/sci/ - Science & Math

>>7732358
No.
Discussing controversial ideas on /sci/ to get a meaningful conversation is essentially impossible, because you have to rely on fucking 4chan outputting rational discourse norms and charitable discussion.

Getting serious discussion of uncontroversial ideas which are agreed to be false is even harder, because now you need all of that plus everybody thinks the idea is stupid.

(Yes, whether UFOs are real is controversial, if your reference class is /sci/entists and /x/philes. Among /sci/entists, it's uncontroversial, much like the controversy over Earth's shape or the Moon landing.)

>>7732365
>Agreed to be false
Exactly. Why the U-turn? Nothing has ever come up to debunk the sightings that Project Sign had decided were real so why are they now dismissed? It is my belief that the government started the process of ridicule and silence in order to prevent Cold War panic. It could have been the Russians fucking with us therefore best to act like we never saw anything and are unrustled.
>Discussing controversial ideas on /sci/ to get a meaningful conversation is essentially impossible, because you have to rely on fucking 4chan outputting rational discourse norms and charitable discussion.
You are totally right, why do I even bother. We can't even have a civil discussion on climate change here.

>>7732380
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Sign

>This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.
>This article needs additional citations for verification. (February 2010)
>The neutrality of this article is disputed. (February 2010)
>This article is written like a personal reflection or opinion essay that states the Wikipedia editor's particular feelings about a topic, rather than the opinions of experts. (February 2010)

>Wikipedia is already a dubious source that is really unwise to cite about topics people have strong opinions on
>Pick a page Wikipedia already agrees is garbage
>Bam, this'll support my argument!

>>7732382
That is an issue with every wikipedia page ever. This is the poorest attempt at a debunking I have ever seen. Have you got any actual proof that Project Sign is bull beyond "the wiki on the subject is badly sourced"?

>>7732391
No; I had in fact only vaguely heard of Project Sign and had not even read the page when posting that. I just pointed out that this was an inauspicious start to you trying to discuss UFOs as a serious topic.

I have no explanation for the weirder, better-supported UFO encounters; all I can say is "Wow, that's really weird and I have no explanation for it, but it's so inexplicable can't even rule out that it's actually something totally banal."

I think we are late for aliens.

To not break causality but generate a theoretically possible state of a given space (You and the alien in a room) requiers the alien and you to be "born" within a close range of causality. Since you will interact the moment you meet.

Of course it's possible, just very unlikely, to work around those rules and "pop into existence" within close causality, bringing the space to pop into with you.

The probability is just much higher for linear causal events then for complex causalities like popping up. The alien will more likely be born and grow and fly around the universe instead of "popping into existence".

So since the universe is ever growing and we have reached maximum probability-density 2 billion years ago. I think it's more likely that something very very close to the visit of aliens to earth has already happend just very very far away to an earth very much like ours, but in a moment were causality was in closer range (e.g. the universe smaller) and the probability-density of the system a bit higher.

It's possible for aliens to have evolved, built a civilization and started travelling space just like how humanity have achieved. They only need to have done that a few thousand years before us to build much superior transportation devices.

But aside from all those I truly believe most "UFO"s people see are manmade military vehicles. It makes much more sense than assuming its aliens from light years away.

>>7732358
Depends on what kind of discussion you want to have

>>7732358
>Is it possible to have a rational UFO discussion
No.

>>7732592
>what kind of discussion
He wrote "rational", how much more explicit do you require? fgt pls

>>7732358
It's not that the idea is controversial or absurd. It's that the idea is stale. It's just plain stale.

You're not even likely to get a decent chunk of /sci/ to argue against you. You're more likely to get ignored.

If YOU seriously want to have a discussion about it, and want to have such a discussion here on /sci/, it's kind of dependent on you bringing intriguing information to the table. Don't misunderstand that as the "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" argument. It's not that. It's more "I see these posts all the time, I don't even consciously notice them anymore, even after reading the OP."

Yes, it would be possible to have a rational UFO discussion on /sci/. It won't arrive from broad/general discussion points though.

For instance, try asking /sci/, "Why is Dr. Greer not a credible source?" or "Can anyone explain the faults of the physics logic behind his idea scalar field weapons?"

Threads opening up with that would have some clearly defined direction, and also show that you're open to some critical reasoning and skepticism (hence why you probably came seeking discussion after pondering about it.)

And people on /sci/ like that. You'd be likely to get a few people who aren't even familiar to watch one of Dr. Greer's videos just to so they can contribute their reasoning.

But if you just post a Greer video and say "WHY IS THE GUVMENT STILL HIDING THE TRUTH? WHAT ARE THE FACTS, /SCI/??" Half of /sci/ is going to think you're just shitting around. Another half is going to think you're delusional and beyond having a conversation with.

TL;DR
/sci/ is open to discussing most topics, as long as you present yourself as being open to new perspectives and ideas. Nobody enjoys arguing with legitimate conspiracy theorists.

>>7732608
This.

Were not here to build a conversation from some vague topic for you.

If you have something specific to discuss well discuss it.

>>7732574
What the fuck am a reading

>>7732581
>>7732581
OP here, yes Russian craft was an explanation given by Project Sign.
>>7732608
>>7732839
/sci/ says UFO sightings are all swamp gas, So I posted proof that people high up in the government way smarter than you came to the conclusion that some of the witnesses really did see something unexplained therefore UFOs in the literal sense are real.
>>7732401
Well good, at least you accept that some UFO sightings are genuine which is the aim of this thread. I am not trying to push the alien hypothesis.

>>7732358

In the 1950s, after a flurry of intrusions alarmed the Truman administration, the US Air Force ordered their pilots to shoot them down as soon as they violated restricted air space around nuclear installations. Within about a year the USAF lost almost 200 fighter planes and their pilots. The order was then rescinded. (Stanton Friedman on KGRAradio)

"We have stacks of reports about flying saucers. We take them seriously when you consider we have lost many men and planes trying to intercept them."
(Gen Benjamin Chidlaw, Head of Air Defense Command, 1953)

www.google.com/search?q=1950+order+to+shoot+down+ufo

>>7732391
>Have you got any actual proof that Project Sign is bull

Yes.

>muh common sense

>>7733042

Ah yes...the 1950's.....a time when everybody thought the best answer to the UFO problem was to "shoot them down".

hahaha

In addition, none of the three services or any other agency of the Department of Defense is conducting experiments, classified or otherwise, with disk-shaped flying objects which could be a basis for the reported phenomena. As previously reported, there has been no evidence that the phenomena are attributable to the activity of any foreign nation.

C. H. SCOTT
Lt. Colonel, USAF
Public Information Officer

>>7732581
>It's possible for aliens to have evolved, built a civilization and started travelling space just like how humanity have achieved.
My favorite theory on this is that our junk dna is a storage medium for aliens who didnt have enough space on their drives. Abductions are only retrieving that data

>>7732917
>/sci/ says UFO sightings are all swamp gas, So I posted proof that people high up in the government way smarter than you came to the conclusion that some of the witnesses really did see something unexplained therefore UFOs in the literal sense are real.

Yes, there have been flying things that were never identified. Literally everyone (even on /sci/) agrees with this because there's documented evidence. Now what? Are we supposed to aimlessly speculate on what they could be?

>>7734030

Researchers who worked for 13 years in the Human Genome Project indicate that they came across an amazing scientific discovery: They believe that the so-called 97% of non-coding sequences in the human DNA is nothing less than the genetic code of extraterrestrial life forms. Originally referred to as "Junk DNA" its function remained a mystery for researchers. Now researchers believe that our DNA is extraterrestrial in origin.

Professor Chang further explained "Our hypothesis is that a more advanced extraterrestrial civilization was engaged in creating new life and planting it on various planets. Earth is just one of them." He indicates that "What we see in our DNA is a program consisting of two versions, a giant structured code and a simple or basic code."

"Sooner or later, we have to accept the fact that all life on Earth carries the genetic code of our extraterrestrial cousins and that evolution is not what we think it is."

>>7734073
>aimlessly speculate..
No need. The ET presence has been observed and is well documented. The more important question is why do we accept that officialdom is lying to us for more than half a century.

Do we have a silent war in space?

What does /sci/ think of the Doctor of otherworldly gains?

A plant, or the real thing?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHxGQjirV-c

>>7734160
your evidence is irrefutable

>>7734160

It's a hydrazine tank.

Go to >>/x/

>>7736875
>A plant, or the real thing?
Not important but thanks for posting. It's the message, not the messenger and all that counts is the content presented. In my view it is mostly factual, documented evidence interspersed with some conjecture of a mostly technical nature. Based on what? The de facto standard text book written by a well trained historian. Volume 3 will be the final part.

What is this trash doing in /sci/, it belongs in /x/

>>7736925
>>7738101
The fear of losing your religion?

>>7738387

I tried to look up some of the sources in the thread such as >>7734091, Professor Chang doesn't even exist. This whole thread is full of bullshit that you are desperate to believe so you'll accept anything easily without question.

>>7732917
>Well good, at least you accept that some UFO sightings are genuine

Define "genuine". I accept that a significant percentage of UFO sightings are not hallucinations, lies, or delusions, if that's what you mean. (I know at least one extremely strange sighting my father had, and he's extremely grounded*) I suspect virtually all of the remaining sightings are misinterpreted, distorted, or unusual forms of already known phenomena.

But there are a handful of fairly-well-documented cases that are really, really weird, and I'm not so confident in my understanding of the universe to claim that they must simply be mass hysteria or something. (Nor am I so confident as to claim they must not be.)

Now, this doesn't mean they're ayyliens. In fact, I'd bet good money that alien spacecraft have never visited our solar system.

But, like, look at Roswell - it was never aliens, but in the 90s the government finally admitted that it really was a massive air force coverup. (It was a classified system for monitoring Soviet nuclear activity by sampling radioactive isotopes in the upper atmosphere called Project Mogul. Which was carried by a weather balloon.)

And I'm not sure that it's a coincidence that a bunch of saucer-shaped UFO sightings appeared shortly after the government began secret testing of hovering, saucer-shaped Coanda-effect aircraft, even though that test program supposedly failed.

And there's many strange cases I can't think of any explanation for that feels totally satisfying.

*(After being completely inexplicable for thirty years, he eventually saw it again; it turned out to be a helicopter's lights, while the helicopter was at just the right angle and rocking just so.)

>>7732391
Burden of proof, you first produce credible evidence and then there is an actual discussion to be had

>go to /x/
UFOs are about advanced science, not ghosts.

People are drawing too quick conclusions from own views.

UFO = Unidentified Flying Object. That is all. Really.

So if you see something flying across or even standing still in the sky and you don't know what it is, it is a UFO. Usually it will be something like a star, a planet (Venus is a popular UFO) or just the overnight flight to New York.

...

......

~*Burp* Class Dismissed.

>>7732358
>Is it possible to have a rational bigfoot discussion on here without virgin mods deleting the thread or sperglords shouting /x/! I don't know how you can call yourself a scientist and at the same time dismiss a phenomenon for which there is official photographic documentation.

The discussion belongs on /x/, because UFOs are highly-reported, never-evidenced phenomena, just as are ghosts, bigfoot, el chupacabra, and witches.

That the government has documentation of UFOs does not legitimize them, as even the best-run governments are still staffed by people, and even intelligent people are entirely capable of believing false things for which there is no evidence.

The event of seeing something and not knowing what it is, that is of course a real event, which *must* happen, and has happened for as long as people have had eyes to see.

When multiple events of people not knowing what they're seeing happen, there is a base human impulse to connect them, and suspect that there is one single unknown thing that is responsible for the independant events. This is precisely why the ideas of bigfoot, ghosts, and UFOs take root so easily. They connect seperate events which independantly have high levels of uncertainty about them, and our brains "enjoy" ideas that accomplish precicely this.

But the evidence for UFOs being a single phenomena and not merely a series of unconnected I-don't-know-what-I'm-seeing events, is nonexistant. Reported sightings are all either tremendously vague, or totally unalike.

That people have seen things they can't identify is a fact. By that definition, UFOs can be claimed to exist, but to suggest anything more than that is to step firmly away from /sci/ and toward /x/.

I came across this a while ago
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1561_celestial_phenomenon_over_Nuremberg
Most convincing ufo thing I've seen yet, even tho it's way old.

>>7732581
that looks like someone just smeared bread dough on a plastic puppet and let it go bad

what a waste of good dough :(

>>7739958

Ugh.

Yeah, it's convincing so long as you know nothing about interstellar distances and really like Star Wars.

Can a mod please kick this thread over to /x/, or just kill it? This is NOT within the scope of /sci/.

>>7739969
Hide the thread. Why couldn't ayylmaos be fine with traveling 100.000 lightyears? Esp. if they are software and will experience the travel as instantaneously.

>>7739973

People shouldn't have to hide threads that don't belong on this board, and for which a board it belongs on exists.

As for your question, ask /x/, it's that way. ---->

>>7732358
Control f ""wow signal", zero results. Shame, shame, shame. It is the best indication of alien intelligent life, even if unconfirmed, yet not mentioned here. That is very disappointing.

>>7738578
>And I'm not sure that it's a coincidence that a bunch of saucer-shaped UFO sightings appeared shortly after the government began secret testing of hovering, saucer-shaped Coanda-effect aircraft, even though that test program supposedly failed
OP here, I have forwarded exactly this as a hypothesis on /sci/ before and even that got attacked by neckbeards.
>>7739911
Venus is not a UFO, a UFO is something that is unidentifiable, Venus is clearly identifiable to the trained eye. If someone sees something, they tell smart people and even they cant explain it then its a UFO. Venus would not pass that test.
>>7739914
>>7739915
>>7739916
>Posting tinfoil bullshit in order to discredit my arguments
Great way to do science guys, keep the strawmen coming.
>>7739944
Where do I even begin with this, you have just told me that you are basically smarter than the entire government. "Their research into it doesnt make it legitimate phenomenon because everyone working in the government is a retard compared to me some 20 something student who knows that its all clearly swamp gas." wow arrogance much? And FYI there is plenty evidence it just gets dismissed as fake all the time. A pilot said he saw a UFO over Washington state, everyone said he was lying despite him losing his job for saying it, the radar logs from the control tower backed up what he said, everyone just switched to saying the radar was coincidentally faulty.

No proof of UFOs.

Nothing physical at all.

Nothing to go on.

>>7740003

The average /x/ post, gentlemen.

>>7740006
If you're the average /sci/ poster you're not doing much better you'reself.

>>7732358
>High level government officials
We might be 13 months away from this idiot being a "high level government official".
And don't forget that Nancy Reagan consulted astrologers to help plan the President's travel schedules.

>>7732391
>That is an issue with every wikipedia page ever.
No, it's really not. His first four lines are issues I almost never see on Wikipedia pages.

>>7734091
>Professor Chang
That's the oriental version of Mr Smith. A.k.a. nobody.
You, anon, are full of shit

>>7740040

You haven't heard of Professor Chang? He's a student of Li Ding and Yu On.

>>7740027
Holy shit, this entire thread has been nothign but strawmen
>Bigfoot is clearly bullshit threfore the completely unrelated UFOs are
>Donald Trump is a retard therefore the Air Force top brass 50 years ago were also retards
It's not so much the stupidity of /sci/ that annoys me for this is 4chan after all, it's the fact that you all claim to have above average IQs yet argue like 12 year olds.

>>7740042

It's impossible to have a discussion between two parties, about a thing that does not exist, and which one of the parties ferverently believes exists, and have that discussion not resemble 12-year-olds argueing.

Look into threads about developments in fusion power and you will see rational discussion. But threads about ufos will always look like this, as will threads about ghosts and god.

>>7740005
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Tehran_UFO_incident

From the mouth of the U.S Defence intelligence Agency,
Alongside the report there was a form from the DIA which assessed the quality of the report. The form indicated in checked boxes that the content was of high value, that the report was confirmed by other sources, and that the utility of the information was potentially useful to them. The form from the DIA also stated the following:

"An outstanding report. This case is a classic which meets all the criteria necessary for a valid study of the UFO phenomenon:

a) The object was seen by multiple witnesses from different locations (i.e., Shamiran, Mehrabad, and the dry lake bed) and viewpoints (both airborne and from the ground).

b) The credibility of many of the witnesses was high (an Air Force general, qualified aircrews, and experienced tower operators).

c) Visual sightings were confirmed by radar.

d) Similar electromagnetic effects (EME) were reported by three separate aircraft.

e) There were physiological effects on some crew members (i.e., loss of night vision due to the brightness of the object).

f) An inordinate amount of maneuverability was displayed by the UFOs."

The only skeptical explanation ever given was that it was Jupiter which is ridiculous and quite insulting to the Iranian air force. This also implies that fighter jets made in the USA are pieces of shit if the mere sight of Jupiter can jam their weapons systems. Dismissing it as Jupiter is fucking lazy, it was far more likely to be some sort of top secret military aircraft.

>>7733558
That's a pretty typical response from a public information officer in any topic when dealing with things like foreign agencies getting ballsey and entering airspace when they shouldn't. The public need not know when that happens because they might misinterpret it, or it might give up that we know me about the craft than we're letting on and whether classified information backs this up is unverifiable to the general public. Nowadays, even those with the proper clearance don't necessarily have the "need to know", so it's even hard for those with the credentials to verify.

>>7740051
You have just assumed it doesn't exist. That's not even arguing, you are also still throwing out the strawmen (ghosts and god).

>>7740054

No physical proof.

>>7740042
>Top brass 50 years ago
So generals, joint chiefs, secretary of defense, etc? If you're talking about that one lt colonel, that's not top brass. That's not even close. That's an O-5 paygrade. They're rarely even given a command at that rank.

>>7732380
>It could have been the Russians

From what I've read so far no one really assumed that. The military was aware of the ET nature of the UFO phenomenon right from the beginning, certainly after the Roswell incident when they started their well documented ridicule and disinfo campaign.

This may be the origin of the 'tinfoil' meme:
http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/ABC_Roswell_1947.mp3

The 'swamp gas' meme seems to be of later origin and was first pushed by J. Allen Hynek in 1966. At that time Hynek acted as scientific advisor to UFO studies undertaken by the U.S. Air Force.

" It was a short time later that Hynek held the infamous press conference at the Detroit Press Club and suggested that a possible explanation for the recent sightings might have been marsh or swamp gas. The explanation became a front page story the next day in papers across the country and Hynek became the butt of jokes and cartoons. He was ridiculed to such an extent that Michigan Congressman Gerald Ford (later President Ford) asked for a Congressional investigation. It was one of Hynek's worst moments. "

The following is really worth listening to:
http://www.earthfiles333.com/earthfiles/audio/mp3/EarthFilesEpisode56_high.mp3

The 1980 Rendlesham Forest incident - The British Roswell?
Interview with Richard Dolan, a lot of UFO history (including the 1976 Tehran incident >>7740054) and thoughts about global secrecy and the paradox of disclosure (impossible and unavoidable).

>>7739958
Why in the name of all that's extraterrestrial was my post deleted?
Pic related
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1561_celestial_phenomenon_over_Nuremberg

this thread sure is rational

>>7739978
No, it is a better indication of random noise than it is intelligent life until similar signals can be observed again from the same general region of space. A lack of credible, reproducible evidence leads to random guessing, not science, and thus has no place on this board.

The wow signal definitely is interesting though, it is a pity we haven't found anything else since

This unscientistic remnant of undomesticated curiosity

earthfiles333.com

Episode 62 – June Crain, UFOs and Wright Field, 1942-1952

An Aberdeen, Washington, police detective, James E. Clarkson, interviewed 72-year-old June Crain Caba before her 1998 death about her work at Wright Field, Ohio, where she held a SECRET Q clearance, knew about UFO crashes in New Mexico and retrievals of non-human bodies, and even held in her own hands “spaceship” metal that always returned to its original shape.

Also: Jim Marrs, Episode 23 and Episode 24

>>7740337
Hynek was an interesting character. Initially he started off with the purpose of discrediting everything because he thought UFOs were ridiculous. Then over the years he became less convinced and eventually changed his mind altogether and founding an institution to investigate them.

He also later on admitted that in his earlier reports he would at times reach for any possible explanation that discredited the UFO.

Note, it's not that he believed in all of the stories and stuff but rather that he believed that this was a topic that people should approach rigorously (scientifically) and that there were cases for which he did not know of any reasonable explanation.

About the swamp gas:
>In late March 1966 in Michigan, two days of mass UFO sightings were reported, and received significant publicity. After studying the reports, Hynek offered a provisional hypothesis for some of the sightings: a few of about 100 witnesses had mistaken swamp gas for something more spectacular. At the press conference where he made his announcement, Hynek repeatedly and strenuously stated that swamp gas was a plausible explanation for only a portion of the Michigan UFO reports, and certainly not for UFO reports in general. But much to his chagrin, Hynek's qualifications of his hypothesis were largely overlooked, and the term swamp gas was repeated ad infinitum in relation to UFO reports. The explanation was subject to national derision.

and about the scientific method:
>"Ridicule is not part of the scientific method, and people should not be taught that it is. The steady flow of reports, often made in concert by reliable observers, raises questions of scientific obligation and responsibility. Is there ... any residue that is worthy of scientific attention? Or, if there isn't, does not an obligation exist to say so to the public—not in words of open ridicule but seriously, to keep faith with the trust the public places in science and scientists?"[5]

>>7740832
OP here
>Hynek was also distressed by what he regarded as the dismissive or arrogant attitude of many mainstream scientists towards UFO reports and witnesses
Yep exactly what I am trying to say in this thread.

>tfw seriously considering buying a telescope in order to search for alien spacecraft
Talk me out of it guys.

>>7740863

Where would you look?

>>7740892
Was just gonna go to a random field at night and wait to see if I see anything unusual in the sky. Apparently 11% of astronomers see UFOs so it's not a terrible idea. I have actually seen/heard two "ghosts" however I totally don't believe in ghosts and never will so for me it's not just about visual evidence it's visual evidence + plausibility. I believe UFOs are plausible as opposed to ghosts so I just need the evidence to make me believe fully.

>>7740907

So, satellites?

>>7740907
Speculate all you want but the reality is right in front of you whenever you are ready to accept it

>>7740931
You are retarded, Thousands of UFOs are recorded every month but where are you going to take the evidence? The government? Most no longer have UFO reporting services and if they do it's extremely underfunded and understaffed so your photo gets warehoused along with the others. The press? They aren't interested, UFO stories are not only cliche but will damage their reputation if they are an upmarket paper. Scientists? They will tell you to fuck off. Even if your picture did make it to the media it will be called fake because everyone will quote the large increase in photoshop usage means anyone can make UFO pictures in 2015 The only people taking the photos are private UFO investigators such as MUFON but they are largely publicly derided as tinfoils so there is really no point. It's chicken and the egg here, you make it extremely socially unacceptable to talk about UFOs and then wonder why no-one is talking about UFOs anymore.

Here is a recent UFO photo, but what are you gonna predictably say? That it's fake

>>7740956

Yo, where's your thousands of UFO evidence then? Post proof.

>>7740984
not him. but mufon is one place you can look
http://mufoncms.com/cgi-bin/report_handler.pl?req=search_page
and then there are individual countries' archives, like this one in the uk
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ufos/

inb4
>i'm not reading all that

>>7741011

I'm looking at them, but most of these just seem to be smudgy blurs or vague lights.

Nothing very distinctive.

>>7732917
>sci/ says UFO sightings are all swamp gas, So I posted proof that people high up in the government way smarter than you came to the conclusion that some of the witnesses really did see something unexplained therefore UFOs in the literal sense are real.
A textbook appeal to authority. If you want to have a meaningful discussion, don't start your thread with a logical fallacy.

>>7740956
could just be light reflections in the window they took the picture from.

Why doesn't any other organization on Earth announce that ayylmaos are real?

Why is it only Burgerclap who holds that information super secret?

Proof

https://youtube.com/watch?v=MvacG_nhD34

I've seen UFOs with my own eyes. There are two groups of people in this world: those that have seen for themselves, and those who don't know either way. Debunkers fall into the second category.

One ayylmao engineer talks to another ayylmao engineer. They've gotten the order to either hide themselves from the civilisation they are observing or showing themselves to them. Obviously, they've got all kinds of technology, like anti-gravitation, super fast acceleration and acceleration suits, impossible to detect stealth technology with special mirrors that make visibility impossible. So what do they do? They decide to make the ships as bright as possible and bring them close either civilians or the air force. End of the story? Both were fired and executed by Emperor Myxvc997( erwgfds 34c2 orders.

>>7741050
>Burgerclap -- sounds hostile to me

I think it's a global phenomenon. Assuming UFO density follows power density, a nation that prides itself to "pee on everybody's tree" in the world naturally attracts more attention? Plus INTERNET, MUFON, DOLAN et al. The internet focus are the USofA. Do related Russian or Chinese sites even exist? No idea.

Why do I still think it is a global phenomenon?
Collective evolution and the common 'matrix of power' model of governance. (/blurb)

Comic courtesy hiddenexperience blog

>>7741122
Of what ffs?

>>7741018
sure, but that's not what's interesting anyway
i mean look at this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gepFUTloIbs
you are probably completely unconvinced by it, and quite rightly

if you read a lot of ufo reports you start to see a few commonalities and patterns which are suggestive of a real physical phenomenon

>>7741935

That's a nice video, it doesn't look obviously fake.

The problem is that I've lived in China and I know that everyone and their dog in the cities has a cameraphone so such a thing would have been recorded from a hundred different angles and splashed all over the net.

Do you have multiple videos of this?

>>7742551
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leebTWq74JQ
desu there are a ton of 'pyramid ufo' youtubes, i suppose they are easy to make

>>7742628

That one looks more fake, yeah.

Got any more interesting videos?

>>7742634
i don't think they are interesting

How bad is radiation in space?
Is it just bad enough that with poor shielding like they used on the Apollo mission to only harm health, genes but still keep the humans alive.

The astronauts came back alive but with multiple health problems that never been cured. They also claimed that when they reached the Van Allen belt they saw lots of flashing dots even with their eyes closed, and that was the effect of radiation bombardment trough the retina.
There is no room for discussing that it was a hoax the tsunami of evidence is speaking for itself but the radiation is one problem that keeps me thinking.

>>7742762

>muh particle radiation

Let me just put up a piece of paper to shield me.

>>7742762
fwiw

>>7742796
Fuck yes, well the last nail in the coffin was beaten down for me... Thank you kindly anon.

Also found this qt girl that has some valid points.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BEylTGOlQ8

>>7742830

That whole moon landing hoax meme is obviously some propaganda psyop, and only a fool would take it seriously.

>>7732358
>Is it possible to have a rational UFO discussion
No.

>>7732358
>officials and scientists came to the agreement that UFOs were real
and after that both officials and scientists came to the agreement not to talk about it.

I listened to a series of UFO conference presentations and read some in part detailed historical stuff.

Subjective Summary:

They are here, and have been 'forever', in one form or another, and they meddle with human affairs. They demonstrated particular interest in all matters nuclear and military and alarmed the security sector when they made ICBMs go offline and even edited the missile's target data. Not good.

What do?

- Now you could say that seen from a wider perspective they were more like a fly on the cake or a bee on the drink, annoying but not really a threat to civilization. Adapt to your natural environment. Sure, they do silly things and even abduct, but you are way more likely to get killed by a bee. Can we have some meaningful communication? Can we make a deal? I mean, they don't run on petrol, do they.

Switch planet..

.. Switch planet.

- Steal their technology. The program was driven by the immense WWII loot and Truman decreed it all a state secret and trusted it to the agency thereby retaining plausible deniability and creating a major player in global finance. In July, 1947 they retrieved 3 crashed foreign technology samples to start with, including biological samples, 3 dead and 1 alive. And they had almost all the paperclips and virtually infinite resources from the black economy run by the agency.

One alien hypothesis claims that Einstein's dream was in fact completed in secret - by unnamed others, including experimental verification. The usual suspects pop up, Tesla, von Neumann..

Advanced physics - the physics of the unified field - is considered proprietary intellectual property. You will not find it in the beer review loop of public consumption. It is a privatized needtoknow class business secret. It cannot be taught in colleges and universities and no related research will ever be funded because the vested interest of academia will not permit it, or will it.

So we have a subterranian economy that dwarves the surface economy and a vastly advanced societal sector in camouflage: The Breakaway Civilizaton - No-Petrol(tm). Hm..

That's the plot.

The question of secrecy

*paste*

From: Ann A. Lien - Collective Evolution and the Global "Matrix of Power" Model of Governance

The global problem of the hierarchy is that power needs secrecy and secrecy runs on lies and deception. Driven by the fear of losing control this speeds up until the cancer of secrecy consumes all the resources you can extract from the population. This is the tipping point. Your civilization collapses and the next dynastic cycle begins. This is repeated until the lesson is learned and saved. Then you graduate into a new experiential model.

Your are now on level 3dsts of the 'matrix of power' model. In this model the tipping point spells exam time for humanity and the default is repeat..

The challenge is the collaborative debugging of a running script in the book of history - and to exit the time loop.

The ET presence on this planet is a wildcard in this game of power and control. The current avatar is the proverbial elephant in the dining room (of the mind) you are not supposed to notice or at least not talk about. Don't ask, don't tell. This is being taken care of by the trusted ridicule factor.

And then it ROARS and you will shock and you will awe and you will lose your religion and then all hell breaks loose..

Collective evolution.