Where are the UFOs?

[Dynamic]

Hi Aberhound,

 

You've clearly read a lot and retained a lot from your reading and synthesized a lot in your brain into a framework of mental models.

 

I think there are some issues with the veracity of some of the things your reading has presented to you, however, which might require you to expunge certain points you've read about and reframe some of the mental frameworks you've created around them. It is a difficult process to go back and update one's mental models of reality, but it is worthwhile as you clearly have an intelligent mind capable of holding a lot of information, and I hope some background reading, perhaps in well referenced Wikipedia articles and their references, might help you do so.

 

1. The fewer UFO sightings have an obvious explanation. Few people have military grade night vision goggles. Those that do report seeing hundreds of UFOs. This is just your tax dollars at work. Those missing trillions from the defence department and elsewhere were not wasted. This produces craft with better field control capability so they are seen less often. If these craft do not exist why the bill to allow the mining of asteroids by the private sector? Seems impractical without field control. Look at the eagle taking off from the moon during Apollo. Wouldn't a rocket cause more moon dust to be disturbed? Wouldn't the acceleration be more rapid from supposed 1/6th gravity to conserve fuel? To me it looks like a blast from explosives for show and anti-gravity thereafter. Viktor Schauberger admitted developing two types of anti-gravity for the Nazis in WW2. See the Fertile Earth.

 

a. Military grade night vision devices (using photomultipliers) were <$1,000 in mid 1990s when Russia opened up. Now integrated digital imaging sensors are mass-produced (CMOS cheapest, CCD highest sensitivity), that performance is even cheaper in devices also capable of capturing the image (still or video) - military grade now is differentiated not so much by performance but by robustness, particular communications protocols etc. Consumer grade electronics is very capable now, but one must be aware of the limitations imposed by shot noise when interpreting what one sees when using night vision equipment.

 

b. What's field control in this context. Which fields? Are you trying to say gravitational field control?

 

c. Private sector rockets are improving in leaps and bounds. Space X for one. Legislation ahead of this is sensible, especially in light of international treaties drawn up in the 1960s when only nation states were considered capable of exploiting space. No need for an esoteric explanation, according to Occam's Razor.

 

d. Lunar gravity is easy to estimate - don't need Gen Relativity, Newtonian gravity is fine. Let's see how it calculates...

r = Radius of moon = 1,737,000 m

M = mass of moon = 7.35e+22 kg

m = mass of small object on moon, e.g. Apollo lunar module - at least 18 orders of magnitude smaller than M

F = force of gravity acting between masses m and M

G = Newton's gravitational constant = 6.674e-11 Nm²/kg²

g = acceleration due to gravity = F / m

 

F = G x M x m / r²

Divide both side by m to obtain g = F/m, meaning that for small m, m doesn't affect g just like on earth.

 

g = F/m = G x M / r²

g = 6.674e-11 * 7.35e+22 / (1.737e+6)²

g = 4.905e+12 / 3.017e+12

g = 1.63 m/s²

 

Compare that to 9.81m/s² on earth, and it's 0.166 of it. Very very nearly 1/6th.

 

The escape velocity can also be calculated to be 2,380 m/s, about one fifth of the 11,200 m/s for Earth.

 

You can remove the word 'supposed' from your question - it checks out, though if you have any questions about the calculation do bring them up.

 

Then remember that Apollo landers took off leaving behind the landing legs and platform at the bottom (no point needing to lift the extra mass). Despite the initial rocket exhaust hitting the platform, it still kicked up plenty of dust, but that doesn't won't hang in the air like on earth as there's no air. It still had to accelerate to a reasonable speed to match speed with the lunar orbiter, but didn't have any air resistance to overcome, just the modest gravitational acceleration to overcome, which lessens as you get further away (as r increases in the equation).

 

For that reason, the rocket thrusters were designed for the lunar gravity - much weaker than the Saturn V - to produce a controlled burn calculated to leave the moon with the correct speed to catch up with the lunar orbiter. Timing of lift-off had to be within a certain time window so they'd reach the altitude of the orbiter at about the same place where the orbiter would be when they got there and could then use a small burn to complete the rendezvous.

 

Anyone can 'admit to' something implausible that nobody is going to deny (or that they'd be keeping a secret). I could 'admit to' making a warp drive for the Nazis, having time travelled decades before my birth to produce it for them. Is there any evidence they used it? No - their testing determined that it was highly dangerous with the control technology of the time and it was never used in combat, but Werner von Braun took the technology to the US Government after the war and some of his colleagues took it to the Russians. Or am I simply delusional. Oh yeah, it could be that. Am I also a pseudoscientist like Viktor Schauberger who, while promoting some biomimicry  ideas that are now used such as biomimetics - engineering inspired by the solutions evolved in nature, also invented supposed perpetual motion machines that appear without close analysis to violate rock solid thoroughly tested laws like the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I'm afraid one has to be extremely careful in looking into his writings if they go beyond mere observation of botany, however plausible they may seem. Although he was well-read he had no formal science education. The webpages about him are filled with pseudoscientific language about 'subtle energies' and 'quantum' bollocks. The alarm bells are ringing as if they were generated by a 'wisdom of Chopra' random 'pseudo-profound bullshit generator' I'm afraid. It's not to say all his writings are flawed, but you simply MUST verify carefully, before believing what he claims, which don't seem to have gone through any form of robust peer review or challenge.

 

2. Did you know the Michaelson Morley experiment was repeated and the result was the reverse? Others may be here just at a higher etheric frequency. That higher etheric frequency would have the same EMF as us but shifted higher so that the gravitational frequency below radar for us is probably near our infrared.

 

The Michelson-Morley experiment to measure the speed of the supposed ether was repeated many many times because the result was so astounding to what scientists has assumed must be the case. And the result always came out the same, showing there IS NO ETHER - no medium pervading space on which light waves oscillate as everyone had assumed there must be. This shocked physics in the late 1800s, hence the numerous replications to try to find the flaws in their experiment. This result and its successful replication many times over was a fundamental reason why Einstein looked at Maxwell's Equations and worked out their implications for space and time given that the speed of light in a vacuum was now shown to be constant regardless of the motion of the observer against the background universe. From this came the Special Theory of Relativity and eventually the General Theory of Relativity without which your GPS positioning would drift by kilometres per day and which has been extensively tested and shown to make correct predictions, whether in particle physics, atomic clocks flown on jumbo jets or GPS satellites, or in gravitational wave predictions for colliding black holes and neutron stars now shown to be amazingly accurate.

 

There IS NO ETHER. It is thoroughly established physics tested tens of thousands of different ways. This discovery was a building block towards Relativity and Quantum Mechanics which are extremely well tested themselves and produce some highly unexpected effects in extreme conditions that turn out to be true and really observed in nature.

 

I will not comment on the rest of your points which mostly rely on the existence of the ether, which is not something grounded in physical reality. If they were true they could have made the basis of some fascinating science fiction, for example.

 

Toxoplasmosis is fascinating, and shows how the brain is reliant on chemical pathways and signalling and how evolution can happen across ways to 'hack' these mechanisms. It's fascinating stuff and leads scientists to great insights at times, but this truth is sadly more prosaic than your intuition that it could be down to transmission through the ether from great intelligences.

 

I really hope you take this in the spirit it's offered as an opportunity to develop and update your thinking, as you clearly have a mind capable of working with a lot of concepts and should be able to replace the flawed concepts you've read about and think through the consequences of your updated thinking. It's not a bad thing to learn as an investor either!

[Cigarbutt]

Aberhound,

 

Interesting post that triggers a reflection on different types of reasoning: deductive, inductive and abductive.

 

Brain involvement from toxoplasmosis can be explained by the presence of cysts concentrated in the amygdala, an area of the brain important in the regulation of attitudes, behaviors and smell. By the way, the parasite is single-celled and can be transmitted through contact with cat feces. I submit that strangers who might just have travelled light-year distances may come up with more sophisticated schemes.

 

From a guy who lost his comb: “A little knowledge can be dangerous. So is a lot.”

 

Still, you raise interesting points and often fiction surpasses reality.

 

https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/news_and_polls/2015-06/6902-topline.pdf

 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3035417/ufo-hunters-claim-george-bush-awkwardly-dodged-tv-talk-show-jimmy-kimmels-questions-about-government-alien-files/

 

Maybe, this re-enchantment with UFOs has something to do with secularization and the new cultural cycle we’re in.

 

Ricardo Montalban, who starred as Khan, used to play Mr. Roarke in Fantasy Island with Tattoo. In that show, the mysterious Roarke granted fantasies. I really loved the series. But there were supernatural overtones.

 

[racemize]

I thought he was joking?

[rukawa]

The milky way is 100000 light years a across in distance. That means from our point of view the trip across the milky was would take 100,000 years if you travelled at max speed. But from the point of view of a rocket travelling at lets say 0.99999999 of the speed of light relative to us the time take to travel across the milky way would be:

 

100000*sqrt(1-0.999999999^2) = 44 years. So the real question is how hard is it to get someone to travel at that high a speed. You need very high rates of accelerations for very long periods of time....my guess is much much longer than the trip itself. It would be a really stupid idea to do this with human beings. Its most sensible to send robots.

 

Anyways you don't have to travel across the whole Milky Way. The nearest star is 4 light years away. I'm guessing you can find a planet with life within 1000 light years. But lets say you can't get close to the speed of light and so you can't take advantage of time dilation. Still....a few thousand years of travel might be reasonable for a robot designed by sufficiently advanced civilization. What you would probably do is send trilllions of very small robots that could accelerate to very high speeds using some nuclear process for energy and maybe could even reproduce in space and you would have these robots include some representation of the coordinates of your solar system relative to some galactic coordinate frame. It would be complicated but possible.

[Dynamic]

Accelerating at Earth's gravitational acceleration around 9.81m/s^2 you approach light speed of 3x10^8 m/s in 350 days if you have sufficient thrust and power. It's therefore survivable for a human body to accelerate and decelerate to relativistic speeds, turn round and return within a human lifetime. The dangers of micrometeorites at such speed is huge, and the source of thrust is beyond us at present.

 

As for self replicating machines exploring, that's what the Fermi paradox imagined, wondering why aren't they here.

[rukawa]

Accelerating at Earth's gravitational acceleration around 9.81m/s^2 you approach light speed of 3x10^8 m/s in 350 days if you have sufficient thrust and power.

 

I'm pretty sure your calc is wrong.  A confusing way to see this is a kind of Zeno like argument for relativity.

 

Warning: A long complicated overly complicated argument follows because I'm overly interesting in this and need to understand it.

 

Suppose I just accelerate to 0.5c. That would based on your calc take 175 days. Now lets consider you from the point of view of an observer travelling at 0.5c (O1)...he would think it would take another 175 days for you to get to 0.5c relative to him. Now consider a second observer (02) travelling at 0.5 c relative to 01...he would think it would take another 175 days to get to 0.5c relative to him. At this point what speed are you travelling at relative to earth rest frame?

 

Your speed relative to 02 is 0.5c.

Your speed relative to 01 is u = (0.5c+0.5c)/(1+0.5*0.5)= 0.8c

Your speed relative to rest frame is (0.5+0.8)/(1+0.8*0.5) = 0.928c

 

We can continue this calc:

(0.928c+0.5)/(1+0.5*0.928)=0.976

0.991803279

0.997260274

0.999085923

0.999695215

0.999898395

0.99996613

0.99998871

0.999996237

0.999998746

0.999999582

0.999999861

0.999999954

0.999999985

0.999999995

 

So you got to 0.92c and it took 525 days. Now this calc is not completely correct because you are not in the frame of the observers and so you will experience less time that each of them for each of your 0.5c speedups. But in each calc you are only within 0.5c of each observer and in this case time is reduced by at most a factor of sqrt(1-0.5^2) = 0.866. So it would still take you at least 525 days * 0.86 = 454 days. And to get to 0.999657123 it would take you 175days * 8 * 0.866 = 1200 days.

 

But you are right it does take a lot less than 44 years to reach the required speed. Based on calc above you need 18 speedups to get to 0.999999995..which takes at least 175*18*0.866= 2727.9 days. At this speed the galaxy is only 10 light years across and will only take 10 years to traverse. So its doable.

 

 

 

[Dynamic]

I was trying to consider it all from the human traveller's frame of reference as it's they who have to live for the length of time it takes in their frame of reference and it's they who will experience an acceleration similar to Earth's gravitational acceleration. To them, it doesn't matter so much how many generations may have lived and died on earth, as something 1,000 light years away will always take at least 2,000 year round trip time to visit and receive the signal back in Earth's frame of reference. For it to be viable for the travellers themselves, they need to complete it well within a human lifetime (unless it's a breeding population of explorers).

 

This completely ignores both the increasing power required to accelerate the same amount as they near light-speed and the time as observed from Earth, but considers survivability in terms of time and acceleration. It also makes the math simpler when all you want is a rough idea of whether a human body could withstand sustained acceleration to relativistic speeds within a human lifetime. Note that relativistic mass is a convenient fiction used to describe the additional kinetic energy and momentum required at relativistic speeds over and above those of Newtonian mechanics. As far as I understand, (Fermilab has a good YouTube video about this) relativistic mass is not a reality that the traveller would experience within their own frame of reference.

 

Yes, there is the problem of what 'speed' to each observer means, as both times and distances vary for each observer. My approximate answer may or may not be right but I think it indicates that survivable acceleration to relativistic speeds is plausible within the traveller's lifetime subject to a suitable source of acceleration.

[rukawa]

I was trying to consider it all from the human traveller's frame of reference as it's they who have to live for the length of time it takes in their frame of reference and it's they who will experience an acceleration similar to Earth's gravitational acceleration

 

Yes I was trying to do the same thing.

 

Yes, there is the problem of what 'speed' to each observer means, as both times and distances vary for each observer. My approximate answer may or may not be right but I think it indicates that survivable acceleration to relativistic speeds is plausible within the traveller's lifetime subject to a suitable source of acceleration.

 

What I did is kind of a poor man's integration. The accelerated rocket has its own proper time...but its proper time is instantaneously increasing at the same rate as an observer that happens to be travelling at the same speed at that particular moment. To figure out the real proper time in the rockets frame of reference you have to do an integration where the proper time is continuously changing. I'll work on that this week. But what I did kind of approximates that since I look at observers that are within 0.5c of the rocket at each stage of the calc...their proper time must be within a factor of at most 0.866 of the rocket itself and so I can figure out what the rocket is experiencing by looking at what each successive observer measures.

 

But you are right. Acceleration to speeds close enough to light speed to make the galaxy seem really small are possible within a lifetime. So its possible to traverse the whole galaxy in a person's lifetime. Pretty cool.

[oddballstocks]

I was trying to consider it all from the human traveller's frame of reference as it's they who have to live for the length of time it takes in their frame of reference and it's they who will experience an acceleration similar to Earth's gravitational acceleration

 

Yes I was trying to do the same thing.

 

Yes, there is the problem of what 'speed' to each observer means, as both times and distances vary for each observer. My approximate answer may or may not be right but I think it indicates that survivable acceleration to relativistic speeds is plausible within the traveller's lifetime subject to a suitable source of acceleration.

 

What I did is kind of a poor man's integration. The accelerated rocket has its own proper time...but its proper time is instantaneously increasing at the same rate as an observer that happens to be travelling at the same speed at that particular moment. To figure out the real proper time in the rockets frame of reference you have to do an integration where the proper time is continuously changing. I'll work on that this week. But what I did kind of approximates that since I look at observers that are within 0.5c of the rocket at each stage of the calc...their proper time must be within a factor of at most 0.866 of the rocket itself and so I can figure out what the rocket is experiencing by looking at what each successive observer measures.

 

But you are right. Acceleration to speeds close enough to light speed to make the galaxy seem really small are possible within a lifetime. So its possible to traverse the whole galaxy in a person's lifetime. Pretty cool.

 

This is fascinating.  The question is then what sort of thrust is required? How much energy do you need for each acceleration?

 

From what I've read there are two issues.  The first is the raw power, the second is overcoming Earth's pull.  So in theory if you wanted to do this you'd need to build the ship in space.  You wouldn't need to waste as much energy escaping the Earth.  Unfortunately we don't have the tech to build spaceships in space currently.

[Pelagic]

The milky way is 100000 light years a across in distance. That means from our point of view the trip across the milky was would take 100,000 years if you travelled at max speed. But from the point of view of a rocket travelling at lets say 0.99999999 of the speed of light relative to us the time take to travel across the milky way would be:

 

100000*sqrt(1-0.999999999^2) = 44 years. So the real question is how hard is it to get someone to travel at that high a speed. You need very high rates of accelerations for very long periods of time....my guess is much much longer than the trip itself. It would be a really stupid idea to do this with human beings. Its most sensible to send robots.

 

Anyways you don't have to travel across the whole Milky Way. The nearest star is 4 light years away. I'm guessing you can find a planet with life within 1000 light years. But lets say you can't get close to the speed of light and so you can't take advantage of time dilation. Still....a few thousand years of travel might be reasonable for a robot designed by sufficiently advanced civilization. What you would probably do is send trilllions of very small robots that could accelerate to very high speeds using some nuclear process for energy and maybe could even reproduce in space and you would have these robots include some representation of the coordinates of your solar system relative to some galactic coordinate frame. It would be complicated but possible.

 

I don't know if you're familiar with Breakthrough Starshot or not but their plan to send craft to Alpha Centauri is quite similar to this. Using Earth based lasers and light sails to accelerate the craft to 20% of the speed of light, they estimate the trip will take 20 years. Basically like firing a shotgun blast of many small craft hoping some make it to their destination and can send back a signal of what they're seeing to us.

 

https://www.space.com/32546-interstellar-spaceflight-stephen-hawking-project-starshot.html

[rukawa]

I was trying to consider it all from the human traveller's frame of reference as it's they who have to live for the length of time it takes in their frame of reference and it's they who will experience an acceleration similar to Earth's gravitational acceleration

 

Yes I was trying to do the same thing.

 

Yes, there is the problem of what 'speed' to each observer means, as both times and distances vary for each observer. My approximate answer may or may not be right but I think it indicates that survivable acceleration to relativistic speeds is plausible within the traveller's lifetime subject to a suitable source of acceleration.

 

What I did is kind of a poor man's integration. The accelerated rocket has its own proper time...but its proper time is instantaneously increasing at the same rate as an observer that happens to be travelling at the same speed at that particular moment. To figure out the real proper time in the rockets frame of reference you have to do an integration where the proper time is continuously changing. I'll work on that this week. But what I did kind of approximates that since I look at observers that are within 0.5c of the rocket at each stage of the calc...their proper time must be within a factor of at most 0.866 of the rocket itself and so I can figure out what the rocket is experiencing by looking at what each successive observer measures.

 

But you are right. Acceleration to speeds close enough to light speed to make the galaxy seem really small are possible within a lifetime. So its possible to traverse the whole galaxy in a person's lifetime. Pretty cool.

 

This is fascinating.  The question is then what sort of thrust is required? How much energy do you need for each acceleration?

 

From what I've read there are two issues.  The first is the raw power, the second is overcoming Earth's pull.  So in theory if you wanted to do this you'd need to build the ship in space.  You wouldn't need to waste as much energy escaping the Earth.  Unfortunately we don't have the tech to build spaceships in space currently.

 

I feel like a huge issue will be shielding. If you are travelling at close to the speed of light relative to the rest of the galaxy then space dust will be hitting you at nearly the speed of light. And the space dust will also appear to have higher apparent mass. So if you manage to shrink the galaxy from 100000 lc to 10 lc by travelling near speed of light...you also managed to make all the dust particles appear to be 10000 times more massive, with 10000 times greater density (since the galaxy is now much smaller) and hitting you at near the speed of light. I feel like you would get shredded in fractions of a second.

[Jurgis]

That's why all advanced civilizations travel as neutrinos. 8)

[cwericb]

Think one may have landed in Washington DC back about a year ago.

[Dynamic]

The power to accelerate and the shielding are enormously difficult challenges for human interstellar travel near light speed.

 

With sufficient power it might be possible to deflect particles. Charged particles could be deflected by magnetic fields much as with the Earth - the cause of the aurorae. Photonic momentum transfer may be able to deflect uncharged particles just enough, or a number of mechanical shields could be flown ahead of the spaceship, some of which would deflect enough particles and some of which might be sacrificial, absorbing them but deteriorating over time. If robotic craft were shown to be sufficiently protected it might be possible to send humans. I imagine we would need enormously powerful fusion reactors or antimatter matter storage and annihilation to provide sufficient power for propulsion and protection, which are bound to be a very long time in reaching sufficient specifications. Solar sails/laser sails may be sufficient to attain much of the required acceleration away from Earth but again enormous technological advances would be essential to approach a reasonable rate of acceleration. At this stage it's very hard to guess whether these challenges are surmountable. I would have thought they are given enough time and technological advance.

[Jurgis]

The power to accelerate and the shielding are enormously difficult challenges for human interstellar travel near light speed.

 

With sufficient power it might be possible to deflect particles. Charged particles could be deflected by magnetic fields much as with the Earth - the cause of the aurorae. Photonic momentum transfer may be able to deflect uncharged particles just enough, or a number of mechanical shields could be flown ahead of the spaceship, some of which would deflect enough particles and some of which might be sacrificial, absorbing them but deteriorating over time. If robotic craft were shown to be sufficiently protected it might be possible to send humans. I imagine we would need enormously powerful fusion reactors or antimatter matter storage and annihilation to provide sufficient power for propulsion and protection, which are bound to be a very long time in reaching sufficient specifications. Solar sails/laser sails may be sufficient to attain much of the required acceleration away from Earth but again enormous technological advances would be essential to approach a reasonable rate of acceleration. At this stage it's very hard to guess whether these challenges are surmountable. I would have thought they are given enough time and technological advance.

 

By the time tech is advanced enough for interstellar travel, there won't be organic humans. We will be uploaded, replaced by manufactured bodies if needed, etc. The age of organic humans is close to the end, give or take 100 years or so, possibly less.

 

Sending current organic lifeforms into space is a folly. Space is totally inhospitable for humans. The only reason we send humans to space right now is (1) we cannot transfer ourselves into non-organic bodies yet; (2) we don't have sufficiently smart AI to send it instead of sending us. Either (1) or (2) or both will be solved within 50 years ... if we don't blow up ourselves in the meantime.

 

This is one reason Elon's Mars colonization plan is a bit quixotic. By the time we have good enough tech to send human colony safely to Mars and sustain it there, we will be close or past not needing to send organic human colony at all. There's a margin of time where organic human colony may exist, but it's very short period.

[rukawa]

I derived the formula (actually I had an extra 1/2 which I am still not sure how to get rid of) which tells you how long in seconds it would take from the rocket ships point of view to accelerate to a given fraction of light speed with respect to earth. It is:

 

time =  (c/a) * ln ( (1+q) / (1-q)) where q is the fraction of light speed you want.

 

So if we want q = 0.999999995 then

 

time = (3 x 10^8 m/s / 10 m/s^2) * ln ((1+0.999999995 )/(1-0.999999995 ) = 129030899.9 s = 2986 days

 

EDIT: Turns out I was right originally and the 1/2 is needed.

time = 1/2 * (c/a) * ln ( (1+q) / (1-q)) = c/a * tanh^-1(q) where q is the fraction of light speed you want.

 

So if we want q = 0.999999995 then

 

time = 1/2 * (3 x 10^8 m/s / 10 m/s^2) * ln ((1+0.999999995 )/(1-0.999999995 ) =  2.97 x 10^8 s=  3,438.71 days

 

[rkbabang]

I derived the formula (actually I had an extra 1/2 which I am still not sure how to get rid of) which tells you how long in seconds it would take from the rocket ships point of view to accelerate to a given fraction of light speed with respect to earth. It is:

 

time =  (c/a) * ln ( (1+q) / (1-q)) where q is the fraction of light speed you want.

 

So if we want q = 0.999999995 then

 

time = (3 x 10^8 m/s / 10 m/s^2) * ln ((1+0.999999995 )/(1-0.999999995 ) = 129030899.9 s = 2986 days

 

 

And another 2986 days to decelerate from that speed.

 

[Cigarbutt]

 

I thought the picture was funny but that's nothing compared to comments (and calculations) found below.

 

rkbabang,

 

As a preventative move: the reply is not intended to be a challenge. It's just a joke.

 

[rkbabang]

 

I thought the picture was funny but that's nothing compared to comments (and calculations) found below.

 

rkbabang,

 

As a preventative move: the reply is not intended to be a challenge. It's just a joke.

 

 

That's why I try not to go to reddit too often. Once you start reading the comments you can't stop. It's like a train wreck, you can't look away. And hours can go by in seconds.  Talk about time dilation.

 

[DTEJD1997]

Hey all:

 

Crazy that I just started this discussion thread...THEN TODAY there are 2 big stories in the NYT about UFO's!

 

I simply don't understand why this 1st story is not making news headlines across the world...2 F-18's see something flying around that simply can't be explained.  They have some tape of it...there is at least ONE ship's radar that is picking it up.  Simply explained as we don't know what it is...experts caution that it very could have an earthly explanation...WTF!  I'll let you guys judge for yourself:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/us/politics/unidentified-flying-object-navy.html

 

Why this is listed in the "politics" section, I have no idea...

 

Then you've also got this story:

 

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/12/16/pentagon-ufo-search-harry-reid-216111

 

I am very surprised that first story is not making more news.

[Spekulatius]

They roamed around Earth until they discovered our stock markets and realized there wasn't any intelligent life here.

 

My guess they left in 1999.

 

More likely, they decided to do the intelligence via watching our TV rather than flying around in saucers. They probably decided  they they get all the information they need just by watching the Saturday night show.

[rkbabang]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/pentagon-ufo-alloys-program-recover-material-unidentified-flying-objects-not-recognise-us-government-a8117801.html?amp&__twitter_impression=true

[sculpin]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/pentagon-ufo-alloys-program-recover-material-unidentified-flying-objects-not-recognise-us-government-a8117801.html?amp&__twitter_impression=true

 

Very interesting. Could have wide ranging impact on economies, industry, energy usage etc if they could identify what these technologies & materials are.

[DTEJD1997]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/pentagon-ufo-alloys-program-recover-material-unidentified-flying-objects-not-recognise-us-government-a8117801.html?amp&__twitter_impression=true

 

Very interesting. Could have wide ranging impact on economies, industry, energy usage etc if they could identify what these technologies & materials are.

 

OK, now things are starting to get crazy.  We've got everything discussed before....and now there are "materials" coming off/from UFO's?  Materials that scientists have no idea what they are and reportedly have strange effects on people?  How did these materials come off UFO's?  Was it a UFO broken down by the side of the ride and a panel fell off when it took off?  OR was it maybe a shootdown?  Or was it a crash?

 

This isn't getting more coverage in the papers?

 

If it is indeed true, I would think this would be pretty big news?  Of course, we've got a lot of news with maniac perverts and the political circus to capture the public's attention.

[rkbabang]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/pentagon-ufo-alloys-program-recover-material-unidentified-flying-objects-not-recognise-us-government-a8117801.html?amp&__twitter_impression=true

 

Very interesting. Could have wide ranging impact on economies, industry, energy usage etc if they could identify what these technologies & materials are.

 

OK, now things are starting to get crazy.  We've got everything discussed before....and now there are "materials" coming off/from UFO's?  Materials that scientists have no idea what they are and reportedly have strange effects on people?  How did these materials come off UFO's?  Was it a UFO broken down by the side of the ride and a panel fell off when it took off?  OR was it maybe a shootdown?  Or was it a crash?

 

This isn't getting more coverage in the papers?

 

If it is indeed true, I would think this would be pretty big news?  Of course, we've got a lot of news with maniac perverts and the political circus to capture the public's attention.

 

I don't know what to make of that story at all.  I am also surprised it isn't getting more attention.