Keeping UFO's Secret: Is it Possible?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Cosmic911
Every observed behavior on the part of UFOs violate the laws of physics as we understand them.

Maybe, maybe not.

We cannot even begin to conceptualize how they work.

Oh, that's not true at all! If we were to get just a bit of experimental data and a look around the inside, you'd soon have more interesting theoretical proposals than NFL quarterbacks within a year.

Already in deep particle physics and cosmology there are a zoo of unusual, shocking, profound and almost crazy theories. It's just that none is worked out well enough and with enough good experimental data to be accepted generally.

Don't underestimate how creative and powerful the professionals are at this---especially if given a problem of such importance.

But really, we don't want to reverse-engineer a flying saucer. We want to reverse-engineer a flying saucer factory.

a reply to: mbkennel

I agree with all of your rebuttals. We certainly understand enough of the laws of physics to intelligently theorize how UFOs, if real, worked. Or, if real, and it was explained to us, I'm sure there individuals that would and could comprehend said technology. It would Not be analogous to chimps playing with the engine of a 747.

a reply to: Cosmic911

Great post with the right questions. My take is that black projects based on exotic, non-earth origin machinery would be impossible to replicate in any reasonable form because we don't have the exotic materials or exotic industrial technology and infrastructure. There are some strong examples where counter intelligence ops disseminated false information regarding military projects and UFOs, human/alien cooperatives, underground alien bases and so forth. The most powerful industrialized nations on the planet can't even defeat the insurgencies in Iraq and Syria or stop home grown terrorist from shooting up their night clubs, let alone build futuristic craft with primitive industries such as ours. I think its sad that there are people who actually believe that the US has this sort of capability, especially when we plainly see the lack of competency and leadership there. When you're looking at a super metal that could withstand the molecular stresses of right angle turns at thousands of miles per hour, this would be composed numerous materials that would have to be fused at very high temperatures in a no gravity condition. There may be a dozen stages of hot and cold processes needed to manufacture such a material. It may have to be done in outer space for all we know. I just see any possibility of covert projects such as this being ludicrous from a basic scientific view.

a reply to: Cosmic911

Great post with the right questions. My take is that black projects based on exotic, non-earth origin machinery would be impossible to replicate in any reasonable form because we don't have the exotic materials or exotic industrial technology and infrastructure. There are some strong examples where counter intelligence ops disseminated false information regarding military projects and UFOs, human/alien cooperatives, underground alien bases and so forth. The most powerful industrialized nations on the planet can't even defeat the insurgencies in Iraq and Syria or stop home grown terrorist from shooting up their night clubs, let alone build futuristic craft with primitive industries such as ours. I think its sad that there are people who actually believe that the US has this sort of capability, especially when we plainly see the lack of competency and leadership there. When you're looking at a super metal that could withstand the molecular stresses of right angle turns at thousands of miles per hour, this would be composed numerous materials that would have to be fused at very high temperatures in a no gravity condition. There may be a dozen stages of hot and cold processes needed to manufacture such a material. It may have to be done in outer space for all we know. I just see any possibility of covert projects such as this being ludicrous from a basic scientific view.

originally posted by: mbkennel

Already in deep particle physics and cosmology there are a zoo of unusual, shocking, profound and almost crazy theories. It's just that none is worked out well enough and with enough good experimental data to be accepted generally.

Didn't somebody say that at some point back in the mists of time, Military paymasters (who were funding such exotic projects) instructed certain scientists to completely forget about the collection of data /production of calculations and focus entirely upon end effect.

Being free from the conventional scientific process of having to prove the "how"s and "why"s to achieve funding, these scientists surged ahead producing exotic effects with little or no understanding about how it worked- but only that it did.

A pilot told me there is still scientific argument about how aircraft lift actually works (?).
Accordingly, If early innovators had sat down to calculate likely success/gain peer review on the theory of flight (rather than observing birds then strapping balsa wood to their backs!) - the process would have been much slower.

a reply to: mbkennel

But really, we don't want to reverse-engineer a flying saucer. We want to reverse-engineer a flying saucer factory.

Exactly. Before we can figure out how to take them apart, we need to know how they are put together. Imagine philosophers from the relatively recent past, say, the 18th century, trying to figure out how to get inside a stealth jet. They didn't have the technology to work aluminum, and machine screws were only then coming into production!

originally posted by: Jukiodone

originally posted by: mbkennel

Already in deep particle physics and cosmology there are a zoo of unusual, shocking, profound and almost crazy theories. It's just that none is worked out well enough and with enough good experimental data to be accepted generally.

Didn't somebody say that at some point back in the mists of time, Military paymasters (who were funding such exotic projects) instructed certain scientists to completely forget about the collection of data /production of calculations and focus entirely upon end effect.

I've never heard of this. In my experience, the government attitude is the opposite.

There is a very high level organization called JASON (google it) composed of A+-level scientists (my advisor worked for them) who meet every summer to review, independently, top projects of interest of the government. They aren't part of government (almost all university) and have no stake in the project's outcome. If necessary they have access to classified data and resources of the national labs. One major function is to call BS on proposals & activities when the physics doesn't make sense. They often do their own computations and small simulations.

Being free from the conventional scientific process of having to prove the "how"s and "why"s to achieve funding, these scientists surged ahead producing exotic effects with little or no understanding about how it worked- but only that it did.

I have only experienced the opposite.

A pilot told me there is still scientific argument about how aircraft lift actually works (?).

He's wrong. However, turbulence and other instabilities can make the problem theoretically difficult to tackle.

Accordingly, If early innovators had sat down to calculate likely success/gain peer review on the theory of flight (rather than observing birds then strapping balsa wood to their backs!) - the process would have been much slower.

The Wright brothers succeeded in significant measure because they built a wind tunnel and validated, or refuted, much of the known scientific results on the subject. They very much wanted to understand how things really worked.

a reply to: mbkennel

I did do a quick fact check on that pilot statement at the time (probably said circa 2010) and found plenty of controversy (some current links below).

Unless you are picking nits the statement stands that there was indeed scientific discussion until at least 2012 about how lift actually works.
Which in itself does imply that between 1904 and 2012, people were entrusting their lives to a scientific principle they knew worked - but didn't know exactly how..




www.telegraph.co.uk...
web.archive.org...
www.avweb.com...

In terms of the wright brothers: although widely accredited as the pioneers of winged flight- other people, including Richard Pearse- did probably fly in winged craft before them and he didn't use wind tunnels- he used observations of an effect and got it to work through trial and error.


Bringing it back to the argument about necessity of using technologies you don't fully understand:

If the objective was a necessity (for example: to fly across a 250 foot ravine to escape a hungry tiger) - it wouldn't matter if you went in Pearse's plane or the Wright brother plane as the objective does not require a set of calculations of how you achieved it- only to make sure you don't get eaten/fall to your doom in the process.

DP