Stanford Professor warns massive UFO disclosure is around the corner.

Status
Not open for further replies.

OK.

Meet the “Top Gun Pilot” who believes he saw something. I believe he saw something.

Long way from there to “what he saw defies the laws of physics”.

Now, meet the “Top Gun Pilot” who is skeptical.

Why don’t I get equal weight with this guy?

Because I have a degree in Astrophysics? Because I’m skeptical? Because I’m not seeking fame on YouTube?
 
These are highly credible people saying this. Not a bunch of kooks making things up. It's real.
And... there are more than a few "highly credible" people who say that Q is real. There are a whole bunch of kooks making things up, FOR REAL. This sort of thing has been going on for a millennia. Anti-social media has made things far worse because it gives these people a platform to disseminate their crazy conspiracy theories.
I reiterate, extraterrestrials are a figment of many people's imaginations IMO.
 
And... there are more than a few "highly credible" people who say that Q is real. There are a whole bunch of kooks making things up, FOR REAL. This sort of thing has been going on for a millennia. Anti-social media has made things far worse because it gives these people a platform to disseminate their crazy conspiracy theories.
I reiterate, extraterrestrials are a figment of many people's imaginations IMO.
Yeah no kidding lol. This isn't that. Read up on the issue before stating the obvious. Dig a bit deeper. I loathe conspiracy theories.

The bottom line: the government is FINALLY acknowledging this. See video above.
 
OK.

Meet the “Top Gun Pilot” who believes he saw something. I believe he saw something.

Long way from there to “what he saw defies the laws of physics”.

Now, meet the “Top Gun Pilot” who is skeptical.

Why don’t I get equal weight with this guy?

Because I have a degree in Astrophysics? Because I’m skeptical? Because I’m not seeking fame on YouTube?


There were 2 pilots and 2 (rios?) that witnessed the event.

In your opinion does that increase or decrease the credibility of the claim or does it stay the same?
 
Of course, we will make new discoveries and revisions but in my opinion, those revisions, if any, will be very minor. Some constant's value or the mass of something revised out to 6 decimal places based on experimental measurements vs theoretical prediction. I just do not see the standard model being completely upheaved and tossed because there is some new kind of physics we just didn't see coming. The standard model IS THAT GOOD. Literally, can be used to explain every thing that happens.
I'm not saying that mankind doesn't have a good grasp on the physics of the what goes on around him and for most of the Universe, but far from "all-knowing" by any means. What I am saying is there are most likely scientific and associated technological secrets that have not been discovered yet. Do you really think humans have found every scientific and technological secret possible when he couldn't even fly in a machine 119 years ago? I don't, because science and technology are ever evolving. It might take humans a thousand more years (if they survive that long) to uncover things not even known today.
 
Yes, there's just a tendency to discount how much we know. Some in this thread have said we basically are just getting started and we know very little about science and my point is we know A LOT about science - so much so that we can explain and test just about every phenomenon that occurs around us so long as it's testable. We have a really great handle on how the universe works for a species that has only been working the scientific method for a couple of hundred years and really getting at it for just the past 100.
You can only gauge "how much we know" to how much there is to ultimately know by any intelligent life in the Universe ... which nobody knows where that limit is right now for humans. Yes, humans know a whole lot more than they did 150 years ago ... no doubt. Science and technology has increase exponentially in the last 150 years ... so is it just going to now just suddenly flatten out to near zero growth, or keep growing at much more than a supposed asymptotic limit on the human science knowledge growth scale?
 
Not really, you can have technology without any understanding of the science behind it. Take metallurgy for example. Human race has been able to forge metal objects for millennia, but it is only recently that we understand how the forging process works and what molecular changes take place to give the metal its properties.

But we have been able to make very exquisite examples of metallurgy, like the Katana. Without the preserved by the Japanese culture records of how it was made, our current scientific methods would have a hard time replicating this very fascinating and advanced piece of technology
Technology advancement through trial and error experimentation. It works, but it make is very inefficient and time consuming ... and doesn't work for everything, like putting men on the moon. For making swords ... yeah, but still took a very long time to perfect.

I'm sure through science, they could reverse engineer and replicate the metallurgy in those swords without spending 100 years like they did making those swords without the science of metallurgy.
 
You can only gauge "how much we know" to how much there is to ultimately know by any intelligent life in the Universe ... which nobody knows where that limit is right now for humans. Yes, humans know a whole lot more than they did 150 years ago ... no doubt. Science and technology has increase exponentially in the last 150 years ... so is it just going to now just suddenly flatten out to near zero growth, or keep growing at much more than a supposed asymptotic limit on the human science knowledge growth scale?
"How much for humans" is limited by our existance.
"How much in nature" just might be unlimited. Nature will continue long after we are gone. I think... If and when another species develops they might make use of our chronicled knowledge. Someday. I think...
 
There were 2 pilots and 2 (rios?) that witnessed the event.

In your opinion does that increase or decrease the credibility of the claim or does it stay the same?
Stays the same, honestly, since you’re asking about credibility.

The other three have been pretty quiet.

The incident was 18 years ago, right? This guy was subsequently on a documentary (in which he was clearly a self important douche, I really was disappointed in his conduct in “Carrier”) and now he wants to talk more?

He works as one of the consultants I loathe - prancing on a stage in his flight suit.

I’m willing to listen to this guy - my parents brought me up to give everyone a chance - but his history, his personality, his self-aggrandizement, severely undermine his credibility for me.

I’d like to hear what the other three have to say.

I’m still willing to listen. Still willing to hear them out.

But I bristle every time he’s put on a pedestal - because he doesn’t belong there.
 
"How much for humans" is limited by our existance.
"How much in nature" just might be unlimited. Nature will continue long after we are gone.
Exactly ... nobody knows for sure exactly where humans are on the scale from 0 to 100 on "all-knowing" the total ultimate limits of nature and science to fully understand all possible facets. And they will probably never know, because nobody knows where that limit actually resides.
 
Stays the same, honestly, since you’re asking about credibility.

The other three have been pretty quiet.

The incident was 18 years ago, right? This guy was subsequently on a documentary (in which he was clearly a self important douche, I really was disappointed in his conduct in “Carrier”) and now he wants to talk more?

He works as one of the consultants I loathe - prancing on a stage in his flight suit.

I’m willing to listen to this guy - my parents brought me up to give everyone a chance - but his history, his personality, his self-aggrandizement, severely undermine his credibility for me.

I’d like to hear what the other three have to say.

I’m still willing to listen. Still willing to hear them out.

But I bristle every time he’s put on a pedestal - because he doesn’t belong there.

Interesting and telling perspective.
Thank you.
 
The subject went from never being taken seriously, to the DOD, Navy and CIA admitting there are objects entering our airspace (and oceans) that defy physics as we know it (80,000 ft to seal level in .79 seconds) and that possibly some of them are not terrestrial. That is a fact. It's a fact in that that is what they have said...
It has not been proven to date that these UAP's actually defy any known laws of physics. The sensor data has not been qualified or correlated as yet to realistically make that claim.

I think the UAP topic WAS taken seriously from the time of BlueBook on, but looking at history, it appears we had bigger fish to fry, such as regaining space superiority after Sputnik, keeping the Russians at bay, and maintaining scientific and technical acumen.

In other words, the priority for the UAP topic was way down at the bottom of the list since at the time there were no perceived military or civilian threats from these unexplained objects.
 
Here is what concerns me from the interview:
"...Dr. Garry Nolan, an immunologist at Stanford that recently became involved in UFOs and their disclosure, has sat down for an interview where he discussed his role in working with the government on analyzing and studying individuals that encountered UFOs. According to Nolan, there is a group of people that were involved in recovering UFO debris for secret government programs, and these individuals will soon be coming forward to reveal what they know..."

Was he part of the DNI task force of scientists engaged in UAP research? What government division has supported his research? We are not told.

Will he simply be rehashing the same old Ancient Aliens theme with reports from individuals who said they were involved, and will these individuals now be providing unequivocal physical evidence to substantiate their claims? Again, we are not told.
 
Last edited:
As a Physicist and Aerospace Scientist, I am very interested in seeing some real unequivocal data.

So, will they be presenting real data such as laboratory experiments, paint or metallic smears of near or actual collisions, observations explainable through known physics, or will they continue with their Ancient Aliens (Chariots of the Gods) (astronaut) inferences, conjectures, and biased interpretations? There is a difference.

Sounds more like Oil marketing hype than it being a scientific paper.
“… Ancient alien theorists say yes…”.

Queue unprofessional strange guy with crazy hair…
 
“… Ancient alien theorists say yes…”.

Queue unprofessional strange guy with crazy hair…
Are ancient alien theorists really a profession? How professional is that line of work supposed to be?

Maybe he's supposed to look like Londo.

Londo.webp
 
We might find out some new stuff regarding dark energy and dark matter from the James Webb telescope, just depends what it sees out there.
I would be cautious about accepting dark matter as a reality. There is no question that the concept of this invisible ‘stuff’ has its origins in the big bang hypothesis as it is being used as a fudge factor to explain certain characteristics of the universe. Presently, there is no physical evidence to suggest the reality of dark matter.

I would also be cautious about accepting prior theories of galactic and stellar evolution:

“...With the resolution of James Webb, we are able to see that galaxies have disks way earlier than we thought they did,” says Allison Kirkpatrick, an astronomer at the University of Kansas in Lawrence. That’s a problem, she says, because it contradicts earlier theories of galaxy evolution. Another preprint suggests that massive galaxies formed earlier in the Universe than was thought. A team led by Ivo Labbé at the Swinburne University of Technology in Melbourne, Australia, reports finding 7 huge galaxies in the CEERS field, with redshifts between 7 and 10 (ref. 10). “Massive galaxy formation began extremely early in the history of the Universe,” the scientists write..."

"...Wren Suess, an astronomer at the University of California, Santa Cruz, compared Hubble images of galaxies at cosmic noon with Webb images of the same galaxies. At the infrared wavelengths detected by Webb, most of the massive galaxies looked much smaller than they did in Hubble images. “It potentially changes our whole view of how galaxy sizes evolve over time,” Suess says. Hubble studies suggested that galaxies start out small and grow bigger, but the Webb findings hint that Hubble didn’t have the whole picture, so galactic evolution might be more complicated than anticipated. With Webb just at the beginning of a planned 20-year run, astronomers know a lot of changes lie ahead. “Right now I find myself lying awake at three in the morning,” Kirkpatrick says, “wondering if everything I’ve ever done is wrong.”

So many scientists are now wondering if they should shelve the big bang altogether as the images from the telescope are not revealing what they expected.

https://media.nature.com/original/magazine-assets/d41586-022-02056-5/d41586-022-02056-5.pdf
 
I love Londo!...back to discussion.

Tsoukalos is a clown.
Some history and background of the Roswell 'Incident' from a friend who is researching and writing a book on the history of Roswell and so-called 'Alien' visitors; some excerpts from his forthcoming book..

In mid-June 1947, W.W. ‘Mac’ Brazel discovered some deteriorated wreckage on the ranch he was operating. He took pieces to the local sheriff who thought that they might have some military significance. Sheriff Wilcox then contacted the local Roswell Army Air Base, where he spoke to Major Jesse Marcel—the man who became a key player in this incident. Colonel William Blanchard ordered Marcel and counterintelligence officer Sheridan Cavitt out to Brazel’s ranch. Cavitt immediately thought it probably came from a weather balloon, but Marcel had other ideas. Even today, Marcel’s wife and son, Jesse, Jr., remembers Marcel Snr. talking about flying saucers. On July 8 the public information office at the base announced they had recovered a flying disk. Although they retracted the claim a few days later, the cat was out of the bag. In effect, it was ‘proof?’ the smoking gun that we had been visited by extraterrestrials.

The timing of this incident was a key factor as to why someone like Marcel became convinced it was a flying saucer. It was also a powerful demonstration of how the media shapes our views. A few weeks earlier, businessman Kenneth Arnold had become a media sensation when he claimed that his light plane was buzzed over Cascade Mountains, Washington, by nine disks like ‘saucers that skipped across the water’.

This incident was the genesis of the expression ‘flying saucers’. Photos of Arnold and his depictions of the craft hit the front pages of newspapers all over the country. It was a sensation that led to an explosion of sightings that year—850 in all—as people started to look skyward in anticipation of seeing unidentified flying objects.

A few days after the original announcement, a press conference was held to explain that nothing more than a weather balloon had crashed on Brazel’s ranch. But Marcel wasn’t convinced—he was caught up in the saucer hype that engulfed the country. He later said that it did not look like any weather balloon he had seen before and, to his credit, he was right. Nonetheless, the flying saucer claim soon became nothing more than ‘pie in the sky’ speculation, and it remained that way for about 30 years. Then suddenly it became bigger than ever!

In 1978 world-famous UFOlogist Stanton Friedman became acquainted with Marcel, who revived his saucer theory by claiming that the government had substituted the original wreckage with materials from weather balloons. Conspiracy theories started to abound with the idea that the government was hiding something. In 1980, two fame-seeking UFO-believing authors (Charles Berlitz and William Moore) penned The Roswell Incident, claiming they had interviewed over 75 witnesses as part of their research. (Charles Berlitz was an occult writer who authored other speculative books about the Bermuda Triangle and the Philadelphia Experiment). It became the most-famous book on Roswell, showing alleged extracts from secret government documents. It included one containing the signature of President Harry S. Truman authorizing a covert group called ‘Majestic 12’ (MJ12) to deal with UFO incidents. This group later became known in UFO lore as the ‘Men in Black’. The book also claimed that the Roswell wreckage included:

  • Fragments of an exotic, flexible material that would not tear, burn, or break.
  • Alien markings on the wreckage, perhaps writing or hieroglyphics.
  • Alien bodies that were recovered from the crash.
The book was a spectacular success and Roswell had well and truly become an ‘incident’.

There was indeed a cover-up at Roswell, but nothing so juicy as advanced alien technology crashing on our planet. This was the beginning of the Cold War era. America had the bomb and had used it during the Second World War. The Soviet Union was developing similar technology. However, mankind had not developed reliable rocket technology to put satellites in space. So how was the US going to be able to keep an eye on the Soviets?

Under a program classified as TOP SECRET 1A, Project Mogul began. The idea was to create large arrays of weather-type balloons—up to 23 in an array—with the purpose of sending them high into the stratosphere where they would be carried around the world by incredibly fast jet streams. These arrays contained radar reflectors that were basically large tinfoil kites made with sticks, called RAWIN targets. A toy company manufactured the kites using nothing more than reinforcing tape. The balloons were made of neoprene rubber, aluminium tubes and eyelet rings. They carried low-frequency microphones, a sonobuoy, and battery packs. Their purpose was to listen to above-ground Soviet atomic tests. It was primitive technology by today’s standards but it was an ingenious, if not hugely successful, way to monitor activities thousands of miles away.

On June 4, 1947, Mogul flight 4 was launched from Alamogordo Army Air Field, New Mexico, not far southwest of Roswell. Some of the balloons burst as a result of exposure to the sun, and as the battery power depleted, the military lost contact with the array, only 17 miles from its eventual crash site. Information about Project Mogul remained classified for over 40 years.

Of course, the Americans did not want the Soviets to know they were spying on them, and thus it was top-secret. Lower level military staff like Blanchard and Marcel had no idea about Project Mogul. But Marcel knew it wasn’t a regular weather balloon and he’d heard the government denials. Coupled with his pre-belief in UFOs, he put two and two together and came up with five—‘ET’.

Is anyone really surprised that governments keep secrets? But resorting to speculative conspiracy theories just because one is not in possession of all of the facts is unwarranted.

It seems incredible that something so mundane could be mistaken for a flying saucer. Even the alien hieroglyphics were nothing more than flower images and child-like designs used on the packing tape. And what of the claims in the book? After years of personal research into UFO claims, I’ve found that the ‘true believers’ never let the facts get in the way of a good story. Quite simply, there were no alien bodies. Brazel never testified to seeing any metal in the wreckage—there was no special unbreakable material, it was neoprene rubber. What of the secret government documents? President Truman’s signature was eventually found to have been ‘lifted’ from another memo. The book contained fraudulent material.

There have been numerous investigations into Roswell. In 1994 a UFO-believing US Congressman asked the fully independent General Accounting Office (GAO) to revisit the claims, although he didn’t obtain what he wanted to hear. Their official report best sums up the major problems:

‘… it was originally reported that there was only recovery of debris from one site. This has since grown from a minimal amount of debris recovered from a small area to airplane loads of debris from multiple huge “debris fields.” Likewise, the relatively simple description of sticks, paper, tape and tinfoil has since grown to exotic metals with hieroglyphics and fiber-optic-like materials. Adding some measure of credibility to the claims that have arisen since 1978 [since Marcel revived the story] is the apparent depth of research of some of the authors and the extent of their efforts. Their claims are lessened somewhat, however, by the fact that almost all their information came from verbal reports many years after the alleged incident occurred … . In other cases, the information provided is second or thirdhand [sic], having been passed through a friend or relative after the principal had died. What is uniquely lacking in the entire exploration and exploitation of the “Roswell Incident” is official positive documentary or physical evidence of any kind that supports the claims of those who allege that something unusual happened.’ ‘Report of Air Force Research Regarding the Roswell Incident 1994,’ /www.af.mil/library/roswell/roswell.asp?']www.af.mil/library/roswell/roswell.asp[/URL]>, 22 March 2007.
Below is a diagram of the Project Mogul balloon arrays and the so-called ‘Alien Hieroglyphs’ which were nothing more than child-like designs used on packing tape.

Project Mogul Baloon Arrays.gif


Alien Heiroglyphs.jpg
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom