He has (apparently) analysed UFO materials at a molecular level, and the brains of people that have had certain experiences with UFOs.
UAP - Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
If he has he should publish his results if he hasn't already. That's what scientists and academics do after all.
Reading the below, it seems the claim is that it's a worldwide phenomenon and the US has been pushing on secrecy. I'm sceptical of these things but the whistleblowers are quite reliable and not some jokers.
Interesting times.
https://thedebrief.org/intelligence-officials-say-u-s-has-retrieved-non-human-craft/
Guardian running with same story.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/06/whistleblower-ufo-alien-tech-spacecraft
Honestly, even if US came out and said they had craft not from earth but elsewhere would the general public really be shocked? I doubt it. They soon forget about it and get back to their social media and what not.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/06/whistleblower-ufo-alien-tech-spacecraft
Honestly, even if US came out and said they had craft not from earth but elsewhere would the general public really be shocked? I doubt it. They soon forget about it and get back to their social media and what not.
Can’t be easy for him. What possible interest would the scientific literature have in publishing the first ever study of UFO materials at a molecular level?
Academics are notoriously reluctant to publish their findings. Doubly so when the findings would be of mass, world-wide interest. In no way is a reluctance to publish a sign that they don't want their findings to be subject to peer review.
Was doubling down on someone else's sarcasm really the better option, between posting an image of a tin foil hat that you ended up deleting? At least that had a sliver of originality.
I deleted the tin foil hat containing post about 1 minute after posting because I couldn't be bothered, but now that you mention it.
Stating that you have evidence but not publishing just isn't how reputable academics work.
I agree, it is peculiar.I deleted the tin foil hat a mi Ute after posting because I couldn't be bothered but now that you mention it
Stating that you have evidence but not publishing just isn't how reputable academics work.
Can you imagine the horror of getting the credit for an epoch making discovery, placing you in the pantheon with Darwin, Einstein, and Copernicus? What kind of scientist needs that kind of academic kudos, career achievement and historic fame anyway?
If the US govt REALLY had crashed UFOs somewhere, SETI would be the best funded government programme in the US budget, as would about a dozen other related research programmes.
It looks like he has published a paper relating to it - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0376042121000907
Also, please can we keep calling them flying saucers? Feels like a term that is more aligned to the respect the subject deserves.
Ah well anything with Jacques Vallee's name on it must be treated with respect.
There's very much an age thing going on here isn't there, oddly I was reading an article the other day that fits with this:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/23/us/politics/pentagon-ufo-harry-reid-navy.html
It's a long article but the key points for me are the post cold war hysteria of denying possibilities just caused a situation and fear that we'd miss threats terrestrial or alien as no one dare report odd encounters.
Thankfully it seems we're reverting back to more serious review of unexplained phenomena rather than meme level responses like tinfoil hats.
There's enough mad shit out there no matter the explanation that it warrants proper consideration, more so given the constant technological leaps being made. The crack pot UFO nutters and those on the opposite side who deny out of habit are both damaging actors in a serious conversation.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/23/us/politics/pentagon-ufo-harry-reid-navy.html
It's a long article but the key points for me are the post cold war hysteria of denying possibilities just caused a situation and fear that we'd miss threats terrestrial or alien as no one dare report odd encounters.
Thankfully it seems we're reverting back to more serious review of unexplained phenomena rather than meme level responses like tinfoil hats.
There's enough mad shit out there no matter the explanation that it warrants proper consideration, more so given the constant technological leaps being made. The crack pot UFO nutters and those on the opposite side who deny out of habit are both damaging actors in a serious conversation.
This is such a tired, pointless argument.
The problem with UFOs is their existence would mean everything we currently know about physics is wrong. To have UFOs routinely visiting Earth would mean they are capable of faster than light travel so unless someone can scientifically prove this is possible, there are no UFOs visiting Earth and leaving as quickly as they came.
Simply wrong. It would mean what we know is incomplete. And none of the observations have suggested the objects are capable of FTL.
Be a bit obvious that though wouldn't it. You don't think they actually spend ten thousand dollars for a hammer and thirty thousand for a toilet seat, do you?
Wrong/incomplete, it's semantics. Either way there are no UFOs and it's not a bad faith argument to say that while empirical science agrees.
Anybody who honestly believes that aliens from other planets visit Earth and that the USA (of course) have downed one of their craft is utterly bonkers.
Good job our scientific understanding has never changed or expanded during human history or this would look a bit silly.
Last edited:
So we are all alone in the universe?
It will always be the same as ghosts, magic and any God you pray too. We have billions of phones/recording devices on us every single day. Show proof or accept that your "beliefs" are just that.
That's not to say none of those things are true, including an alien species capable of spanning distance and time only to somehow crash here, but we must also accept that just because we don't know everything doesn't mean that we can't trust the few things we do know.
That's not to say none of those things are true, including an alien species capable of spanning distance and time only to somehow crash here, but we must also accept that just because we don't know everything doesn't mean that we can't trust the few things we do know.
He said he doesn't like carrots. Nowhere did he say he hates all vegetables.
Ive seen one and I am the most sane person I know.It wasn’t anything from here. It was 40 yrs ago so the tech that I seen was way beyond anything back then or now.
What did you see?
There are plenty of mobile recordings, they’re just not optimised to record things in the sky so it will never be relied on as conclusive. You need a chunky lens for that.
A triangle with a light on each corner about 30 ft in length swaying back and forth over treetops silent. I was close. The air around it seemed off. Like when you see air look different from gas. Scared me to death at the time but I did watch for awhile. It then hovered over a lake. I know this because I knew people who told me about a triangle hovering over a lake the same night.
But obviously our knowledge isn't complete, by a long way. I'm not saying UFOs have or will visit though.
I've seen two ghosts. Actual ghosts, actual things I couldn't explain at the time.
But what I think are "ghosts" is the question. What does that even mean. I think ghosts exist, I think there's also life out there and that we don't know even a fraction of how this universe works, but what it all means is a different story.
Are you capable of explaining why? And I'm not having a go here, I would like you to explain exactly what you mean by "not optimised to record things in the sky" and "chunky lens".
Tell me exactly why, even without "chunky lenses" we can composite images together to make the sky as clear as we want, with as much motion as there can be within our understanding, and yet there is no direct evidence.
There are several examples of footage recorded by a mobile phone but they don't do a great job of catching the close up details, because of the limitations of the camera.
You didn't understand the question. Not surprised you posted a meme.
There are several examples of footage recorded by a mobile phone but they don't do a great job of catching the close up details, because of the limitations of the camera.
Explain it to me.
The instant dismissal is a bit odd to me. In the next few centuries we'll no doubt send AI probes out beyond our solar system, we're obviously talking vast timescales for anything to arrive but eventually given the right technological breakthroughs they will.
Given the age of the universe and improbability of being the only planet with 'advanced life' is it really beyond possibility that there's alien probes out there?
I don't believe people are seeing aliens in 99.99999% of cases but the idea of an alien probe reaching earth within the last 3 billion years doesn't seem very nutty to me.
Given the age of the universe and improbability of being the only planet with 'advanced life' is it really beyond possibility that there's alien probes out there?
I don't believe people are seeing aliens in 99.99999% of cases but the idea of an alien probe reaching earth within the last 3 billion years doesn't seem very nutty to me.
What are you asking? Why there isn't direct evidence even though everyone owns a mobile phone? Or why a mobile camera can't capture conclusive details of an object in the sky?
You need explanation why objects at larger distances need stronger magnification which is usually achieved by bulkier optical systems ?
There are so many more dimensions than just distance and time, and even with just those the odds are almost as impossible as infinite.
I don't myself dismiss the idea btw, just like I don't dismiss the idea of a god. I truly believe both aliens making contact and a God designing the universe are real actual posibilities. I definitely think there is life out there.
What I don't buy though, is our bullshit egotistical ideas of proving any of it. Because as much as we all love a good conspiracy theory, how stupid do you have to be to think that we as a race can hide anything like that?
Yes please, explain. Explain "chunky lens" and "bulkier optical systems".
Then, go ahead an explain what digital cameras can/can't pick up in the sky and why composite shots are a thing but still miss the detail you guys suggest.
Yep.
We think we know as much as we can, and obviously we do. But what happens when our knowledge base expands?
Before I do that, what do you mean by composite shots exactly ?
Even if an alien spaceship landed on live telly, with thousands of in person witnesses and streamed live around the world, you'd still get people swearing it was fake.