23 hours ago, dmwalker said:

secret nuclear weapons storage site which nobody even knows about.

I understand what you are saying, but... whoever built the site must know it's there and what's stored! 😁

1 hour ago, n4gix said:

whoever built the site must know it's there and what's stored! 

The builders may not know the actual purpose of the facility but, if they did, I suppose they would be sworn to secrecy. The main thing is not to let the neighbouring community know. If they hear about UFOs doing things around a nuclear weapon storage site, they won't care about the UFOs. They'll be protesting about being stuck next to all those nuclear weapons.

18 hours ago, DaviiB said:

 

All I'm pointing out is that if you have a model (Paradigm) that is wrong at it's basis, but still sort-of works for explaining observed effects, something that might seem "orders of magnitude" more complex than current, accepted science might actually turn out to be much more simple if you were to correct the underlying assumption at the basis of your model.

 

DB

 

 

Yes, I’m very aware of the point you are making, but our understanding of “the model” isn’t as far off the mark as it would need to be to enable inertial dampening, antigravity, faster than light travel, or interdimensional travel as a “much more simple” endeavor. We actually understand the concept of inertia quite well, and it’s highly unlikely that we are “wrong enough” to render inertial dampening “much more simple”. You used the example of the Earth once being considered flat. But the point is that no paradigm has ever, in the history of the scientific method, been so wrong as to open the door to extreme, exotic capabilities.

And as I said, we can’t say that its impossible for a model to be so fundamentally wrong that it opens the door to hyper exotic technologies and renders them “more simple” as you say… but what we can do is consider “probability”. And the probability of such a thing is very low. And the probability of advanced physics and material science being required to enable such a thing is very high.

Again, consider probability and likelihood. Is it far more likely that “ultra capable” crashed alien spacecraft are a rare occurrence, and that dead alien occupants are also rare or non-existent? I think you’ll find that’s more likely to be the case.

IF there’s any truth in the claims of Grusch, my guess is that some of it will have validity and some of it won’t.

Edited June 28, 20232 yr by martin-w

On 6/28/2023 at 9:06 AM, martin-w said:

Yes, I’m very aware of the point you are making, but our understanding of “the model” isn’t as far off the mark as it would need to be to enable inertial dampening, antigravity, faster than light travel, or interdimensional travel as a “much more simple” endeavor. We actually understand the concept of inertia quite well, and it’s highly unlikely that we are “wrong enough” to render inertial dampening “much more simple”.

What if it's not inertia that needs to be dampened? If we observe something that appears to be immune to the effects of inertia, my takeaway is that inertia has been circumvented (excluded from the picture), rather than overcome. The former implies a complete, fundamental understanding of why the effect takes place, rather than an effort to engineer a way through it.

e.g. You don't need to overcome the drag of water if you just fly through the air.....or in this case, you might have to solve a whole host of other problems, but inertia may not be one of them.

We could understand the effect of inertia very well....enough to utilize it everywhere, but that doesn't mean we really understand exactly what it is, or why it happens.

 

On 6/28/2023 at 9:06 AM, martin-w said:

You used the example of the Earth once being considered flat

I used the example of the Earth being considered the center of the solar system (or galaxy?).....and the resulting necessity for very complex math to explain the movement of objects (planets etc) in the sky under that paradigm. 

 

On 6/28/2023 at 9:06 AM, martin-w said:

But the point is that no paradigm has ever, in the history of the scientific method, been so wrong as to open the door to extreme, exotic capabilities.

Like going from sailing the seas at 5kts to flying above it at 500?  (the original paradigm being that heavier-than-air flight is impossible) <<Not the best analogy, but things that seem benign to us today (with a relatively straight-line history of advancement) would seem almost magical to someone from 100-200 years ago.

 

On 6/28/2023 at 9:06 AM, martin-w said:

And as I said, we can’t say that its impossible for a model to be so fundamentally wrong that it opens the door to hyper exotic technologies and renders them “more simple” as you say… but what we can do is consider “probability”. And the probability of such a thing is very low. And the probability of advanced physics and material science being required to enable such a thing is very high.

Agreed, however the question must be asked in the face of evidence of things we consider "impossible".

If we have evidence of a technological craft performing in a manner that our laws of physics consider impossible, we need to take another look at the laws of physics, because it seems we may have missed something.

The material science and engineering advancements required to make something useful out of an effect might be more advanced, but the effect itself could be a fairly basic one. Remember, we still don't understand the fundamental nature of light....it seems to act differently when directly observed, than when unobserved. That alone implies that there is something fundamental we just don't understand. We see the affect, but don't know why it happens. Imagine if we figured that out...

 

On 6/28/2023 at 9:06 AM, martin-w said:

Again, consider probability and likelihood. Is it far more likely that “ultra capable” crashed alien spacecraft are a rare occurrence, and that dead alien occupants are also rare or non-existent? I think you’ll find that’s more likely to be the case.

I get what you're saying, although we don't have enough information to work out the probability on that.

The hypothetical I proposed was that these technologies (or some of them at least) may not be quite as technologically "exotic" as they may seem, and could just be a result of a different branch of technological development, rather than a super advanced one.  << This makes more sense if you acknowledge that human technological advancement might not be a "typical", or even common path for a civilization (we've had some setbacks, and pressures to move in particular directions along the way).

So what's most "probable", is only probable within "our" context, and is rooted in information derived from a sample of one. 

I hope that makes sense.

 

Cheers,

DB

22 hours ago, DaviiB said:

What if it's not inertia that needs to be dampened? If we observe something that appears to be immune to the effects of inertia, my takeaway is that inertia has been circumvented (excluded from the picture), rather than overcome. The former implies a complete, fundamental understanding of why the effect takes place, rather than an effort to engineer a way through it.

 

Not relevant. My same comments apply. 

 

22 hours ago, DaviiB said:

Like going from sailing the seas at 5kts to flying above it at 500? 

 

Which is orders of magnitude less impressive than a mega jump to inertial dampening (or circumvention) antigravity, interdimensional travel, relativistic velocities etc. 

 

22 hours ago, DaviiB said:

If we have evidence of a technological craft performing in a manner that our laws of physics consider impossible, we need to take another look at the laws of physics, because it seems we may have missed something.

 

 IF the evidence is valid.

At the moment all we have is "what people say" a few ATFLIR videos including misinterpreted rotation (gimble video - its not rotating) so called "go fast" ATFLIR video that's been shown not to be going fast, pilots claims of cubes in spheres and tic tac UAP claims, claims of radar tracks but no data available to look at. And now we have Grusch claiming he was "told stuff" and Rubio claims others have "told him stuff".

So yes, if the claims above are presented in the form of real evidence, and physics defying maneuvers a reality, then no doubt many more scientists will take a look. They may take another look at physics, and/or they may try to figure out how the physics we know can explain such things and perhaps if less accepted theories can be relevant.

 

22 hours ago, DaviiB said:

I get what you're saying, although we don't have enough information to work out the probability on that.

 

Yes we do. Its far more likely that  alien ships that come here are far more advanced than us, rather than they simply had a lucky, serendipitous event that gave them exotic capabilities.

 

22 hours ago, DaviiB said:

The hypothetical I proposed was that these technologies (or some of them at least) may not be quite as technologically "exotic" as they may seem, and could just be a result of a different branch of technological development, rather than a super advanced one

 

I know, I've already giving you my reply, previously. The probability of there being a weird branch of technology we've never found in hundred of years, that would enable exotic stuff, has a low probability, obviously. Not impossible, but low probability. 

 

There's not much more I can say to you in this conversation. We are going around in circles. 

Edited June 30, 20232 yr by martin-w

7 hours ago, martin-w said:

At the moment all we have is "what people say" a few ATFLIR videos including misinterpreted rotation (gimble video - its not rotating) so called "go fast" ATFLIR video that's been shown not to be going fast, pilots claims of cubes in spheres and tic tac UAP claims, claims of radar tracks but no data available to look at. And now we have Grusch claiming he was "told stuff" and Rubio claims others have "told him stuff".

An aside:

We're discussing claims that the DoD has been illegally hiding information, programs and evidence from Congress, and the public for almost a century, but only considering evidence that the DoD itself has released in the last 5 years? That makes no sense. Need to broaden the scope. 

It's worth pointing out that the body of evidence (including official documents and claims from credible individuals) far exceeds what has been released in any official capacity in the last 5 years.

To state otherwise after any amount of cursory research would be greatly mischaracterizing the situation. 

 

As for going in circles. Sure. Perhaps we should just sit back and watch what happens from here. 

Let's move it forward:

Take a look at the proposed legislation being put forward for the next Defense Authorization Act. It purposes to strip funding from any off the books programs and gives contractors 60 days to declare, and 6 months to turnover any recovered UAP materials in their possession.

Not sure if it will have any teeth though, since if these programs are already illegal, I don't see an incentive for them to suddenly comply with the law. 

 

DB

John Grenwald makes an excellent case for why we should be highly skeptical of the claims.

 

 

1 hour ago, martin-w said:

John Grenwald makes an excellent case for why we should be highly skeptical of the claims.

 

 

Regarding Greenwald's logic on the DOPSER review process:

He lays out a well thought out argument. The problem is that it rests on the assumption that an (alleged) off the books, illegal program is following official rules for classification and review. 

Leslie Kean also stated in a recent interview that Grush's DOPSER request was approved overnight, much to their surprise. That doesn't allow for the process (vetting / verifying) that Greenwald describes. 

What does the quick turnaround imply? I have no idea, but it doesn't suggest a thorough review process, as described.

In any case, Greenwald's argument is assuming that there would be official evidence of something that's of the books.... like expecting the cartel to file their taxes correctly. 

The DOPSER request was also submitted long after the complaint was filed, and evidence presented to Congress, so the official ball was already rolling either way. (however relevant that might be) 

DB

4 hours ago, DaviiB said:

 

The DOPSER request was also submitted long after the complaint was filed, and evidence presented to Congress, so the official ball was already rolling either way. (however relevan

 that might be) 

DB

 

 

Well yes, but the complaint and evidence presented to congress was not in the public domain. I think what Greenwald is saying is that the DOPSER request would have been denied and he wouldn't have been able to speak in public if what he says is going on, really is. Even if there really is come kind of "off the books" illegal program, DOPSER would have enquired at a higher level and any suspicion from the upper echelons that it was valid would have resulted in the request being denied. 

 

4 hours ago, DaviiB said:

Leslie Kean also stated in a recent interview that Grush's DOPSER request was approved overnight, much to their surprise. That doesn't allow for the process (vetting / verifying) that Greenwald describes. 

 

I think we would need to know if "overnight" is being used as a common expression for quickly or if it was literally overnight. I don't trust journalists top be honest. 

5 hours ago, martin-w said:

Well yes, but the complaint and evidence presented to congress was not in the public domain. I think what Greenwald is saying is that the DOPSER request would have been denied and he wouldn't have been able to speak in public if what he says is going on, really is. Even if there really is come kind of "off the books" illegal program, DOPSER would have enquired at a higher level and any suspicion from the upper echelons that it was valid would have resulted in the request being denied. 

Why would there be any suspicion of validity if the program is off the books, and people at a higher level aren't read into it?

 

5 hours ago, martin-w said:

I think we would need to know if "overnight" is being used as a common expression for quickly or if it was literally overnight. I don't trust journalists top be honest.

It was literal.

Here's the transcript from Leslie Kean's interview with Ezra Klein of the New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/20/podcasts/ezra-klein-podcast-transcript-leslie-kean.html

Quote

I have to say, though, that the second review, which was made, which was the one that included the really important statements that he made in the story, happened literally overnight. And that was — I don’t know if I’ve ever said that before publicly, but it did. He submitted it, and he got his response the next day, saying, yes.

So I can’t imagine that it went through too much overnight. We were just stunned. Was it just a clerk who just sort of signed off on it that fast? Or did they just not bother to read it?

I see no chance of that review being anywhere near as thorough as Greenwald implies, if that is the case.

Also, Leslie Kean has a fairly long track record of good journalism. Her reporting on this issue has been quite restrained and stuck to information that she could corroborate, so to imply that she would exaggerate, or lie on a detail like this is a bit much no?

 

DB

1 hour ago, DaviiB said:

Why would there be any suspicion of validity if the program is off the books, and people at a higher level aren't read into it?

 

Because they would asses if it was plausible, and if any doubt, tell DOPSER not to grant it, they wouldn't take chances. Greenwald made that very point, that just because an entity isn't "read in" doesn't mean they just say "oh right then, just grant permission." Slightest suspicion that there might be validity and no way would Grush have been allowed to speak in public. The request would have been denied. The only possible way DOPSA or any entity above that department would grant pension for Grusch to speak in public is if his words were definitively regarded as completely harmless.

And as Greenwald said, if it was as simple as "not read in" so no knowledge, so just grant permission, then there would be numerous examples of embarrassing balls up's from the department.

What does Keene mean by the second review that included the really important statements? If its the crashed craft and dead alien's, then it may have been granted quickly because they deemed it obvious nonsense and didn't require more time for something they knew to be rubbish. Any suspicion of validity, whatsoever, and no way would they have granted permission so quickly. Permission granted quickly, from a department not known to have "oops" moments suggest to me that they were certain it was a plie of rubbish and thus harmless. 

 

1 hour ago, DaviiB said:

Also, Leslie Kean has a fairly long track record of good journalism. Her reporting on this issue has been quite restrained and stuck to information that she could corroborate, so to imply that she would exaggerate, or lie on a detail like this is a bit much no?

 

I've not implied anything of the sort, I just said I don't trust journalists in general.

Her investigations into mediums exuding ectoplasm raise an eyebrow, but that's up to you to decide for yourself.

I don't trust journalists in general, and when you have journalist who specialize in the UFO phenomenon and it becomes "what they are noted for" and part of how they earn a living, bias is always a possibility. Whether her reporting is biased or unbiased valid or invalid is something you will have to decide for yourself. 

I do think you have shown that you are a bit too much in favor of all of these claims being true, and I think you could benefit from being much more skeptical. 

My opinion is that IF any of this is true, then it will be one or two elements, and the rest will be fictitious. 

Edited July 1, 20232 yr by martin-w

15 hours ago, DaviiB said:

John Grenwald makes an excellent case for why we should be highly skeptical of the claims.

He refers to a report that Kirsten Gillibrand will head a hearing where Grusch and others will testify but this is quite separate from the Congressional Inquiry which will look at classified documents and photos submitted by Grusch, isn't it? Gillibrand will just require Grusch and others to testify under oath what they have already stated publicly. Is that correct? So the interest is to see how much their statements are modified when under oath. Have I got it all wrong? I find American politics rather confusing.

On 7/1/2023 at 3:09 PM, dmwalker said:

He refers to a report that Kirsten Gillibrand will head a hearing where Grusch and others will testify but this is quite separate from the Congressional Inquiry which will look at classified documents and photos submitted by Grusch, isn't it? Gillibrand will just require Grusch and others to testify under oath what they have already stated publicly. Is that correct? So the interest is to see how much their statements are modified when under oath. Have I got it all wrong? I find American politics rather confusing.

That was @martin-w you quoted, not me.

I'm not sure what would be the setup for these hearings, but Mr. Grusch has already testified under oath to congress in a classified setting. 11 hours or so.

 

DB

4 hours ago, DaviiB said:

Mr. Grusch has already testified under oath to congress in a classified setting. 11 hours or so.

Where can I find that information? All I can find is:

"Representative Anna Paulina Luna was tasked, alongside Representative Tim Burchett, with getting a hearing scheduled regarding the Grusch claims on behalf of the House Oversight Committee" (June 21, 2023)

and

"Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, who led a Senate hearing on UFOs in April 2023, said she intends to hold a hearing to assess whether 'rogue SAP programs' existed 'that no one is providing oversight for'." (June 13, 2023)

3 minutes ago, dmwalker said:

Where can I find that information? All I can find is:

"Representative Anna Paulina Luna was tasked, alongside Representative Tim Burchett, with getting a hearing scheduled regarding the Grusch claims on behalf of the House Oversight Committee" (June 21, 2023)

and

"Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, who led a Senate hearing on UFOs in April 2023, said she intends to hold a hearing to assess whether 'rogue SAP programs' existed 'that no one is providing oversight for'." (June 13, 2023)

I think this is referring to an open hearing (non-classified). 

They may want to get him to testify to his current (non classified) claims under oath in an open setting. 

DB