US Space Fleet

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: JadeStar

Not if the optical stealth technology is as good as I'm lead to believe. Most of the patents on the tech got seized for national security purposes, so you won't find any. They've been working on making craft invisible for decades. And we think graphene is a "new thing" lol

If one has a need to believe without evidence its impossible to argue that they may be mistaken.

a reply to: JadeStar

Well, if anyone shared any "hard" evidence of something so secret, they'd be getting a nice new orange pair of pajamas!

It's been proven that certain government projects can be compartmentalized while employing thousands of people without ever being discovered (Manhattan Project) -- so It's not out of the realm of possibility that a program could exist and remain secret.

Also, my own odd sightings were clearly technological, not natural phenomenon. In both instances they behaved in ways that no known human object could, but theoretically could.

And I don't subscribe to the theory that there are hundreds of craft out there. There may be a dozen or so at the most in operation. It's a pretty big sky, and they may or may not be zipping in and out of orbit all the time. I would assume that atmospheric exit and entry would probably be the easiest time to spot them?

Think about how little we know about our most advanced nuclear submarines..and those are just submarines. They don't call it the "silent service" for nothing meethinks!

But you're absolutley right to be skeptical! I wish someone would plunk down some evidence that could be verified. Until then it's all going to be speculation

a reply to: JadeStar

Have you "looked" into "Photonic Crystals" at all (not much to "see" anyway!).

The whole area of EM control and matter interaction for military applications could easily be 30-40 years ahead if the discovery was made in a bunker (or in space!!) during the Cold War.

This is a good example of an area where someone could fund a secret project dealing with, lets say... low observability, and end up with a bag of tricks across multiple strategically employable facets in materials, stealth, durability, communications, sensoring and imaging, electrical warfare, DEW's etc etc.

If I was speculating I would guess that the effects of micro gravity aboard a space laboratory might even facilitate or aid the growth of novel crystalline structures which would further understanding in such areas.

How many people on Earth have access to an environment with Micro Gravity where things can be manufactured?
Immediately we have a mechanism to limit access.
Only those with a very specific skill set, knowledge and funding could possibly even be involved in our imaginary scenario.
How hard would it be to monitor what they are doing and prevent them catching up?

If there was just one breakthrough....lets say the invention of a perfect optical lensing device for example...how would this influence the lengths I am willing to go to in terms of keeping it secret/well funded now that I can see better than my enemy?

If we look at Military spending on being able to get to strategic places, conduct actions unbeknownst to the enemy, or to see ALL of the enemy ALL of the time, I think you could argue that a secret space military is almost assured if any one of those desirables could be achieved to a totally dominant position.

I dont believe that such a program would encompass (or indeed necessitate) buzzing civvies BTW but would also assume that as with most things- whatever can go wrong- probably does.

a reply to: tanka418
It was a rhetorical question. I see you gave me a rhetorical answer. Chinese lanterns have yet to breach orbit or a miles up high really.

Gee so your saying that looking at the moon through a telescope is the equivalent of all those people capturing footage of bigfoot with there $15 cell phone cameras.

OK dude. Funny thing is there are still hundreds of people looking for the moon landing, on the moon.

Like this guy in the this vid, even he got asked about the moon landing shoot. But he did capture a sort of cool shot of that Tycho crater and all those other craters thereby.


As for that whole space fleet and moon base thing. I do believe if there are any up there, you would easily capture the resupply vessels coming and going on a regular bases to and from earth. No to mention the fact that if there were bases and space fleet up there nobody would be able to shut up about it and would be constantly telling the world how great they are because they have build a space fleet and bases on the moon. Its a human thing, just cant shut up about some things. Bragging rights.

But anyways, this camera would easily catch all these resupply ships going to these moon bases. Unless that is they are self sufficient, and by self sufficient I mean they finally figured out how to make human who don't need to breath oxygen and all that other nonsense stuff, for the moon is a harsh mistress. With a something like this they may even finally capture all those Chinese lanterns out there, maybe even these moon resupply ships, or who knows maybe even bigfoot. Nah never bigfoot, bigfoot is just to smart and willy to be caught on film.

originally posted by: smurfy

Interesting as it is, the congressman is still talking off his own bat. This interview was obviously made after the hearing, so have a listen, and then say what you think.

I listened to half of it.

He states that he researched the subject for just one week prior to the conference.

When he finally gets around to specifics he starts in with the same old Roswelll narrative we've all heard for decades.

The guy hasn't been a U.S. Senator for 35 years. My guess is he's just like Paul Heller; trading on very old credentials but actually having no insider info.

originally posted by: galadofwarthethird
a reply to: tanka418
OK dude. Funny thing is there are still hundreds of people looking for the moon landing, on the moon.

And search is all they will do for they search in vein. They don't have the equipment to "see" anything that small, that far away.

As for that whole space fleet and moon base thing. I do believe if there are any up there, you would easily capture the resupply vessels coming and going on a regular bases to and from earth. No to mention the fact that if there were bases and space fleet up there nobody would be able to shut up about it and would be constantly telling the world how great they are because they have build a space fleet and bases on the moon. Its a human thing, just cant shut up about some things. Bragging rights.

REF: en.wikipedia.org... -- Angular resolution

The camera you referenced...is 450mm ... with that it can resolve objects as small a about 450 meters...or about 1400 feet...you know of any terrestrial spacecraft that large? Angular resolution about 0.25 arc sec.

By the way: that would be eqiv...to a 17.7 inch telescope and while it will give us a view that we all would "ooh" and "ahhh" over for days, it still will not resolve anything less than 1400 feet. Even Hubble is handicapped in this area (resolution about 100 meters at lunar surface), as are ALL optical devices...


As for the "bragging rights"...they don't do anyone much good in prison, and that's where people who reveal that level of "secret" get to spend their days...if they are lucky.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: JadeStar

It's been proven that certain government projects can be compartmentalized while employing thousands of people without ever being discovered (Manhattan Project) -- so It's not out of the realm of possibility that a program could exist and remain secret.

The Manhatten Project is constantly cited in discussions like this. It wasn't secret very long.

The atomic project was started in late 1941.

The bomb was dropped in 1945 and the entire world knew what was going on. The Smyth Report was released to the public in 1945. The Soviets got the blueprints that same year.

a reply to: DelMarvel

Well, look how long the A-12 was kept secret until publicly disclosed:

The A-12 was produced from 1962 to 1964, and was in operation from 1963 until 1968. It was the precursor to the twin-seat U.S. Air Force YF-12 prototype interceptor, M-21 drone launcher, and the famous SR-71 Blackbird, a slightly longer variation able to carry a heavier fuel and camera load. The A-12's final mission was flown in May 1968, and the program and aircraft retired in June of that year. The program was officially revealed in the mid-1990s.

Wikipedia

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: DelMarvel

Well, look how long the A-12 was kept secret until publicly disclosed:

I'd say thats an even weaker example than the Manhattan Project.

It was just a handful of planes that were mothballed for a long time. It wasn't like it was secret technology for all those years. It was approximately the same as the YF-12 or SR-71 and everyone knew about those.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
If any of you have seen a BBT, you'd know they don't need solid rockets to get into orbit anymore . I've seen one of these things, they're decades upon decades ahead of NASA.

Please forgive the dumb question.

What's a BBT ?

a reply to: neo96

Big black triangle!

The manhattan project? are you serious? No less than four top project scientists were feeding the russians every development schematic and idle thought about the project in near real time. the russians knew about technical developments before our own president got briefed on them. geez! using the Manhattan project as a model for govt secrecy? the only people they successfully kept in the dark were U.S. citizens and even that is debatable.

originally posted by: Jukiodone
a reply to: JadeStar

Have you "looked" into "Photonic Crystals" at all (not much to "see" anyway!).

The whole area of EM control and matter interaction for military applications could easily be 30-40 years ahead if the discovery was made in a bunker (or in space!!) during the Cold War.

This is a good example of an area where someone could fund a secret project dealing with, lets say... low observability, and end up with a bag of tricks across multiple strategically employable facets in materials, stealth, durability, communications, sensoring and imaging, electrical warfare, DEW's etc etc.

Even if you achieved optical invisibility through things like metamaterials, the object, spacecraft or whatever itself would still radiate or re-radiate heat (and thus is detectable in the infrared).

If I was speculating I would guess that the effects of micro gravity aboard a space laboratory might even facilitate or aid the growth of novel crystalline structures which would further understanding in such areas.

How many people on Earth have access to an environment with Micro Gravity where things can be manufactured?
Immediately we have a mechanism to limit access.

Such facilities would be visible in orbit. We have one called the ISS. Even if it were painted black it would be hard to miss.

Only those with a very specific skill set, knowledge and funding could possibly even be involved in our imaginary scenario.
How hard would it be to monitor what they are doing and prevent them catching up?

Not much. The bigger the structure in space, the more likely it is to be detected by hobbyists and amateur astronomers.

If there was just one breakthrough....lets say the invention of a perfect optical lensing device for example...how would this influence the lengths I am willing to go to in terms of keeping it secret/well funded now that I can see better than my enemy?

Seeing something happens in more than one small set of wavelengths. Just because something is invisible optically or to microwaves (radar stealth) doesn't mean it would not be detectable another way, i.e. through looking in the infrared.

If we look at Military spending on being able to get to strategic places, conduct actions unbeknownst to the enemy, or to see ALL of the enemy ALL of the time, I think you could argue that a secret space military is almost assured if any one of those desirables could be achieved to a totally dominant position.

The secret space military is probably limited to secret satellites. Anything bigger and the world would know about it like the X-37.

I dont believe that such a program would encompass (or indeed necessitate) buzzing civvies BTW but would also assume that as with most things- whatever can go wrong- probably does.

For people who aren't familiar with the night sky it seems plausible that you could hide things there but not to me.

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
The manhattan project? are you serious? No less than four top project scientists were feeding the russians every development schematic and idle thought about the project in near real time. the russians knew about technical developments before our own president got briefed on them. geez! using the Manhattan project as a model for govt secrecy? the only people they successfully kept in the dark were U.S. citizens and even that is debatable.

Not to mention the Manhattan Project took place during a time of war with a populace which was very patriotic and trusted their government.

It was also in the dark ages before the internet or even television so the speed of communication was a lot slower and thus easier to stop leaks. Even with that, there still were some as you pointed out.

So yes, that was a poor example.

The government can keep a big secret for a short period of time or a not so big secret for a longer period of time. But eventually even the big secrets come out.

a reply to: stormbringer1701

Good point and true.

But just because we don't know of secret projects that were KEPT secret, doesn't mean there weren't any... right?

originally posted by: Baddogma
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Good point and true.

But just because we don't know of secret projects that were KEPT secret, doesn't mean there weren't any... right?

If someone said, "Freddy Krueger exists. I can't tell you how I know this but trust me. Nightmare on Elm Street was real, it was just covered up and turned into fiction so people wouldn't lose their minds. I can't prove it with hard evidence, just take my word for it because I saw someone on Youtube say so."

Would you believe them?

a reply to: JadeStar

Not one itsy bit... that's nuts.

But... if I actually saw Freddy one fine evening, and looked into it and found a long history of myriad other seemingly intelligent, honest people seeing him, too... and then, weirdly, saw him again, and again... and I checked out as neurologically sound and as a pretty good historical observer, I'd be left with the same weird conclusion that Freddy Effin Kruger was real... in some capacity.

The military/secret/breakaway stuff is just the least crazy possibility on a long, crazy list.

We are missing something... and all I can do is state I've seen the seeming hardware, and many, many others likely have too and thus at least some of these reports are likely accurate.

But all I can do is join the large group of folks saying "lookee here... it isn't all b.s. and idiocy." But I do feel like I've seen a hokey movie meme... but it's my truth and I believe it has a common reality to it... and is thus worthy of consideration.. .as it's WEIRD.

I mean, I can't just dismiss what I've seen -- and I was in the company of other people at the same time who corroborate what I saw.

So there's clearly stuff flying around and in orbit that's vastly superior to anything known by mainstream science. Why it hasn't been reported on more by scientists is beyond me.

But, as I said before ... when you're researching something you get grants and funding, and allotted certain times to use the facilities. The guys flying these things around might have access to what scientists are looking at, and what gear they're using.

You'd be committing career suicide if you got facility time for a certain project, then used it to track anomalies in the sky. It might be a bit hard to explain why you were using a huge radio telescope array for something other than your stated research goals.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
I mean, I can't just dismiss what I've seen -- and I was in the company of other people at the same time who corroborate what I saw.

So there's clearly stuff flying around and in orbit that's vastly superior to anything known by mainstream science. Why it hasn't been reported on more by scientists is beyond me.

But, as I said before ... when you're researching something you get grants and funding, and allotted certain times to use the facilities. The guys flying these things around might have access to what scientists are looking at, and what gear they're using.

You'd be committing career suicide if you got facility time for a certain project, then used it to track anomalies in the sky. It might be a bit hard to explain why you were using a huge radio telescope array for something other than your stated research goals.

There are more amateur astronomers than professional ones. Often their equipment is as good if not identical to the professionals.

They don't depend on grant money, they do it as a hobby.

So what's the excuse for why they don't see this stuff?

originally posted by: Baddogma
a reply to: JadeStar

Not one itsy bit... that's nuts.

But... if I actually saw Freddy one fine evening, and looked into it and found a long history of myriad other seemingly intelligent, honest people seeing him, too... and then, weirdly, saw him again, and again... and I checked out as neurologically sound and as a pretty good historical observer, I'd be left with the same weird conclusion that Freddy Effin Kruger was real... in some capacity.

And if no police or neighborhood watch organizations spot Freddy, then what?

The logical thing would be to conclude you may have overreacted based on something you heard and believed without anything but anecdotes which colored you perception. You might then realize that the person you saw was not in fact Freddy but just some creepy looking old man.