US UFO Disclosure Day

buster said:
A person can lie but also be telling the truth. One can embellish or exaggerate, while also be telling the truth. Ever know someone that exaggerated a lot, but ultimately was telling the truth?

For example, what if Lazar saw what he said he saw, but lied about attending MIT? So, yes, you can.
Click to expand...
No you can't. Apparently you are not familiar with formal logic or logical fallacies.

For example, "The Door is open." This means the door cannot be both open and closed.

Embellishment or exaggeration has nothing to do with it.
 
Yes, they saw something. Something that couldn't be made clear through a telephoto lens that you can tell the make and model of a car from 20k ft up in a moving aircraft. People see a lot of things they can't identify with their eyes or a telephoto lens.
 
CleanSump said:
Yes, they saw something. Something that couldn't be made clear through a telephoto lens that you can tell the make and model of a car from 20k ft up in a moving aircraft. People see a lot of things they can't identify with their eyes or a telephoto lens.
Click to expand...
Yeah no kidding LOL. You were talking about radar, I said they also saw it with their own eyes and it was more than one person. MIB also apparenlty confiscated the videos, hence me leading to believe it was our tech.

See, I don't think everything is alien...😁
 
CleanSump said:
I don't mean to argue with anyone. I'm just throwing out what I know on a subject of the unknown.
Click to expand...
Same. I don't know anything. Just a fun topic to discuss. I have nothing more to add so I'm hopping out. Good talk everyone. (y)
 
KrisZ said:
What makes you think that a more advanced civilization cannot be even more savage than we are? Why can’t they be conquerors going from planet to planet, extract the resources destroying the environment and move on?

Science cannot give you morality, we take it at face value because a certainty culture, that cannot be discussed here, ingrained it so much in our modern society. It didn’t come from the science folks for sure.
Click to expand...
I didnt say that. Just a reflection of ourselves. If I ever meet "them" Ill let you know!
 
buster said:
"The 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics recognized groundbreaking experiments that proved the universe is not "locally real," challenging the fundamental nature of reality.
Click to expand...
So here we see someone redefining reality as the universe is not locally real? What kind of technobabble is this?
buster said:
The work of John Clauser, Alain Aspect, and Anton Zeilinger showed that particles do not possess defined properties until measured (lack of realism) and can be influenced by others instantly over distances (lack of locality)."
Click to expand...
Particles are verifiable prescriptions and are real. So particles exist before they are observed but do not possess defined properties until observed. I don't see this as a valid reason to proclaim this is a lack of true reality. Heisenberg never said this was a condition of nonreality, only that there was a measure of indeterminacy involved.
buster said:
How on Earth could anyone make the claim that studying the nature of reality isn't a scientific or philosophical question.
Click to expand...
So what is your definition of science and reality?
 
Last edited:
Good point about the relativistic point of view of some of the work presented in the thread about reality and things not being locally real. It's a direct contradiction of science which studies reality and physical properties of physical things. So if things are not locally real, that cannot be a scientific conclusion. It's a logical fallacy.
 
KrisZ said:
It's a direct contradiction of science which studies reality and physical properties of physical things. So if things are not locally real, that cannot be a scientific conclusion. It's a logical fallacy.
Click to expand...
Exactly. It seems that some so-called scientists are trying to redefine science and reality and morph it into the mystical realm of nonscience.
 
Little late Neil. Very smart, credible people have been saying this for 80 years, you just laughed. Now you have a book to sell. Unreal. 🤷‍♂️
Glad to see Neil finally come around. He has a big ego. I always thought he wanted to be the next Carl Sagan. But he's too narrow minded IMO and obnoxious at times. He forgets he's a human.

He's more of a preacher than practicing scientist.

Let's see what these next 46 videos show. I'm not impressed so far with the latest dump. More of the same....





 
Last edited:
KrisZ said:
Good point about the relativistic point of view of some of the work presented in the thread about reality and things not being locally real. It's a direct contradiction of science which studies reality and physical properties of physical things. So if things are not locally real, that cannot be a scientific conclusion. It's a logical fallacy.
Click to expand...

Alain Aspect, John Clauser and Anton Zellinger won the Nobel Prize in 2022 proving that the Universe is not locally real. Local real in physics meaning objects have properties (defined) and locality (influenced by surroundings). Information can not travel faster than light.....

Saying "the universe isn't real" is a sensationalist headline. They did that to grab attention. Got mine LOL.

A more accurate way to say it is: "The universe does not have definite properties independent of the act of measurement".

Science is not just the study of solid things though. It's the study of observable pattern. If the pattern shows particles behaving non-locally, THAT is the science.

Quantum Mechanics still studies properties, it just found that these properties aren't "set in stone" until measured is what I think they're saying.

The Article's View: "Real" means "existing independently of observation." The 2022 Nobel Prize suggests that at a fundamental level, the universe is relational. Things only take on definite forms when they interact with other things.

"Real" means "material and predictable." the Nobel findings suggest that our "common sense" view of a solid, objective world is actually an illusion created by larger-scale physics.

You're claiming the quote is a "logical fallacy" because it assumes science must confirm our everyday intuition. However, the history of science is defined by shattering intuition (the Earth moving around the Sun, or time slowing down at high speeds etc..).

The 2022 Nobel Prize doesn't mean the universe doesn't exist; it means the universe is much weirder, more connected, and less "solid" than they realized....


1778674933842.webp
 
Last edited:
..notice too Neil starts off saying well this information is not now coming from just "the farmer" or something to that effect. Neil, military guys HAVE been saying things since the 1940's. Where have you been? LOL And the documentation is there in the files to read.

But beyond that, the fact that he basically assumed if you're not in the military etc you can't be trusted. Another example of his narrow scope.
 
Last edited:
It's also my understanding the James Webb Telescope is challenging long held cosmological models but that's far from settled from what I read.
 
None of the recent developments in physics, from local reality, to JWST findings has made any difference in the problem of travel between stars. Not one bit. The physics under consideration for that discussion is the same and completely unaffected.

Sometimes, this discussion feels like a couple of mechanics snowing those who don’t know much about cars.

“Well, Ma’am, you see, your Knuder Valve isn’t properly balancing the coolant flow between your transmission and engine, which is why it’s overheated and we’re going to have to replace both the framistat and the transmission as a result.”

“Oh, I see, of course, yes, please replace that framistat and the transmission, that makes perfect sense.”
 
I don't have a physics degree like @Astro14 and @MolaKule so my understanding is limited on this topic. I respect both of your opinions and have trust in what you both say. And I completely agree with you both the distances and physics make it near impossible to get here. I'm sure there is a lot of "wooo" built into these articles.

This is more for discussion and entertainment purposes. (y)
 
Last edited:
KrisZ said:
It’s amazing to me that all of the FTL proponents never say anything specific or propose how certain behavior would be achieved. It’s always “jumping” from something onto something else, or “bending” of the “space fabric”, yet none of that is explained how it would work. Like what’s even a space fabric? Don’t tell me about bending it, explain what it is first and how can we measure /interact with it.
Click to expand...
Perhaps it's because it's not at all understood? After all what we know today as Laws of Thermodynamics, Physics etc obviously was not understood. Think of the concept that gravity can bend light.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom