• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

New Super Hornet UFO video from 2015

Flyaway

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
3,663
Reaction score
1,552

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,114
Reaction score
1,176
Thunderf00t second strike -

It’s been pointed out elsewhere that this person has a credibility issue in that he doesn’t believe that Space X reuses their rockets.

Really? So bringing in torched-looking boosters on a barge is all for show? (The one that collapsed it's crush core was a nice touch.) That's right up there with flat-earthers. I've listened to some of his stuff. He does seem quite full of himself. I do find it a bit difficult to believe he thinks SpaceX isn't reusing boosters. :confused:
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
1,789
Reaction score
532
 

The Artist

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
Messages
616
Reaction score
218
I only heard part of the promo, so I did not catch the day, but NPR's show 1A will be discussing this next week.
 

Flyaway

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
3,663
Reaction score
1,552
Might as well place this here rather than starting a new thread.


The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence: A Realpolitik Consideration

Abstract
In the vigorous academic debate over the risks of the Search for ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence (SETI) and active Messaging ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence (ETI) (METI), a significant factor has been largely overlooked. Specifically, the risk of merely detecting an alien signal from passive SETI activity is usually considered to be negligible. The history of international relations viewed through the lens of the realpolitik tradition of realist political thought suggests, however, that there is a measurable risk of conflict over the perceived benefit of monopoly access to ETI communication channels. This possibility needs to be considered when analyzing the potential risks and benefits of contact with ETI.

 

edwest

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
945
Reaction score
203
On a practical level there is just monitoring signals. After that there needs to be scenarios in place for assessing those signals. If they boil down to interplanetary commercial traffic, then what? Spacecraft A is on its way to planet B with some cargo, and all or most of the messages fall into that category. If those signals were intercepted, and understood, tomorrow, no one would know.
 

Flyaway

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
3,663
Reaction score
1,552
Make of this what you will. Isn’t this really just stating the obvious that of course the US government will look into such reports, there would be something wrong if they didn’t, doesn’t automatically make them aliens in flying saucers.

 

Flyaway

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
3,663
Reaction score
1,552
While retired officials involved with the effort — including Harry Reid, the former Senate majority leader — hope the program will seek evidence of vehicles from other worlds, its main focus is on discovering whether another nation, especially any potential adversary, is using breakout aviation technology that could threaten the United States.
 

edwest

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
945
Reaction score
203
The program is not classified but deals with classified matters? There have been no clear answers since 1947. I expect nothing now, just the usual possible hints of something... maybe.
 

edwest

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
945
Reaction score
203
The New York Times writer appears to have studied no history. A 'memo' written in 1947 by the commander of Air Materiel Command at Wright Field in Dayton Ohio clearly states that it was possible at that time to build a similar aircraft as the 'flying discs.' It included the idea that that these aircraft were produced by some domestic entity unknown to them or the USAAF. Asking the same questions for decades has yielded no other answers. Assuming that some UFOs crashed does not identify them since that information is not available aside from a select few.

Even the title is misleading. It should read: "Want hard evidence for UFOs? You won't find it here."
 

Flyaway

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
3,663
Reaction score
1,552
The New York Times writer appears to have studied no history. A 'memo' written in 1947 by the commander of Air Materiel Command at Wright Field in Dayton Ohio clearly states that it was possible at that time to build a similar aircraft as the 'flying discs.' It included the idea that that these aircraft were produced by some domestic entity unknown to them or the USAAF. Asking the same questions for decades has yielded no other answers. Assuming that some UFOs crashed does not identify them since that information is not available aside from a select few.

Even the title is misleading. It should read: "Want hard evidence for UFOs? You won't find it here."
Well did they ever discover who this so called unknown domestic entity was then, after all it has been over seventy years later?
 

galgot

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2006
Messages
826
Reaction score
707
Website
galgot.com
The New York Times writer appears to have studied no history. A 'memo' written in 1947 by the commander of Air Materiel Command at Wright Field in Dayton Ohio clearly states that it was possible at that time to build a similar aircraft as the 'flying discs.' It included the idea that that these aircraft were produced by some domestic entity unknown to them or the USAAF. Asking the same questions for decades has yielded no other answers. Assuming that some UFOs crashed does not identify them since that information is not available aside from a select few.

Even the title is misleading. It should read: "Want hard evidence for UFOs? You won't find it here."
Well did they ever discover who this so called unknown domestic entity was then, after all it has been over seventy years later?
them :
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iT-erlyuCpY

Burp... sorry.
 

edwest

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
945
Reaction score
203
The New York Times writer appears to have studied no history. A 'memo' written in 1947 by the commander of Air Materiel Command at Wright Field in Dayton Ohio clearly states that it was possible at that time to build a similar aircraft as the 'flying discs.' It included the idea that that these aircraft were produced by some domestic entity unknown to them or the USAAF. Asking the same questions for decades has yielded no other answers. Assuming that some UFOs crashed does not identify them since that information is not available aside from a select few.

Even the title is misleading. It should read: "Want hard evidence for UFOs? You won't find it here."
Well did they ever discover who this so called unknown domestic entity was then, after all it has been over seventy years later?

I have already posted that according to the head of Air Materiel Command:

f. It is possible within the present U.S. knowledge -- pro-
vided extensive detailed development is undertaken -- to construct a
piloted aircraft which has the general description of the object in sub-
paragraph (e) above which would be capable of an approximate range of
7000 miles at subsonic speeds.


Where did this knowledge come from? From technical personnel at Wright Field and "interrogation reports." Based on my research, a classified program at Lockheed led by Nathan Price yielded a high speed VTOL aircraft by 1953. The Americans were usually behind the Russians.
 

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
3,685
Reaction score
1,240
The New York Times writer appears to have studied no history. A 'memo' written in 1947 by the commander of Air Materiel Command at Wright Field in Dayton Ohio clearly states that it was possible at that time to build a similar aircraft as the 'flying discs.' It included the idea that that these aircraft were produced by some domestic entity unknown to them or the USAAF. Asking the same questions for decades has yielded no other answers. Assuming that some UFOs crashed does not identify them since that information is not available aside from a select few.

Even the title is misleading. It should read: "Want hard evidence for UFOs? You won't find it here."
Well did they ever discover who this so called unknown domestic entity was then, after all it has been over seventy years later?
them :
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iT-erlyuCpY

Burp... sorry.
Imagine indeed if she buuuuuurped and belched like a Barney, Simpsons style, trembling lips included... somebody should tweak that video with a loud Barney belch...
 
Top