What's new
By:

An Alleged 1953 UFO Crash and Burial Near Garrison, Utah

Red said:
I wanted to point out, the original statement was 8x the speed of sound, not 8x the speed of light.
Click to expand...

Well, then no problems at all. That's what I get for not reading the thread, just the post that asked me the question.
 
LogGrad98 said:
What about an Einstein-Rosen bridge? If they are thousands and maybe even millions of years ahead of us that could theoretically be within their reach, right?
Click to expand...

For now Einstein-Rosen bridges/other types of wormholes are very much in the science fiction realm. That is to say, they have never been observed. Which is not to say that they COULDN'T exist... but if they do, they will have the exact same problem with causality that FTL travel has in general. In other words, there will be frames of reference in which the object emerges from the wormhole before it enters the wormhole. Could that be something that really happens? I don't know, but sort of doubt it. Most people believe in causality, i.e., that causes must precede effects. If it were to be discovered that sometimes the effects can precede the causes, that would certainly have a lot of philosophical and possibly religious implications in addition to the scientific ones.
 
Red said:
I wanted to point out, the original statement was 8x the speed of sound, not 8x the speed of light.
Click to expand...

He misinterpreted and exaggerated pretty much everything else I said, so it's not surprising.

That said, I threw 8×s out there. I couldn't remember what it was, but it was actually must faster. It was 30xs the speed of sound.

2) Sudden and instantaneous acceleration. The objects may accelerate or change direction so quickly that no human pilot could survive the g-forces—they would be crushed. In the Nimitz incident, radar operators say they tracked one of the UFOs as it dropped from the sky at more than 30 times the speed of sound.
Click to expand...

This is from the USS Nimitz report too. But we know @RandyForRubio is automatically going to dismiss that and say it never happened.
 
colton said:
For now Einstein-Rosen bridges/other types of wormholes are very much in the science fiction realm. That is to say, they have never been observed. Which is not to say that they COULDN'T exist... but if they do, they will have the exact same problem with causality that FTL travel has in general. In other words, there will be frames of reference in which the object emerges from the wormhole before it enters the wormhole. Could that be something that really happens? I don't know, but sort of doubt it. Most people believe in causality, i.e., that causes must precede effects. If it were to be discovered that sometimes the effects can precede the causes, that would certainly have a lot of philosophical and possibly religious implications in addition to the scientific ones.
Click to expand...
What about 30xs the speed of SOUND and clocked on radar?
 
colton said:
*This is according to Einstein's theory of special relativity. Now you might say that that theory could be wrong/incomplete. However, it's been tested a tremendous amount of times and has held up completely accurately to the tests, so even if it's wrong/incomplete, the correct/complete version of the theory would almost certainly still have these two issues.
Click to expand...
Speaking of Einstein theory of general relativity, it mathematically predicts the existence of wormholes.

What's your take on Wormhole Theory?
 
Archie Moses said:
He misinterpreted and exaggerated pretty much everything else I said, so it's not surprising.

That said, I threw 8×s out there. I couldn't remember what it was, but it was actually must faster. It was 30xs the speed of sound.



This is from the USS Nimitz report too. But we know @RandyForRubio is automatically going to dismiss that and say it never happened.
Click to expand...

Bruh.

I read it pretty quickly and got sos and sol mixed up. My bad.

Now chill.
 
Some of the information posted to this thread has involved observations by US Navy pilots, and the recent New York Times article mentioned the pilots they interviewed would feature in an upcoming History Network 6 part series. It's always good to know who is behind what, regardless of whatever subject matter is at hand. And since the pilots mentioned in this thread are about to be featured, one needs to know who is behind all this.

This is the group behind the 6 part History Network series, which begins tonight at 10pm Eastern:

https://coi.tothestarsacademy.com/

And these are the individuals who comprise the To the Stars Academy of Arts and Sciences:

https://dpo.tothestarsacademy.com/#offering-circular

It's at least possible to be impressed by the resumes of some of these individuals. For instance, Steve Justice is the retired Program Director for Advanced Systems at Lockheed Martin Advanced Development Programs, i.e., the "Skunkworks".

The fruit of their "entertainment division" is apparently the History Network program, but there have apparently been other television programs that have resulted from the involvement of this "public benefit corporation". This group was the brainchild of Tom DeLonge, who is recognized as the leader of a couple of rock bands, neither of which I am familiar with:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_DeLonge

Some of the most penetrating criticism of To the Stars have originated from within the UFO community. I certainly would expect anyone to take a closer look at To the Stars Academy, to dig deep. Here is one of the deepest critical looks at To the Stars that has so far been posted online. This guy just doesn't fool around:

https://www.theblackvault.com/casef...onge-and-the-secret-dod-ufo-research-program/

In addition to some of the individuals connected to To the Stars, I respect the pilots and their observations. That said, I'm always suspicious of the History Network's offerings, but whatever, we'll see.

Another thing I've noticed is that no network has been more serious about the topic, since the pilot videos appeared, or conducted more interviews, then Fox. Do they own the History Network? In another context, I could make jokes about Fox, but again, whatever. Here's an interview of Christopher Mellon, and a promo for the show.

 
Archie Moses said:
Speaking of Einstein theory of general relativity, it mathematically predicts the existence of wormholes.

What's your take on Wormhole Theory?
Click to expand...

General relativity doesn't really predict the EXISTENCE of wormholes; a better way might be to say, it predicts the POSSIBILITY of wormholes. It predicts they COULD exist, but doesn't say they MUST exist.

My take is that unless/until we see some experimental evidence for them--and right now I think there is none at all--I'm doubtful. As I mentioned above, if they do exist then causality is gone and that would be a hard pill to swallow. Perhaps no harder than the oddness of space contract/time dilation that came from relativity in the first place, and perhaps no harder than the craziness that is quantum mechanics... but a hard pill, nonetheless.
 
Archie Moses said:
Speaking of Einstein theory of general relativity, it mathematically predicts the existence of wormholes.

What's your take on Wormhole Theory?
Click to expand...
That was the same question I asked. That is essentially an Einstein-Rosen bridge.
 
I've NEVER been a physics professor, and I refuse to feel old. odd, OK.

Mathematics is one thing, so far as Einstein et al goes. About all I remember about my quantum mechanics course is that after working out the math and proving a certain hydrogen transition is forbidden/impossible, the guys with the telescopes and spectrometers found the radiation the forbidden transition emits when it happens.....

I appreciate Colton's skepticism on issues that are so speculative we haven't observed them yet. I don't wish to believe in time travel..... or Time Lords....

I might be genetically British, and as blue blooded as Bluebeard himself, or King Arthur for all that matters, but I insist on resisting sheer credulity.... on some points at least.
 
babe said:
I hardly take Bill Nye "The Science Guy" as authoritative on anything. He's a propaganda tool/fool.

Imagination is wonderful. Statist attempts to discredit it or talk us out of it are despicable. That's the worst thing about "socialist" literature or science.

Most people don't seriously believe much without some kind of reason, but then we do have "Coast to Coast" the Art Bell/etc. program where there is such an overwhelming nightly assault on reason, I don't think I really have to fear that human credulity is a lost art.

Still, I think it's reasonable that most of our tales of the unknown, particularly UFO phenomena, have human explanations and would be accepted as our own doing if we as a public had access to the facts.
Click to expand...

One doesn't have to be an authority on anything, per se, to render sound advice. Still, if I HAD to judge who between Bill Nye and you to trust on the basis on acquired knowledge and insightfulness, it wouldn't be you. The advice that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is good advice even if, well, you said it.

"Most people don't seriously believe much without some kind of reason." This is a tautology. Of course they have a 'reason' (perhaps not explicit or of which they are conscious), too often, however, the reasons are irrational and, not to put too fine a point on it, dumb.

"Still, I think it's reasonable that most of our tales of the unknown, particularly UFO phenomena, have human explanations and would be accepted as our own doing if we as a public had access to the facts."

I'd change that to 'natural' explanations.

There may be a 'supernatural,' but if you're going to convince me of it, both overall and in specific cases, you better be ready to present strong, objectively verifiable evidence.
 
The popular observation that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" has been referred to as the "Sagan standard", as Carl Sagan popularized it as much as anyone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagan_standard

It's a bit misleading, since extraordinary claims simply require evidence sufficient to prove those claims. The evidence need not be extraordinary, and labeling a claim itself as extraordinary is a subjective excercise to some degree:

"The aphorism has been criticized both for its apparent support of "orthodoxy" by raising the evidential standard for claims which are outside current social consensus, and for introducing subjectivity and ambiguity in determining what merits an "extraordinary claim". David Deming writes: "science does not contemplate two types of evidence. The misuse of ECREE ["extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"] to suppress innovation and maintain orthodoxy should be avoided as it must inevitably retard the scientific goal of establishing reliable knowledge."[2]

Extraordinary claims do not require extraordinary evidence. They simply require evidence that is sufficient to demonstrate the claim is correct.

Further, what is extraordinary in the eyes of consensus scientific opinion at one time, is not always seen as such at a later time. In our own lifetime, the "Clovis First" paradigm of American prehistory has finally fallen by the wayside, but that paradigm ruled American prehistory for generations. Claims of pre-Clovis prehistoric sites could lead to being ostracized. Best have tenure before one rocks the orthodox vessel. The evidence for pre-Clovis dates for the Monte Verde, Chile site was solid right from the start. But those dates were rejected, not because the claim lacked "extraordinary" evidence, but because it went against the orthodoxy of the time. In other words, the rejection of the claims was itself unscientific. Thomas Kuhn's seminal work, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, explained how science can advance grudgingly, so to speak. The old guard protects its cherished paradigms, and, as has been said, sometimes "science advances one funeral at a time."

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/61539.The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions
 
Last edited:
jimmy eat jazz said:
I'd change that to 'natural' explanations.

There may be a 'supernatural,' but if you're going to convince me of it, both overall and in specific cases, you better be ready to present strong, objectively verifiable evidence.
Click to expand...

If aliens/UFOs exist, their existence would be just as "natural" as our own. So yes, all UFOs have natural explanations.

Their space travel would be just as natural and science based as our own, just more advanced. It wouldn't be anything attributed to force beyond scientific explanation.
 
Red said:
The popular observation that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" has been referred to as the "Sagan standard", as Carl Sagan popularized it as much as anyone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagan_standard

It's a bit misleading, since extraordinary claims simply require evidence sufficient to prove those claims. The evidence need not be extraordinary, and labeling a claim itself as extraordinary is a subjective excercise to some degree:

"The aphorism has been criticized both for its apparent support of "orthodoxy" by raising the evidential standard for claims which are outside current social consensus, and for introducing subjectivity and ambiguity in determining what merits an "extraordinary claim". David Deming writes: "science does not contemplate two types of evidence. The misuse of ECREE ["extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"] to suppress innovation and maintain orthodoxy should be avoided as it must inevitably retard the scientific goal of establishing reliable knowledge."[2]

Extraordinary claims do not require extraordinary evidence. They simply require evidence that is sufficient to demonstrate the claim is correct.

Further, what is extraordinary in the eyes of consensus scientific opinion at one time, is not always seen as such at a later time. In our own lifetime, the "Clovis First" paradigm of American prehistory has finally fallen by the wayside, but that paradigm ruled American prehistory for generations. Claims of pre-Clovis prehistoric sites could lead to being ostracized. Best have tenure before one rocks the orthodox vessel. The evidence for pre-Clovis dates for the Monte Verde, Chile site was solid right from the start. But those dates were rejected, not because the claim lacked "extraordinary" evidence, but because it went against the orthodoxy of the time. In other words, the rejection of the claims was itself unscientific. Thomas Kuhn's seminal work, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, explained how science can advance grudgingly, so to speak. The old guard protects its cherished paradigms, and, as has been said, sometimes "science advances one funeral at a time."

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/61539.The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions
Click to expand...
Kind of like no scientist in the current scientific climate will ever publish anything against anthropomorphic climate change or decrying the speculative climate Doomsday scenarios. Those cherished paradigms must be protected.
 
One Brow said:
https://skepticalscience.com/peerreviewedskeptics.php

It's not that climate change deniers can't get published, it's that they don't bring a lot of evidence.
Click to expand...
But in the climate that @Red was discussing it would lead respected scientists who even had evidence to not attempt to publish for fear of having their reputations ruined by the establishment. Only those who don't care about that would attempt to publish, and likely would be scientists with less to lose and possibly less resources as a result. How can we see they aspect, those who stay silent because of worry about damage to their reputations by the establishment. Or even perhaps professional suppression within their circles preempting any attempts at publication?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top