Stanford Professor warns massive UFO disclosure is around the corner.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Given our nature and history, it would be in the alien's best interest if they stayed away from us...

You ever notice that in just about every 'alien' movie...they either have to dumb down the alien or dumb down the humans in order for the movie to work?
 
buster said:
...I wish. Would be the most incredible story in human history.

https://www.tweaktown.com/news/8811...D3tqIHDBTEXYeJdDK8WxFCOewxsLwD8jVIkKxfzjU6o2Y

https://thehill.com/opinion/3610916...otDQovemwft0vrKLgZ0o8FuBTDXrVYg-IiwORVSG3ErIQ

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.

"When you say that the government has been involved in a coverup, do you think they've been hiding it all this time?" the interviewer asked. "Oh yes. I know it's a fact because I've spoken to important people who are about to come out and whistleblow on it," Nolan replied.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. There are many individuals who believe the federal government has the remains of aliens killed in the so called "Roswell" UFO crash sequestered away at some super secret military post, which actually wasn't anything but a downed weather balloon array and radar targets launched from Alamogordo Army Air Field in the summer of 1947. In seventy five years, not one shred of verifiable evidence to support claims of aliens visiting our planet. Some individuals will believe anything.
 
UncleDave said:
Fravor said although he could see it - it seems to be able to blind itself to (his) radar at will.
It didnt seem as though it could blind IR, but move fast enough to lose track.

Princeton operators said a number of these things descended from 80K to sea level and stopped in under a second.

Who know who or what this is - but the capabilities are not found in any inventory we know of. (?) If its China or someone else - we're cooked.

I do not like this one bit at all and hope its nothing more than faulty gear, but its not looking like thats answer and nothing good will come of it. I do not like it on a train I do not like it on a plane.
Click to expand...
As a guy that knows a little bit about SPY, how it detects and transitions tracks, the doctrine that is written for it, how often it puts beams on "tactically significant" tracks and what those beams are, what you say the "operators saw" would be more believable coming from a D(V) equipped DDG than an A equipped CG. Still in no way believable though.
 
UncleDave said:
You cant explain it. Nor can the multiple people and equipment that corroborated it.

I'm not trying to change the laws of physics - Im simply observing that these devices dont seem to follow them.

Government already acknowledged it and these observations. Our opinions dont matter.
Click to expand...

How can you observe something that doesn’t follow laws of physics? And more so, have measurements and eye witnesses?

Don’t you see this as a major contradiction?
 
We're not talking about walking on water here some 2,000 years ago. We're talking about current EVIDENCE based on some of the most highly trained individuals trained to identify these things that is now becoming backed by advanced radar technology.

It's always been the case that UFO's/UAPs are 95% of the time:

hoaxes
weather phenomena
BS artists
top secret military tech

This phenomenon also goes back decades if not much further.

It's important to keep an open mind. We need a smoking gun though.

Time will tell.....

I was the biggest skeptic most of my life. I regret making fun of these folks as there was more to it than I had realized. As for what they are, I have no idea.
 
Last edited:
wag123 said:
Unless there are laws of physics that we don't know about, extraterrestrials are a figment of many people's imaginations IMO.
Click to expand...
You DO realize that we already have the math for warp drive? No need for unknown physics. That's not even taking into account the possibility of beings from alternate dimensions, etc.
You're also not seeming to realize that we've only had electricity for less than 200 years, nuclear physics for less than 100 and that there would be civilizations that are, technologically, millions of years ahead of us.

These types of statements are the most arrogant, naive statements one can make.

Brock
 
Kbrock438 said:
You DO realize that we already have the math for warp drive? No need for unknown physics.That's not even taking into account the possibility of beings from alternate dimensions, etc.
You're also not seeming to realize that we've only had electricity for less than 200 years, nuclear physics for less than 100 and that there would be civilizations that are, technologically, millions of years ahead of us.

These types of statements are the most arrogant, naive statements one can make.

Brock
Click to expand...


Math is not physics.

Not sure who’s the arrogant/naive one here 🤔
 
KrisZ said:
How can you observe something that doesn’t follow laws of physics? And more so, have measurements and eye witnesses?

Don’t you see this as a major contradiction?
Click to expand...

If your eyes, and two radars see something flying that can accelerate to thousand of miles hour from a dead stop with no action reaction propulsion system then it has either appeared to, or somehow broken at minimum Newtons third law.

Yes we have measurements and eye witness.

Go read the report posted Its in there.
 
thastinger said:
As a guy that knows a little bit about SPY, how it detects and transitions tracks, the doctrine that is written for it, how often it puts beams on "tactically significant" tracks and what those beams are, what you say the "operators saw" would be more believable coming from a D(V) equipped DDG than an A equipped CG. Still in no way believable though.
Click to expand...

I repeating what the report says. Go read and critique the report.

It's in there I'd love for someone to critique the report, but thats not what people here do they want to debate me because they dont believe what it says.

If multiple eyes, radars and tracking systems didnt all agree - it'd be far less troublesome, but they do.

Net net our government reversed itself on an almost 100 year position on this subject.
 
Makes me think that Aladdin's "Flying Carpets" were real, and the Egyptian hieroglyphics or huge picture of one of their figures (or was that an Aztec) was flying A UFO....

Just go the Many Worlds theory. If Infinity is truly infinite, then we can't quantify it, can't even attempt to, every possible version of every possible event exists somewhere, someway, and somewhere, in it, time-traveling superadvanced extradimensional "beings" are wondering why this primitive ant colony of people think they have anything we want. There is a lot more but.. for now, that.

And if Infinity is truly infinite, then there has to be more.. again, like a line or a ray, they have no end. 🔛🔜♾Are they carbon-based life forms? Were they created? So many ways to go here.
 
UncleDave said:
If your eyes, and two radars see something flying that can accelerate to thousand of miles hour from a dead stop with no action reaction propulsion system then it has either appeared to, or somehow broken at minimum Newtons third law.

Yes we have measurements and eye witness.

Go read the report posted Its in there.
Click to expand...

I don’t have any issues with reporting what one observed, but I have an issue with interjecting how it somehow relates to laws of physics especially claims that report to supposedly “break” these laws.
This tells me that the individual either doesn’t know what laws of physics really means, or they have some sort of agenda, like monetary gain.


You seem heavily biased towards one explanation of these events, hence you cling to the idea that somehow the laws of physics were “broken” despite fully being aware of the measurements. And these measurements don’t show any of the laws being broken.

An indication of braking laws of physics would be if the calculations of energy, acceleration, etc. didn’t make sense at all. But they do make sense, they are just extreme in comparison to what our tech can do.


So you say they “at minimum”, implying more are broke despite lack of any evidence, they brake the third law. What is your basis of it? Lack of sound, measurable heat, some sort of blast wave, sonic boom perhaps?

Well, compare an electric car to a regular one. There is no loud noises, exhaust or exhaust heat when accelerating. If you never knew what an electric car was, would you claim it broke lows of physics when accelerating?
 
Last edited:
KrisZ said:
I don’t have any issues with reporting what one observed, but I have an issue with interjecting how it somehow relates to laws of physics especially claims that report to supposedly “break” these laws.
This tells me that the individual either doesn’t know what laws of physics really means, or they have some sort of agenda, like monetary gain.


You seem heavily biased towards one explanation of these events, hence you cling to the idea that somehow the laws of physics were “broken” despite fully being aware of the measurements. And these measurements don’t show any of the laws being broken.

An indication of braking laws of physics would be if the calculations of energy, acceleration, etc. didn’t make sense at all. But they do make sense, they are just extreme in comparison to what our tech can do.


So you say they “at minimum”, implying more are broke despite lack of any evidence, they brake the third law. What is your basis of it? Lack of sound, measurable heat, some sort of blast wave, sonic boom perhaps?

Well, compare an electric car to a regular one. There is no loud noises, exhaust or exhaust heat when accelerating. If you never knew what an electric car was, would you claim it broke lows of physics when accelerating?
Click to expand...

Not biased - just out of answers that fit the known envelopes.

No one here has as of yet come up with any answers, but simply attack the observations and mere questions o"how."

How does their propulsion work without a visible or detectable action /reaction ?

Lets say they produce 1100GW of energy like the estimates claim - how do they do that without creating any detectable heat?

Whats your answer to these questions?
 
Last edited:
UncleDave said:
Not biased - just out of answers that fit the known envelopes.

No one here has as of yet come up with any answers, but simply attack the observations and mere questions o"how."

How does their propulsion work without a visible or detectable action /reaction ?

Lets say they produce 1100GW of energy like the estimates claim - how do they do that without creating any detectable heat?

Whats your answer to these questions?
Click to expand...

Nuclear submarines use something like 100- 200MW nuclear reactors, that’s massive amount of heat. Why is it then that we use sonar instead of thermal for detection?

I don’t have an answer to your questions, but just because we don’t detect something doesn’t mean it’s not there or that we used the correct methods. And then to jump to such crazy conclusions as they must be breaking the laws of physics is a rather odd move, don’t you think? May as well claim they use magic.
 
UncleDave said:
Not biased - just out of answers that fit the known envelopes.

No one here has as of yet come up with any answers, but simply attack the observations and mere questions o"how."

How does their propulsion work without a visible or detectable action /reaction ?

Lets say they produce 1100GW of energy like the estimates claim - how do they do that without creating any detectable heat?

Whats your answer to these questions?
Click to expand...
You are stuck on the following, flawed, assumption - the data is accurate.

All your physics; velocity, acceleration, power, heat, is predicated on accurate track data.

Remove that assumption, and it all falls apart, none of your posted math holds together.

That is Occam’s razor - the data is flawed. So the fantastic explanations are not needed.
 
UncleDave said:
Not biased - just out of answers that fit the known envelopes.

No one here has as of yet come up with any answers, but simply attack the observations and mere questions o"how."

How does their propulsion work without a visible or detectable action /reaction ?

Lets say they produce 1100GW of energy like the estimates claim - how do they do that without creating any detectable heat?

Whats your answer to these questions?
Click to expand...
Your main problem is that you've come up with answers already. What's wrong with we don't know?

Why don't you answer some other basic questions as you seem to demand answers that aren't there? What's dark matter then? Dark energy? The meaning of quantum entanglement? Origin of the big bang? Nature of zero point energy and how you can get something from nothing? Is the universe really flat? We don't have answers to those questions either.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom