Well, I see Unk p hasn't changed. ?
T.S.S.S
(The Soupy Sales Salamander)
If I ever run for political office it’ll definitely be as a member of “annual salamander orgy”
I’ll show myself out. ?
@unk-p. I knew my salamander story was somehow related to the topic of U.F.O.s and it wasn't just an excuse to post his cute face. By the way, herpetologists (the salamander-ologists) call them Sally's. Really. Boy or girl, they are called Sally.
No salamanders at my house. We do have geckos. My dog goes bonkers when he sees geckos on our sliding glass door. He also goes bonkers when he hears an owl hoot. One is a guard dog bonkers bark (owl) the other is an "I am so excited to see you friend" bark (gecko). He's kinda weird though. He is afraid of crickets. He jumps. Seriously jumps when he sees a cricket...He hasn't learned to fly like a bird yet though. Just jump like a cricket.
@lovendures laughing at the thought of that enormous big shaggy boy jumping at the site of a cricket.
https://futurism.com/former-military-official-unidentified-objects-years-ahead
Former US Military Official: Unidentified Objects “a Hundred to a Thousand Years” Ahead of Our Tech
"They are very capable and in some cases more capable than anything in our own inventory."
Obama jokes he was told there's no secret government alien lab but said video of UFOs is real
Makes sense that they would keep it secret, especially if they are utterly clueless in how to defend against them.
What a fascinating -- and funny-- new forum topic. My new favorite, and a perfect read at the end of a bad day. Thanks for the info and laughs! :)
I was thinking more about all these personal testimonies from military personnel and scientists coming forward over the years who were involved in US government projects to investigate UFOs - Bob Lazar for example was asked to reverse engineer and turn on the recovered parts of an ancient craft that had crashed thousands of years ago. He has said he just one of many scientists who were employed to come up with ways to get the parts working again and figure out how they functioned. He described the situation being that nobody had come close to figuring it out including himself. But said it's likely the technology they had recovered was likely operated by their mind - as there were no mechanical parts, buttons, wires or chemicals.
Which begs the question, why hire scientists? Why not ask mediums/psychics/spiritually attuned people to look at this stuff? Why not take a look at it from spiritual angle as well?
As for why these beings appear to observe but not directly interfere, it could be that there is some weird cosmic law that prohibits interference and perhaps they are not allowed to help us until we evolve more to a point where we stop hurting ourselves and destroying the planet? Perhaps we also have to evolve more spiritually too?
The documentary that I recommended on the previous page (Close Encounters of the Fifth Kind) touches on these subjects.
Namely, the makers of this doc allege that aliens are in fact capable of inter-dimensional travel, which accounts for some of the seemingly impossible maneuvers captured on video. They also say that their purpose in appearing to us is to prompt us to elevate our consciousness -- to reach what they term 'universal' or 'cosmic consciousness.'
The makers of the film advocate a 'going inward' and regular meditation practices as the means by which this 'ascension of consciousness' (if you will) can be achieved; they use the findings of scientific studies to argue that only 1% of the population is necessary to help elevate the remaining 99%.
Very intriguing overall.
Sorry I forgot about your post from the previous page.
I have seen the trailer of that documentary and that looks really interesting. I will try and watch it soon. ?
UFO's have been in mainstream news a lot lately because of an upcoming government report on the subject. I'm late coming to serious scientific discussions on UFO's, but apparently the U.S. government is finally willing to release reports on what they call Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP's).
One scientist says that the reason the subject has been taboo is that there have been so many non scientific reports and accounts on UFO's that the whole field has become too woo-woo for them. \
It would be a good thing if the taboo is lifted and an array of scientists from a wide range of disciplines could study the many accounts pilots have reported and even photographed that they cannot explain. I think that may be about to happen.
Here's a recent opinion piece in The Washington Post about it:
I couldn't read the article in the link - it asks me to make a monthly paid subscription.
For those who can't read Jeanne's link - here is another link (hopefully it overs the same detail) which gives a summary on the UFO report that is due soon:
https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/ufos-are-make-way-us-senate-know-rcna973
There was also another piece in the news concerning new footage from the US Navy radar systems encountering UFOs:
@luminous @coyote, here is UFO article I tried to link:
Opinion by Ravi Kopparapu and Jacob Haqq-Misra
May 26, 2021 at 4:05 p.m. EDT
Ravi Kopparapu is a planetary scientist at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. Jacob Haqq-Misra is a research scientist at the Blue Marble Space Institute of Science.
With a government report due in June on unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) and a recent “60 Minutes” story on U.S. Navy pilots’ sightings and videos of mysterious images, prominent people in politics, the military and national intelligence are finally asking: What are we looking at?
It’s the wrong question — or, at least, it’s premature.
Before we get to what these mysterious phenomena are, we need to be asking how we can figure out what they are. This is where scientists, notably absent from the current UAP conversation, come in.
For too long, the scientific study of unidentified flying objects and aerial phenomena — UFOs and UAPs, in the shorthand — has been taboo. A big driver of that taboo is the vacuum of knowledge that is being filled by unscientific claims thanks to a lack of scientific investigation.
In recent decades, science has focused on aspects of extraterrestrial inquiry, including the search for signs of life on other planets — think the Mars rover— and techno-signatures — radio signals that appear to emanate from outside Earth.
The research has been complex, evidence-based and demanding, pulling in scientists from across disciplines and all around the globe. The same should be true for the exploration of UAP sightings. If we want to understand what UAP are, then we need to engage the mainstream scientific community in a concerted effort to study them.
Decades ago, the notion of serious research on UFOs wasn’t out of the question.
In the late 1960s, a U.S. Air Force-led effort called Project Blue Book examined thousands of UFO reports from the 1950s and 1960s. In 1968, however, another report, commissioned by the Air Force and conducted at the University of Colorado to examine UFO research to that point, stated that “nothing has come from the study of UFOs … that has added to scientific knowledge.” Soon after, the Air Force shuttered Project Blue Book. About 700 of the more than 12,000 cases remained “unidentified” at the close of the project.
Despite this, distinguished scientists including astronomer Carl Sagan, physicist James E. McDonald and astronomer J. Allen Hynek thought UAP should be investigated scientifically. McDonald, a professor of meteorology and member of the National Academy of Sciences, conducted a rigorous analysis of a few UAP cases that Project Blue Book highlighted as unexplainable.
McDonald documented his methods — extensive interviews with witnesses, detailed accounting of their observations, examination of radar and other technology possibly implicated in the sightings — in “Science in Default,” which he presented in a 1969 American Association for the Advancement of Science symposium. He relied on evidence-based investigation and consideration of all the available data (rather than cherry-picking one instance of an event). He argued that much of the 1968 report was biased and shallow.
“Doesn’t a UFO case … warrant more than a mere shrug of the shoulders from science?” he wrote.
We need to frame the current UAP/UFO question with the same level of active inquiry, one involving experts from academia in disciplines including astronomy, meteorology and physics, as well as industry and government professionals with knowledge of military aircraft, remote sensing from the ground and satellite observations.
Participants would need to be agnostic toward any specific explanations with a primary goal of collecting enough data — including visual, infrared, radar and other possible observations — to eventually allow us to deduce the identity of such UAP. Following this agnostic approach, and relying upon sound scientific and peer-reviewed methods, would go a long way toward lifting the taboo in mainstream science.
Without robust, credible data mined by mainstream scientists, UAP studies will always be viewed as fringe science. With a systematic collection of new data, and access to all existing data, we can apply scientific rigor to what has been observed and documented.
Ultimately, understanding UAP is a science problem. We should treat it that way.
