to mention FTL and CE3 problems because you alreday have biased answers to both)
Well you just did mention it, and I’ve already provided citations to decades of peer-reviewed academic papers on the first subject, so your bias against FTL is your problem, not mine.
As for CE3 cases, I think it’s hilarious that you accept every crazy story about people having lunch with aliens as absolute fact – with zero evidence that any of those stories are true…while simultaneously ignoring all of the empirical evidence from trace evidence cases and radar-visual cases as well as the canon of peer-reviewed scientific literature.
The mental gymnastics that you have to go through to maintain your position on this subject is really bewildering and alarmingly inconsistent. It’s a shame that you can’t see your own thought process objectively; if you could then maybe you could start to straighten it out.
you are talking about 19nth century science, nowdays academia has only one function: $
No. I’ve talked with a lot of academic scientists, and none of them are motivated by money. The scientists who –are- motivated by money, go into defense, because that’s where the money is. Academics are driven by a passionate thirst for deeper understanding, and a desire to contribute to the advancement of that understanding, and to an extent, to be recognized for their contributions to scientific progress.
That’s my direct personal experience on the subject. What’s your viewpoint based on? I’ll tell you: the same kind of paranoia that you accuse others of exhibiting, and with far less justification.