US Space Fleet

the manhattan project might as well have had russian as it's primary language:

www.smithsonianmag.com...

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
the manhattan project might as well have had russian as it's primary language:

www.smithsonianmag.com...

Wow no kidding, They should have built a Russian embassy right there beside Los Alamos Labs.!

a reply to: Triton1128

I hope you find the answer my friend.

)

a reply to: JadeStar

I dont disagree with your point of view as there is no actual evidence of a "space fleet" but in terms of your arguments:

IR signature: Defeated using a magnetic system that captures/changes/disperses the phonons before they get to the observer.
Highly speculative but seems to be the eventual destination ( i.e the localised control of EM interactions) in just about every paper available on the subject.

Optical Lensing: I meant to offer this as an example of something that might be manufactured in space (therefore having a barrier to entry that makes a great natural SAP) which would then open up a new era of technological advances- much as the electron microscope did in the 30s and 40s.

Think of the list of the things made possible by the electron microscope and apply this to something that could resolve sub wavelength features in real time and is owned by someone involved in Military technology who can limit access to the manufacturing environment...the mind boggles.

a reply to: JadeStar
But in your Freddy-UFO analogy, the "neighborhood watch" does have some pics of him... few and far between, but ... existing.

The real clincher is the sheer mass of other sane seeming folks backing the sightings up... and I only told about the stuff I've seen that defies even the most improbable natural or known tech explanations.

But I'm with you in that it seems logically impossible... which is why I'm so latched onto it. I know what I saw... that only means I'm convinced some aspect of the ufo phenom is currently unknown to most folks... but does not provide any answer as to the real cause.

Perhaps the "Freddy" I saw was a hologram, or costume... or really a critter from dimension x... no clue... only that some thing in "Freddy's" clothes and claws was running around the "neighborhood." See?

originally posted by: Baddogma
a reply to: JadeStar
But in your Freddy-UFO analogy, the "neighborhood watch" does have some pics of him... few and far between, but ... existing.

Really? Can you point me to any photos from either:

a) Amateur astronomers
b) All sky automated cameras
c) Satellite tracker hobbyists
d) People like Steve Douglass and other people who are into secret aviation stuff?

Because they are the neighborhood watch.

The average person with a photo which can be faked is not because the groups of people above have something on the line which the average person may or may not: credibility

a reply to: JadeStar

Wait, so amateur independent astronomers make just as many breakthrough discoveries on their own compared with the guys working for universities and well-funded corporations/organizations?

And if they're using the same kind of gear (or better) then should we still consider them "amateur"?

I mean...it's kind of hard for a no-name amateur to get time on the Aricebo Observatory, time on the Hubble or access to the computing power of the IBM super computer at MHPCC used to track objects in orbit...

a reply to: JadeStar

Stand a neighborhood watch guy next to a SWAT team member. Can you honestly say they both would be able to tackle the same situations?

One drives around in a minivan with a Maglite, pepper spray, and CB radio. He may or may not have any military or LEO training. If you're lucky he'll be overzealous like George Zimmerman.

The SWAT guy has a tactical vest, kevlar body armor, an assault rifle, side arm, years of tactical experience, LEO training, a dispatcher on a radio, helicopter support, breaching tools, smoke and stun grenades.

Two completely different worlds...

originally posted by: JadeStar

Lol, we didt get iPhones from aliens. not when said technology has a well documented developmental history.

Look, anyone can post anything, that doesn't mean you believe it without good concrete evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and I'm sorry but a "secret space force" which flies around unnoticed by all the nations of the world and their citizens if a little bit extraordinary.

Not sure if we have made contact or not yet, but Believe what you want Jade, it's hard to prove anything when it's secret. Anyway, I do believe that we have a Top Secret Black Space program though, and it could involve many Nations, but more likely just The USA. ~$heopleNation

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: JadeStar

Wait, so amateur independent astronomers make just as many breakthrough discoveries on their own compared with the guys working for universities and well-funded corporations/organizations?

And if they're using the same kind of gear (or better) then should we still consider them "amateur"?

I mean...it's kind of hard for a no-name amateur to get time on the Aricebo Observatory, time on the Hubble or access to the computing power of the IBM super computer at MHPCC used to track objects in orbit...

Why would a amateur need any of that? While my system isn't on line as yet, I can assure you that it will be every bit as sophisticated as anything NASA, a University, or a corporation can or will field. Well except for the "Radio" part provided by Aricebo...but I didn't design that capability into the system. The reality is that I have an old satellite dish in the back yard, and all the skills to "fix" it up...IF I want.

My telescope isn't a Hubble, but, it is no less the sophisticated scientific instrument that Hubble is...mine will be 11 inches, Hubble is a couple of meters. And while that sounds like a lot...I will still get about a half arc second resolution. Plus I will have a "built-in" spectrometer and the ability to introduce specialized filters...And of course a CCD array, in this case variable from 0.67MP to 10.5MP.

Super computer! Wow...you mean like a high performance i7 Extreme, Hex core machine optimized for astrometric work? That is a 4 Ghz system with 12 cpu's...you do know "how" they construct super computers right? As grid computing engines...

Perhaps not all amateurs are created equal...

I expect to find/discover exoplanets, black holes, perhaps a wormhole, and other interesting objects...maybe even one of your BBT's...

a reply to: tanka418

Okay, so then why would any astronomer work for a university, corporation, consortium? Why wouldn't they just buy the apparently off-the-shelf gear themselves and go at it? Why do most major breakthroughs in the scientific journals seem to come from researchers at institutions of pedigree?

Sounds like anyone could just strap some night vision goggles onto a telescope, build a big gaming PC and have a go at it then? You can construct a home recording studio with some egg crate foam and some mixers bought on Amazon, and you might get pretty good results -- but it's nowhere near the same thing as recording music at a multi-million dollar studio in Nashville, complete with custom-built, 1-off electronics.

Essentially you're expecting to find something that is possibly 50 years more advanced technologically than anything the public has access to right now. If you want to find something that's essentially from 50 years in the future, you're going to need comparable sensing technology from 50 years in the future.

The people that do dedicate their time to looking for this stuff are 50 years behind the curve. Look how far we've advanced in just the past 20.

I know the triangles are real and that they're ours. The fact no one seems to have found a way to track them indicates to me that no one is looking for them in a correct way. Perhaps in 50 or more years when technology has advanced further, sensing devices and capabilities might be developed enough to do so.

Just because the instruments of today can't detect the ships of tomorrow, doesn't mean they're not real.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: tanka418

Okay, so then why would any astronomer work for a university, corporation, consortium? Why wouldn't they just buy the apparently off-the-shelf gear themselves and go at it? Why do most major breakthroughs in the scientific journals seem to come from researchers at institutions of pedigree?

Prestige, profession credibility, the possibility to advance...professionally. A professional astronomer would choose to be associated with a "serious" telescope/observatory for much the same reason as a Computer Scientist would choose to be associated with Sanford Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (SAIL)...it's a career thing...I'm surprised you missed that. Oh...almost forgot; funding and a paycheck...being able to actually pay for all the technology is always nice, as is supporting One's family.

Sounds like anyone could just strap some night vision goggles onto a telescope, build a big gaming PC and have a go at it then? You can construct a home recording studio with some egg crate foam and some mixers bought on Amazon, and you might get pretty good results -- but it's nowhere near the same thing as recording music at a multi-million dollar studio in Nashville, complete with custom-built, 1-off electronics.

Sure why not?! Well, maybe it would help to have some of the skills, but, amateur asrtonomers can have those skills. For instance; the president of the Dallas Astronomical Society is a retired software engineer...as I am.

By the way; I have all of that "1-off" electronic system right here in my PC...

Essentially you're expecting to find something that is possibly 50 years more advanced technologically than anything the public has access to right now. If you want to find something that's essentially from 50 years in the future, you're going to need comparable sensing technology from 50 years in the future.

Perhaps, however, much of those 50 years will be eaten up with protocol and methodology changes , as opposed to technology upgrades. All it will take is for one innovative amateur to come along to change the game. No need to wait, further, IF we decide to wait those 50 years, then we will have missed 50 years of progress.

I feel very confidant that the sensing equipment I'm constructing will be every bit as good/useful in 50 years, and quite comparable to technology in 50 years, perhaps better in some ways.

The people that do dedicate their time to looking for this stuff are 50 years behind the curve. Look how far we've advanced in just the past 20.

I know all about the progress of the past 40 years...it all started 40 years ago with the introduction of the Intel 4004 microprocessor. I've helped to write that history.

I know the triangles are real and that they're ours. The fact no one seems to have found a way to track them indicates to me that no one is looking for them in a correct way. Perhaps in 50 or more years when technology has advanced further, sensing devices and capabilities might be developed enough to do so.

Just because the instruments of today can't detect the ships of tomorrow, doesn't mean they're not real.

Well, I too know about the Triangles, and it appears you are correct, but, knowing and demonstrating are two different things...

we have politicians that utter secrets either by stupidity or malice. For example during the Bush Presidency the democrat majority leaders had a news conference on the steps of the capital building and disclosed a top secret satellite program which would" start an arms race in space." just because that walking set of male genitals hated The president and wanted to walk over a news conference the President was having at the same time. He disclosed enough data that an analyst could determine if the program was fielded or not with pretty good confidence (stuff like it had been through three budgeting cycles already.) To start an arms race you have to know it was not a recon satellite. recon satellites do not spur arms races. I am pretty sure it was the SBL because that was leaked several times in several different venues including one i had access to personally. And John Kerry uttered the name of a real current deep cover agent not once but three times on C SPAN. Richard Armitage also discussed a former secret agent of The US once she herself had outed herself in Magazine articles.

The Manhattan Project was literally staffed by Russian and German spies.

Think about that before you believe that the U.S. Govt could have secret space fleets or any secret.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: JadeStar

Wait, so amateur independent astronomers make just as many breakthrough discoveries on their own compared with the guys working for universities and well-funded corporations/organizations?

In some branches. Yes. Even more in some cases.

The branches of Near Earth Object (NEO) detection and tracking as well as Meteorfall Logging have traditionally been the domain of amateur astronomers.

NASA has worked with them and often enlisted them such as here for that reason:

See: A NASA Mission Wants Amateur Astronomers to Target Asteroids.

Many comets and asteroids are discovered by amateurs because there are simply more of them looking for them with off the shelf technology sensitive enough to detect them.

And as I stated, the backbone of NASA's Cameras for Allsky Meteor Surveillance (CAMS) network are amateur astronomers with cameras set up at residences.

See: Single Camera CAMS Stations

The latter should pick up a lot of UFOs and Big Black Triangles or other items from the "Secret Space Program"mythos…..the fact that they haven't should cause one to question the wisdom in believing that stuff.

As I said, anyone can set up a very sensitive automated all sky camera for under $500.

I mean...it's kind of hard for a no-name amateur to get time on the Aricebo Observatory, time on the Hubble or access to the computing power of the IBM super computer at MHPCC used to track objects in orbit...

If people are reporting sightings of large objects at close range or high up in orbit you don't need Arecibo or Hubble or a super computer to detect, log, record and track them.

Your Laptop and a Watec 902 Ultra would suffice.

I mean, let's be serious, your iPhone camera might even suffice.

The fact is we have plenty of stories of people saying they see this stuff and precious little if any footage recorded by people who record the sky and anything that moves 24/7.

That is a discrepancy which you can't just brush aside. A paradox which those in UFOlogy are very uncomfortable with discussing in detail without imagining other things to accout for it.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: JadeStar

Stand a neighborhood watch guy next to a SWAT team member. Can you honestly say they both would be able to tackle the same situations?

If that same situation was something as simple as reporting a crime in progress, yes.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

One of the arguments against the US secret space fleet would be that China and Russia would have exposed it. In your opinion how do you argue against that?

Plus what about the astronomers from around the world?

Now I do agree there is a Secret Space Force but its limited to Orbital Laser Cannons.

a reply to: stormbringer1701

They've also had aircraft flying for 30 years that very few people have even heard of, let alone seen. The very few pictures of them were quickly quashed and disappeared.

originally posted by: starwarsisreal
a reply to: MystikMushroom

One of the arguments against the US secret space fleet would be that China and Russia would have exposed it. In your opinion how do you argue against that?

The argument usually offered is: "They're in on it too, they all have their own which they all agree to keep secret from the general public because they're all in a secret war against the ETs."

And so if you haven't discounted most of the "Secret Space Program" talk as nonsense up until then you have one last chance to reclaim your critical thinking skills.

Conspiracy fail is when you have to evoke an even larger more unbelievable set of conditions or conspiracy to explain a problem with the initial one.

a reply to: JadeStar

I don't agree there's like Star Trek Style Ships but I do agree that there is a Space Force in the form of Secret Orbital Laser Cannons that haven't been revealed yet. I know its sounds Sci Fi but I believe its possible.

originally posted by: starwarsisreal
a reply to: JadeStar

I don't agree there's like Star Trek Style Ships but I do agree that there is Space Force in the form of Secret Orbital Laser Cannons that haven't been revealed yet. I know its sounds Sci Fi but I believe its possible.

Now, that would be somewhat believable.

However, such laser cannons would be pretty big. Like at least Hubble big. Probably bigger considering the optics they'd have to have. And the bigger they are, the more likely they are to have been caught by the hobbyists who track satellite launches and orbits (public and secret).