Go for it...Oh man I'm setting a timer and coming back to this thread with a box of Kleenex as there is going to be
- Denial. ...
- Anger. ...
- Bargaining. ...
- Depression. ...
- Acceptance and hope that next year is the year
Pentagon releases UFO footage
- Thread starter Doobedoo
- Start date
Which is the problem with all of this stuff,
People like the poster you quoted, tend to put the cart before the horse. They pre-suppose, that there's some sort of extraordinary or otherwordly explanation, and they'll clutch at straws like a lunatic trying to make that narrative fit their idea.
They don't consider other more likely or simple explanations at all, and most of the time, the simple (probably correct) answer is thrown out first.
Last edited:
Newton specifically maybe, but the entire scientific community of the time could certainly have advanced their knowledge of all sorts of things by attempting to reverse engineer it. The benefits might not be realised as a watch factory, but as a leap in metallurgy, manufacturing or electricity etc. The battery was invented ~80-100 years after Newton's time, perhaps that could have been shortened by 50+ years just by knowing it was possible.
Newton 'discovered' Gravity in the 1600s and became a scientific celebrity. We were teaching this to young children not long after this - the rate at which new knowledge is disseminated to and assimilated by society is extremely fast. With the technology we have now we'd almost certainly have the ability to understand the composition of the craft on a molecular/atomic level which you could expect to lead to advances in material science etc simply by rapidly understanding what is possible. That's not the same as producing a clone craft factory and leaping to intergalactic travel.
If reverse engineering of technologies beyond the current level of understanding (for a given society) wasn't massively effective, militaries all over the world wouldn't have been or continue to be so fervently engaged in doing it on an industrial scale.
How many times in your life have you said or heard the phrase "its easy when you know how"?
I am not constructing where nothing exits. Those debunks are ignoring facts and then are pretending its debunked. You might be happy but I am not as those explanations are very poor.
Take the FLIR event a condensed version is.
A navy strike group made up of multiple ships are investigating radar indications. USS Princeton is also tracking unusual craft. The aircraft would appear at 80,000 feet (24,000 m) before descending rapidly toward the sea, and stopping at 20,000 feet (6,100 m) and hovering seen by multiple navy ships in the strike group. First wave of fighter jet take off while they investigate. When they get near to being out of fuel a 2nd wave of fighters take off from the USS Nimitz with different pilots. The jets have a pilot and weapon system officer so multiple witness's to go along with the video. We also have the technical testimony from the tech guys from the navy ships who say the USS Nimitz has some of the best Sensory equipment on the entire planet. The tech guys who worked directly on the sensory equipment on the USS Nimitz confirmed the fighter pilots testimony and video. People like Senior Chief Kavin Day, Patrick Hugues Pettty Officer (Technician), Petty Officer Gary Voorhis are all confirming the same event as the multiple fighter jet crew are saying.
If its just a camera panning around making it look like an object is going nuts from a single fighter jet. Then how do you explain the two waves of fighter jets seeing the same thing? How do you explained the confirmation from the ground (Sea) navy ships seeing the same thing? Why did they lunch two waves of fighters if its a sensor fault on a single fighter in the 2nd wave? How come the navy ships sensors also pick up the object according to the crew on the ships? The explanation its a single camera just panning around doesn't fit with what is being reported about the event.
"GoFast = The object is slow, the camera is fast"
That doesn't debunk or explain the rest of the event and the speed going slow is not proven as the math was for 1 single point of the video and the math was rudimental missing out important elements so it was not a true indication of real speed.
"Gimbal - it was a gimbal camera and the way that tech works"
That's not an explanation for what was seen or the pilots testimony/recorded voice.
People like you and Screeech don't seem to care about fine details. You don't seem to care that the debunks do not fit the facts. So you ignore the facts and pretend its debunked/explained away. I am happy for debunks when they make sense and fit the facts. The simple explanations you both offer often make no sense when you look into them and are just as crazy to believe, as jumping to aliens.
Last edited:
I just don't think that it's a practical or useful comparison - this idea that because we understand things down to the atomic level, we'd therefore be able to understand alien technology.
I doubt very much, that if alien technology or the aliens themselves did manage to make it here - it wouldn't be anything like a craft, or flying-saucer or anything we even recognise as a vehicle, maybe we can't even see it, or detect it/them at all? Who knows?
For me, the mechanics and theory behind their technology, would be so implausible and distant from our own understanding in order for it to work, that it's practically impossible to know what we'd make of it, if it came here.
Please stop,
We did this to death, I'm not subjecting everybody to it again,
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Apr 2003
- Posts
- 8,067
...
Last edited:
I'm not saying there are or aren't aliens here btw, but I am saying that we have a fairly decent understanding of the composition of everything we've ever found in the Universe. We've also made some pretty accurate predictions about the periphery of our knowledge, for example the entire periodic table was known before anyone had ever encountered quite a big chunk of it, we'd (mostly) correctly predicted the properties of those elements etc. We have something of an understanding of subatomic particles and have the equipment to detect them. The makeup of the universe is therefore largely known to us, we can see around 15 billion years into the past and there's nothing inconsistent there in terms of expected composition of matter and so on.
I am 100% certain that, as long as whatever it was was made from matter, we'd absolutely have enough of a grasp of the fundamentals to begin a rudimental assessment. There remains some doubt of course, for example in the realms of antimatter (though we are able to create that) and some other areas where our understanding is barely there at a theoretical level but again a practical demonstration of that ability would absolutely turbocharge whatever discipline that was closest to.
Making the assumption that you're not a watchmaker, engineer etc etc; if I gave you a Swiss watch movement, could you recreate it in your lifetime? Even if you'd never seen inside a watch before, you could probably understand how the energy is stored, how time is measured by the mechanism and so on. Could you do the same if you were simply asked to make a Swiss watch movement? That's the difference - I'm certainly not suggesting we would take a look at things and immediately know what it is and how to recreate it but I am 100% certain that scientific endeavour would provide some answers or at least pose sufficient questions that only come around when you already know something is possible. Pure creation is far harder than imitation.
I wouldn't be certain of anything.
To be honest, all you're really saying is: "Here's an example of a machine humans made (swiss watch), we can reverse engineer that - therefore we can in theory reverse engineer and understand anything!"
When you apply this to aliens and flying-saucers, you can only do so with a truckload of assumptions, none of which are really practically useful in any way, because we're not able to imagine the conditions or specific details of any such entity.
In short, I have no idea - but if a flying-saucer did land and we recognised it as such, I wouldn't be suprised if we actually ended up worse off - because the technology inside it just wouldn't make any sense to us at all, and we'd be completely stumped, and end up having a nuclear war over it
Your right that is interesting. They should wait and post the next video on the 27th of July for maximum exposure.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2022
- Posts
- 759
- Location
- UK
There's a lot of claims about things happening there but I've only got one video to go on which lasts 1m 17 secs and doesn't show anything to what you described? Are they links to any other of the videos showing the same object?
I'm more interested in actual data, videos for example. Humans saying things to me is just 'they are mistaken' because humans can be mistaken. Maybe the object was large/small near/far for example.
What elements are missing?
The pilots aren't looking at the object with their eyes, it's miles away. 5280 feet per mile. They are looking at the screen and commenting. They could be mistaken.
Not really - I'm saying that given absolutely no prior knowledge or training but asked to do something, it is FAR easier to imagine it is possible and achieve an outcome given evidence it has already been done and even easier when you can see the specifics of what has been done, even if you don't know how right at the start.
Would you rather make a watch movement with zero knowledge or with one in front of you to try and understand/copy? That is the fundamental advantage that reverse engineering gives you. We would have that same advantage no matter what the input, even if we currently have absolutely no way to produce any exotic materials or whatever it might be.
The idea that even with a few billion years of advancement these hypothetical people had somehow transcended the laws of the universe that we know to be true is as challenging as the notion that they are here, now.
Associate
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2022
- Posts
- 759
- Location
- UK
We're already reverse engineering everything; atoms/particles, bang em together both at the speed of light and see what comes out. Got a better idea? 
Biology, whats all that about then?! That's been getting more complex for the last 3.5 billions years ago, we've got some catching up to do.
Humans only just figured out writing things down might be a good idea. plus wheels.
Biology, whats all that about then?! That's been getting more complex for the last 3.5 billions years ago, we've got some catching up to do.
Humans only just figured out writing things down might be a good idea. plus wheels.
We also have testimony from some of the fighter jet pilots. Along with video testimony from the crew on the navy ships like Senior Chief Kavin Day, Patrick Hugues Petty Officer (Technician), Petty Officer Gary Voorhis some of whom worked directly on the sensor systems with first hand knowledge of what happened. As for the main video itself the camera is not panning around making the object go nuts. The camera is locked onto the object with the object accelerating at speeds beyond what a bird or balloon can do while going off camera.
While there are reports there are longer videos and matching sensor data none of that has been publicly released. We only have the video that was illegally leaked out all those years ago before being made official along with the testimony from the military personal directly involved.
"The pilots aren't looking at the object with their eyes, it's miles away. 5280 feet per mile. They are looking at the screen and commenting. They could be mistaken."
Some of the pilots reported they sew it with there own eyes at one point it was close up. Only 1 plane had the camera attached, the crew in the other plans reported they witnessed the object for a lot longer then that video. There was no camera attached to the first wave of fighter jets. These landed and the 2nd set launched with the camera.
Like I said before I am ok with debunks that make sense and match the facts. But when the debunk goes against this many first hand reliable witness's and the debunk itself is not based on solid facts. Then I have to question debunk as being a valid explanation.
“What elements are missing?
The first problem is they only worked out the speed for 1 single set frame of the entire video which doesn’t mean that’s the speed it was moving in the rest of the video or the rest of the event outside the video. The 2nd problem they didn’t factor in elements like wind speed and direction which effects the maths for the object moving. As per the links I posted a while back some 3D simulation models got built and the output data didn’t match the debunk speed idea. Even if it is going slower then it appears that still doesn't explain what it is or explain away the rest of the event.
In past studies both by government and civilian organisations over 90% of sightings are shown to have prosaic explanations once investigated, anyone with a serious interest in the topic understands that.
It is the other fraction that defy conventional explanation we are interested in and I hate the fact so many people assume UFO must mean extraterrestrial. I don't believe that explanation personally and most of the research community are open minded about it. As it clearly states in the NDAA bill there is no reference to E.T. only to non human intelligence.
All we know is there are some objects defying explanation and that is admitted by multiple world governments. What is up for debate is whether some of these objects have been retrieved and that is what Congress are moving to prove or dispel.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,357
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
So elephants, dolphins and other such creatures.
Associate
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2022
- Posts
- 759
- Location
- UK
The videos were leaked and a claim was made that they're something special. Some never before seen tech. That's enough for some people. Even some of Congress become convinced 'this is something' lets take it to the top!
I disagree it's some advanced never before seen tech. There, I just debunked the videos.
Want more? oh ok. Here's summary of those 3 UFOs video from 3 years ago:
Last edited:
Not aliens, angels!
