I like your last sentence. However, I'm not so sure that what we have can be considered evidence of aliens at this point.
No not aliens just that these craft exist. What intelligence created them is not known by the public. Govt may not know either. Yet the evidence of high tech craft exists..and its not conjecture . Some people can't accept it because it doesn't jive with what they perceive reality to be. And so they must kick the tires or forget it! Lol
But trained military pilots have seen craft. Naturally their beliefs mean more than yours ..That you cannot accept what they and instruments tell them is on you. Looks to be a psychological thing with you? I doubt you would not believe them if they were talking about a new Russian fighter?
The evidence of a "new Russian fighter" would include all sorts of confirmation and would be unlikely to be so exceptional as the UFO claims being made. Beyond that, eye witness testimony is RIFE with problems, and the issue is not whether one believes a pilot or whether one believes me or some other poster. It's going to take WAY more than what we have so far to support an hypothesis as incredible as UFOs.
If eyes only was the only evidence you would have a valid point. Dismissing our combat tools is an extraordinary position to assume when our national defense relies on that. Its irrational and unreasonable. And all because you can't understand how these craft perform as they do. Isn't that the fact of the matter? The incoherence here is a problem.
If eyes only was the only evidence you would have a valid point. Dismissing our combat tools is an extraordinary position to assume when our national defense relies on that. Its irrational and unreasonable. And all because you can't understand how these craft perform as they do. Isn't that the fact of the matter? The incoherence here is a problem.
What's the best evidence so far? Please show us what you believe is the best, most irrefutable, evidence of alien spacecraft. Just one.
Military interaction with these craft including our high tech tools of war. And early documents via FOIA coming from an era when govt officials were communicating about these craft. 60 years of such evidence. That you are unaware of the evidence apparently shows you have not researched it at all. Who should we listen to? You who knows nothing about evidence or the military pilots , highly trained who have experienced these craft along with our defense instruments? Lol. And that is the gist of it. And IMO really incoherent.
Military interaction with these craft including our high tech tools of war. And early documents via FOIA coming from an era when govt officials were communicating about these craft. 60 years of such evidence. That you are unaware of the evidence apparently shows you have not researched it at all. Who should we listen to? You who knows nothing about evidence or the military pilots , highly trained who have experienced these craft along with our defense instruments? Lol. And that is the gist of it. And IMO really incoherent.
I think I'll talk about the title of this thread topic. Zero point energy. I am talking about this with little to no knowledge about it. But the quick view of this is that zero point energy is the basic, lowest energy level available. It's not zero, and that's before calculating a bit of matter. So, this is the energy level of empty space-time. And it can be detected by machines.
Let's remember that the claims are that these "objects" defy the laws of physics that apply to our entire universe. So, yes. When it comes to the laws of physics vs. what our DoD makes public, I'll choose the laws of physics every single time without ANY exception.
I guess that there is a problem with gathering this energy because we haven't calculated how the introduction of mass, from particles, might interfere with gathering that energy. I would assume that mass needs to be piled up within a space (the equipment to get the energy) to try and harness the zero-point energy. The machines might interfere with the zero point energy. I don't know. Like I said, I know very little on the subject. However, it seems to me that this is a very simple concept, and if it were possible to harness zero point energy, then someone would have done it long ago. Unless the inventors are being rounded up and "disappeared." Does anyone know about "virtual particles" ? Supposedly, they pop in and pop out of existence all the time. So, what if zero point energy collecting machines are causing waves that interfere with the virtual particles? And, what if the empty space-time zero point energy is being used to generate the virtual particles? Virtual particles aren't supposed to interact with other matter, sensors, etc. But what if they are being dispersed by the sensors that can't detect the virtual particles? And we just "fan away" the energy transferred from the zero-point energy to the virtual particles??? Ok, I'm going to stop now because I don't know much about this subject. I'm just babbling on.
This has a LOT to do with how we accept information. The bottom line is that when there is a stupendous and Earth shattering claim we should be skeptical - looking for weaknesses, thinking of ways to verify, etc. One obvious place to look is for analysis by experts. In this case, let's remember that there are large numbers of scientists who have dedicated their LIVES to the search for extraterrestrial life. Whether they find it in vids from fighter jets, electromagnetic transmissions from space, chemicals found on asteroids, or whatever, it would be of HUGE significance to them - as well as to the rest of humanity as we seem to daily ask if we are "alone". Yet, these physics defying blobs just do not excite these experts. That's a strongly negative indication.
I've seen a lot of the footage, so I've seen what trained military pilots have seen. What I've not seen is an indication that they are "craft" as you refer to them. When new Russian aircraft are filmed, those images are usually examined by military and NGA imagery analysts to determine the size, weight, and functions of those aircraft. Do we have anything like that?
Well there are theories as to how these craft work! That we don't have the tech yet to replicate it has nothing to do with the laws of physics. So these craft are doing what we can't do ...yet. Once we couldn't fly either! Nor create nuclear fission. From what I can tell, these craft manipulate gravity. And the power source isn't fossil fuel. You seem to imply that since you don't understand the technology, that means these craft don't exist! And that is a weak argument. Dismissing evidence that would be used as evidence if these craft were new Russian fighters is what you and others are doing. If a new Russian fighter was leaving our fighters behind as measured by instruments , you would not demand more evidence. Right?
It's not a matter of what we can't do because of technology limitations. The speed limit, the speed of light, has absolutely NOTHING to do with human technology. Physics is not about technology limitations. Instead it is about how our universe works. For another example, e=mc^2 has nothing to do with whether humans can create some sort of technology. Engineers can work away forever, but will still be constrained by physics. And, YES. If it were known that these objects were "Russian fighters", that would be highly significant information that would be of critical import in addressing the Navy videos. But, there is NO evidence that they are "Russian fighters".
The suggestion that aliens can override fundamental absolutes of physics is NOT support for the notion that there are aliens. In fact, it makes the "it's aliens" idea harder to support, as now you have TWO stupendous assumptions to try to prove - not just one. You now have to show that there are aliens AND show that pretty much everything we know about how physics works in our universe is wrong. You could also suggest that aliens know how to make time go backwards. Maybe the aliens hit the jet planes with a "really slow time" weapon, making their craft (disguised as blobs) look super fast!! Once you decide physics is totally meaningless, you really can pretty much say anything you want to say - as if it were an argument.
Exactly. The 'tic tak' recordings that UFO supporters keep harping on about while, good resolution and highly interesting was also very small (estimated 4 metres on length tops). This means it wasn't a manned vehicle and if it was a probe of some type launched by a mother-ship (all aliens have mother-ships BTW) then where is this much larger vehicle? Certainly not in orbit around Earth. Unless its also invisible. So now as a starting position you need invisible alien mother-ships launching easily detectable probes that zoom around randomly in locations of no particular interest to anyone - well anyone with an interest in Earth's lifeforms, ecology or civilization.
I've seen it, it has some 40 or so military people testifying about their experiences with UFO. Here's a clip from it ( there are a whole bunch more in the film )
I wouldn't be saying it, the film are segments from 35 hours of testimony from credible persons describing incredible things. Pilots, Military, etc I don't know what it proves, but it's not like they are making everything up, which is what you are saying. Draw your own conclusions.
No one is going to know what you know if they are not curious. Curiosity leads you to where you are. You can't make someone curious. The non curious won't except presumptive evidence, they want aliens to land on the white house lawn and introduce themselves. If I told a non curious person a black triangle the size of three football fields was about 300 feet above my head, a couple of years ago in Montana, they'll just say I was on drugs, or something. If I told them I took a picture, but the damn ship cause my car to stall, and all electronics did not work, they wouldn't believe me ( but there are testimonies of such things ). It's not proof. But curious people will find mountains of this level of 'evidence' and feel comfortable concluding aliens exist. But, a non curious person won't look. The reason they won't look is that they are not curious, and they don't believe in 'presumptive evidence' . But what is presumptive evidence? A smoking gun is presumptive evidence. If you wake up in the morning and there is snow all over the ground, you can presume it snowed the night before. Is it absolute proof? No, someone could have hired a dump trunk with snow in it and dumped it all over the place, about an hour before you woke up. I mean, it's possible. So, a non curious person, given the possibility of that, wouldn't believe it snowed the night before. They will need to see it actually snowing. The only time a non curious person will believe in UFOs is when it happens to them Barney and Betty Hill were such persons, people who never gave UFOs and aliens a second thought in their entire lives, until they were abducted. then they believed it. They assume everyone is doing it for money, and everyone is lying. If you are curious, you'd be willing to watch just one this 15 minute video. If you are not curious, you won't bother because it doesn't show UFO up close landing in front of you. But, for the curious, it's pretty damn interesting. UFO disable silos. the incident has never been officially explained.
Stanton Friedman (RIP) spent his life lecturing about UFOs, he was a nuclear physicist. You have made an assumption, the video is filled with credible persons describing incredible things.
I'm not saying they are making up their descriptions. I can't judge that. It is the case that honest upright individuals do a horrible job of interpreting what they see - as noted in court testimony, in effects designed by those who study human perception, etc. I'm reasonably confident that these individuals are telling the truth to the best of their ability. The question is what is behind those descriptions. I definitely do not see those descriptions as justifying tosssing physics in the round file. One can't just decide to ignore stuff like gravity, momentum, the speed limit of light, time, etc. And, that is what we're being asked to do.