Whistleblower Intelligence Officials Claim U.S. Has Retrieved 12+ Spacecraft Of NON-HUMAN Origin

[AxeElf 787]

5 minutes ago, RogerDodger said:

If you have anything that backs up that statement I'm all ears, otherwise this is turning into a snooze fest.  

And that brings us back to DOH!

This is where I assert that anyone who needs remedial education regarding the size and relative emptiness of the universe probably is not qualified to discuss this topic rationally, just like I did last time you axed.

58 minutes ago, AxeElf said:

I'm sorry, but I expect that the general size and emptiness of the universe should be commonly-understood concepts to anyone with an interest in the likelihood of alien visitors.  I don't feel compelled to provide citations to establish those facts.

 

[AxeElf 787]

But I'm feeling generous.

Here's a good starter article:

Interstellar Travel

(Pay particular attention to the "Feasibility" section.)

[nobody 1,916]

One thing that's interesting to me is the National Security angle.

Why is the existence of extra terrestrial life on earth a matter of national security?

Is it because we're worried other countries will run out and find alien vessels too and we want to keep it secret so we can keep all the sweet alien tech to ourselves?  Wouldn't other countries be interested in alien vessels anyway if alien vessels were lying around?  It seems kind of an obvious thing to do.

Do we think it'll cause mass panic?  If so, isn't this whistle blower treasonous?  I.e., he's knowingly divulging classified information that would harm the country.

The whole thing just seems odd.  Aliens came to earth.  Presumably only to the US (of course) or presumably multiple countries are aware of these aliens, but we've successfully kept it secret.

 

[Blue Horseshoe 348]

On 6/6/2023 at 6:28 AM, Fireballer said:

I’m open to anything being possible, but I have some questions. What are we talking about as far as construction of these vehicles?  Are they made of elements that we are unfamiliar with?  What fuels propel them? How do you explain the sheer time that it would take to travel here?  Are they traveling at speeds beyond our comprehension?  How do the vehicles survive that speed?  And many more.

 

 

 

Fireballer, you are asking some great questions. I appreciate them greatly. 

While people here can argue if the claims by Grusch are true or not, part of the interesting discussion is what might be possible based on our current understanding of science. 

The first video is a bit rudimentary, but it covers some of the topics you want to cover. 

[Blue Horseshoe 348]

On 6/6/2023 at 11:58 AM, AxeElf said:

No, you don't KNOW that, you believe that.

And there is an almost infinitesimally small chance that you are right.

 

 

Saagar Enjeti of Breaking Points used to work for The Hill. He mentioned in his own video on the topic that The Hill was one of several outlets who were approached by Grusch and his legal representation and turned down the story. Obviously there is some conflict on what can or can't be confirmed as the Congressional records are currently sealed from the public. But it should be noted that now they have chosen to run the story only a few days later. 

So The Hill can't get into sealed records but they can vet the bona fides of Grusch and others involved here through their existing DOD contacts. It's not "proof of life" but it was enough to generate this as "newsworthy"

Whether or not you agree, it's interesting to see if other media outlets, particularly the "major" MSM core players also start to shift one by one here. 

[Blue Horseshoe 348]

On 6/6/2023 at 11:58 AM, AxeElf said:

No, you don't KNOW that, you believe that.

And there is an almost infinitesimally small chance that you are right.

 

 

"Follow The Money"

Let's say this either very real, partially real or totally fabricated. In any instance, looking at the "money" pathway is still critical. If someone is lying and fabricating this then what is the incentive base to do so?

Marco Rubio supports Grusch. Now given Rubio's location, his district and his donors, it's in his personal political/power interests to see the US Space Force receive it's desired budget and keep getting increasing budgets. Point to note is that part of the reason that the US Space Force exists now comes from two issues ( there are others, but I consider these critical) 

1) In the age of speed of information and cameras everywhere, it's close to impossible for the USAF to conceal it's formerly "quiet" own insular space program from the public. It's not uncommon knowledge, but the DOD has long previously maintained that NASA was the primary American operational front for space exploration. 

2) It was becoming harder and harder to conceal the USAF's long standing program within various "black budgets"  (i.e. "Follow The Money" was harder to hide) 

I respect the people here who want to believe Grusch. I respect you if you don't. 

But a critical point I want to make is that if you want to denounce it, then the money pathway is a more practical explanation to give to others. Who directly benefits? How would they benefit? What are their existing relationship/political pork pathways right now? This dovetails into actual motive. 

You can keep telling people that they are wrong, over and over, if that's your personal opinion and if you want to roll your free speech that way. But IMHO it ignores the salient motive and money angles here. 

[AxeElf 787]

21 minutes ago, Blue Horseshoe said:

You can keep telling people that they are wrong, over and over

With a topic such as this, there's really no definitive way to demonstrate that anyone is wrong.

All we can do is estimate the likelihood of being right--and as I have told those who believe that aliens have visited Earth, there is an almost infinitesimally small chance that they are right.

But I could never say definitively that they are wrong.

[GutterBoy 2,276]

This was a good read, watching dumb people trying to act smart with 3rd grade debate tactics.

[jerryskids 4,797]

2 hours ago, AxeElf said:

Nonsense.  I am speaking from what IS known about the universe.

I've never said that.

Well, we have ruled out life on Mars (or any other planet in the solar system) that is developed to the extent of visiting other planets. let alone spanning interstellar distances--and those are the life forms that are the topic of this thread.

We've what now?  Please provide evidence of the bolded claim.

Weird that we agree on the basic premise that we probably haven't been visited by intelligent life, yet you are such a doosh I find myself wanting to argue with you.

 

[AxeElf 787]

1 minute ago, jerryskids said:

We've what now?  Please provide evidence of the bolded claim.

Kind of like being axed to provide RodgerDodger with evidence of the size and relative emptiness of the universe, I kind of feel that if I have to provide you with citations to establish that there are no life forms in our solar system currently capable of interstellar travel, that you're not really going to be able to benefit much from the information anyway.

Sorry.

[RogerDodger 797]

6 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

We've what now?  Please provide evidence of the bolded claim.

Weird that we agree on the basic premise that we probably haven't been visited by intelligent life, yet you are such a doosh I find myself wanting to argue with you.

 

He moved the goal posts and changed what I said to we've ruled out life on Mars that can space travel. 

[RogerDodger 797]

12 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

This was a good read, watching dumb people trying to act smart with 3rd grade debate tactics.

Says the guy who can barely read. 

[Blue Horseshoe 348]

28 minutes ago, AxeElf said:

With a topic such as this, there's really no definitive way to demonstrate that anyone is wrong. All we can do is estimate the likelihood of being right--and as I have told those who believe that aliens have visited Earth, there is an almost infinitesimally small chance that they are right. But I could never say definitively that they are wrong.

 

 

You are absolutely correct. 

The practical odds are infinitely small. But you and I are both here right now. The odds of us being born, being born in the age of technology where we can communicate like this from nearly anywhere on the globe, and fortunate enough to be born likely into some form of abundance against all of recorded human history, is also a thin sliver of hope against all odds. 

Our very existence, both you and I, can be seen as a pure miracle or the result of an incalculable number of events that had to have happened before we showed up on planet Earth.  So I won't correlate directly to Grusch's claims and the above video as some kind of "proof of life"  What I can say is the odds don't always end up the way we think it will. Nearly all of the time, it's fairly safe to make that bet. But let's see what happens. 

What we can do, as I've stated before, is talk about the practical mechanics of what we do currently understand. 

For example, if aliens did exist and they are in our practical airspace, what does that do to our economy? If you can't guarantee the safety of commercial airliners, then what happens via a ripple effect on the American economy, then what will domino into the entire world economy?

Those are the aspects of this conversation that I think can be explored without assessing validity or not of Grusch. Just my take on it. 

[RogerDodger 797]

1 hour ago, AxeElf said:

And that brings us back to DOH!

This is where I assert that anyone who needs remedial education regarding the size and relative emptiness of the universe probably is not qualified to discuss this topic rationally, just like I did last time you axed.

 

 

8 minutes ago, AxeElf said:

Kind of like being axed to provide RodgerDodger with evidence of the size and relative emptiness of the universe, I kind of feel that if I have to provide you with citations to establish that there are no life forms in our solar system currently capable of interstellar travel, that you're not really going to be able to benefit much from the information anyway.

Sorry.

A - The universe is not empty at all if you consider dark matter and dark energy. 

B - The ask is that you provide evidence that your perception of it being empty translates to a low probability of other life forms traveling to earth. 

You're now at two claims to provide evidence for that the majority of physicists disagree with:

1 - The universe is empty. 

2 - The universe being empty (its not) makes it unlikely extraterrestrial life can travel to earth. 

I wont hold my breath.  

 

[HellToupee 533]

 

[Gepetto 879]

I just find incredibly odd that the whistleblower has no first hand visual confirmation for himself that craft let alone dead aliens are in possession of the US Govt yet this is the person going public.  Where is the just one retired if not current US official and/or scientist that has first hand visual that won't go public?  What's the big deal keeping it secret if it's true?

[RogerDodger 797]

1 hour ago, AxeElf said:

But I'm feeling generous.

Here's a good starter article:

Interstellar Travel

(Pay particular attention to the "Feasibility" section.)

The feasibility section that only addresses Humans traveling to other stars?  The exact opposite of what we've been taking about?  That they are even considering it points to the fact that any more advanced life form with more resources than us would have a good likelihood of being able to space travel. It appears you're proving yourself wrong.  

And I have some news for you, what you refer to as empty space contains more energy than the rest of the universe combined.  By a factor of 4 or 5.  Dark energy contains over two thirds of the energy that makes up the universe.  

[AxeElf 787]

43 minutes ago, Blue Horseshoe said:

You are absolutely correct.

That's what I keep telling people!

44 minutes ago, Blue Horseshoe said:

The practical odds are infinitely small. But you and I are both here right now. The odds of us being born, being born in the age of technology where we can communicate like this from nearly anywhere on the globe, and fortunate enough to be born likely into some form of abundance against all of recorded human history, is also a thin sliver of hope against all odds.

This is kind of a misconception, in that the odds of anything happening after it has already happened is always 1.0 (or 100%).

51 minutes ago, Blue Horseshoe said:

For example, if aliens did exist and they are in our practical airspace, what does that do to our economy? If you can't guarantee the safety of commercial airliners, then what happens via a ripple effect on the American economy, then what will domino into the entire world economy?

To me, that's kind of like investing the resources to develop a plan in case some future technology allows someone to move Mount Rushmore into the sea.

Is it a possible threat?  Sure.  Is it likely to become an actual threat?  Let's say there's an almost infinitesimally small chance...

[AxeElf 787]

1 hour ago, RogerDodger said:

A - The universe is not empty at all if you consider dark matter and dark energy. 

Well, since those are purely theoretical, let's not consider them.

The matter that we know exists makes up about 5% of the universe.

1 hour ago, RogerDodger said:

B - The ask is that you provide evidence that your perception of it being empty translates to a low probability of other life forms traveling to earth. 

Maybe a visual aid?

Consider the two "universes" below; one densely populated in the neighborhood of Earth (the X) with life-sustaining planets (the zeroes), and the other sparsely populated in the neighborhood of Earth:

UNIVERSE ONE

0 0 00  0000  00 0 0 00 00 0 0 

000 0 0 000 0 00 0 0 000 0 0 

 0 0 0 000 000 X 0 0 000 0 0 0

00  0 00 0 000 0 000 0 00 0 0

00 0 00 000 000 000 0000 0 0

UNIVERSE TWO

0                                                0 

                                       

                          X  

 

                0 

I think the evidence suggests that interplanetary contact between species is of a low probability in Universe Two, compared to the probability in Universe One.

You can breathe now.

[AxeElf 787]

25 minutes ago, RogerDodger said:

The feasibility section that only addresses Humans traveling to other stars?  The exact opposite of what we've been taking about?

It's the exact SAME problem that we've been talking about, facing any species that would attempt interstellar travel.

26 minutes ago, RogerDodger said:

That they are even considering it points to the fact that any more advanced life form with more resources than us would have a good likelihood of being able to space travel.

"More resources"???  Not just more resources, but more resources by several orders of magnitude!

Did you not read that article?

"Brice N. Cassenti, an associate professor with the Department of Engineering and Science at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, stated that at least 100 times the total energy output of the entire world [in a given year] would be required to send a probe to the nearest star."

And that's just a probe!  Let alone a manned craft!!  To only the nearest star!!!

31 minutes ago, RogerDodger said:

And I have some news for you, what you refer to as empty space contains more energy than the rest of the universe combined.  By a factor of 4 or 5.  Dark energy contains over two thirds of the energy that makes up the universe.

That's not really news; the theory has been around for a few decades now, but having found no support for the theory in real life (other than the conditions which led to the theory in the first place), physicists are now considering that the observed gravitational inconsistencies for which dark matter was proposed to resolve might rather be caused by errors in our gravitational theory instead.

In any case, whether the universe is mostly empty space, or chock full of invisible unicorns and fairies, my original point remains that the distances involved make interstellar contact unlikely.

[GutterBoy 2,276]

Roger dodger getting destroyed like he always does

[RogerDodger 797]

15 minutes ago, AxeElf said:

Well, since those are purely theoretical, let's not consider them.

They aren't theoretical, they need to be there for the laws of relativity and conservation of energy in the universe to hold.

Hey, lets discount 70% of the energy in the universe that may be available to an advanced life form!  

Guy can't explain why a vast universe would make travel unlikely and finally comes up with "mostly empty" which hasn't been current physics in over a decade. 

[RogerDodger 797]

3 minutes ago, AxeElf said:

It's the exact SAME problem that we've been talking about, facing any species that would attempt interstellar travel.

"More resources"???  Not just more resources, but more resources by several orders of magnitude!

Did you not read that article?

"Brice N. Cassenti, an associate professor with the Department of Engineering and Science at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, stated that at least 100 times the total energy output of the entire world [in a given year] would be required to send a probe to the nearest star."

And that's just a probe!  Let alone a manned craft!!  To only the nearest star!!!

That's not really news; the theory has been around for a few decades now, but having found no support for the theory in real life (other than the conditions which led to the theory in the first place), physicists are now considering that the observed gravitational inconsistencies for which dark matter was proposed to resolve might rather be caused by errors in our gravitational theory instead.

In any case, whether the universe is mostly empty space, or chock full of invisible unicorns and fairies, my original point remains that the distances involved make interstellar contact unlikely.

It's not the same problem.  It's Humans vs Every Other Intelligent Life Form in 100 billion galaxies.

Resources 100 or 1000 or 10,000 fold isn't unimaginable.

The universe is not empty.  Study up on physics from the last couple decades and get back to us.

 

[Blue Horseshoe 348]

35 minutes ago, AxeElf said:

This is kind of a misconception, in that the odds of anything happening after it has already happened is always 1.0 (or 100%).

 

 

You see where I'm going with all this. 

Listen, post the way you want to post. What I am asking is that if you are more scientifically oriented, that this thread is an opportunity to help enlighten some others with your background in these matters. There's an opportunity here to mix in some practical talk, even if you personally believe you are just humoring some people, with your other back and forth engagement. 

I've been more than fair to you. This is a more than fair request in good faith. But it's your choice. 

[RogerDodger 797]

10 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

Roger dodger getting destroyed like he always does

The guy learned physics from Wiki.  

[AxeElf 787]

Just now, RogerDodger said:

They aren't theoretical, they need to be there for the laws of relativity and conservation of energy in the universe to hold.

I don't think you're reading any of this.

First of all, they were theorized to explain why galaxies which appear to be whirling at speeds that would be expected to tear themselves apart do not, in fact, fly apart.  "There must be some mass there that we can 't see!"  So they have nothing to do with conservation of energy in the universe, and they affect the laws of relativity only to the extent of gravitational theory.

That said, I just got done citing the recent dismay over decades of finding no support for the theory in real life, which has driven physicists to consider that perhaps our gravitational theory requires some modifications.

This is where science differs from religion.  Scientists are able to pivot towards what the evidence indicates, even if that means that their previous understanding was wrong, while religionists continue to insist that the old understanding MUST be true, despite the evidence.

So you're sorta right; for our current gravitational theory to hold, something like dark matter and dark energy must exist.  But the prevailing winds are beginning to blow in the direction of modifying the gravitational theory to fit the evidence.

[AxeElf 787]

4 minutes ago, RogerDodger said:

Study up on physics from the last couple decades and get back to us.

I've been providing you lessons all along; I hope you're keeping up!

[AxeElf 787]

6 minutes ago, Blue Horseshoe said:

This is a more than fair request in good faith.

Not really sure what you're requesting.

[seafoam1 1,370]

1 minute ago, AxeElf said:

I've been providing you lessons all along; I hope you're keeping up!

Weepaws 2.0

[RogerDodger 797]

1 minute ago, AxeElf said:

I've been providing you lessons all along; I hope you're keeping up!

Mostly empty, where two thirds of the energy is.  

[RogerDodger 797]

Just now, AxeElf said:

Not really sure what you're requesting.

Shocker

[AxeElf 787]

Just now, RogerDodger said:

Mostly empty, where two thirds of the energy is.

Even if dark energy turns out to be real (and currently, its outlook is not good), we don't usually consider things being full if they only have energy in them.

Every empty box is full of energy, but the electromagnetic radiation in the box doesn't prevent you from putting things in it.

[seafoam1 1,370]

Just now, AxeElf said:

Even if dark energy turns out to be real (and currently, its outlook is not good), we don't usually consider things being full if they only have energy in them.

Every empty box is full of energy, but the electromagnetic radiation in the box doesn't prevent you from putting things in it.

God has all the answers. No need to question anything.

[RogerDodger 797]

8 minutes ago, AxeElf said:

Even if dark energy turns out to be real (and currently, its outlook is not good), we don't usually consider things being full if they only have energy in them.

Every empty box is full of energy, but the electromagnetic radiation in the box doesn't prevent you from putting things in it.

You forgot Dark Matter that fills up the rest that's not energy.  You don't really understand the basic equations do you? 

If your test for emptiness is if you can put something in it you're really limiting your understanding of physics.  

 

[JustinCharge 2,394]

1 hour ago, Gepetto said:

I just find incredibly odd that the whistleblower has no first hand visual confirmation for himself that craft let alone dead aliens are in possession of the US Govt yet this is the person going public.  Where is the just one retired if not current US official and/or scientist that has first hand visual that won't go public?  What's the big deal keeping it secret if it's true?

i read a horror story once that had an answer.  in the story, the space aliens were totally evil and would destroy us.  but luckily, only a few scout ships found our planet and were shot down before they could inform the rest.  if the goverment told the world, then some damn fool would actually send a signal to them and make contact, alerting them we exist and then theyd come and eat us all or something.

[RogerDodger 797]

An atom is mostly empty. Everything is mostly empty! Holy fok how am I traveling to work tomorrow !!!!-

[AxeElf 787]

4 minutes ago, RogerDodger said:

If your test for emptiness is if you can put something in it you're really limiting your understanding of physics.

And well we should, since our conversation is limited to the relative emptiness of the universe in terms of running across... well, most anything really, other than some theoretical gravitational corrections...  but specifically contacting (or being contacted by) another sentient lifeform.

So let's say my test for emptiness in regards to this conversation is if you can find a sentient lifeform in it.

There, I'll limit myself even further.

[AxeElf 787]

3 minutes ago, RogerDodger said:

An atom is mostly empty. Everything is mostly empty! 

Yes, but dense enough that the strong force takes over for gravity.

Basically every "solid object" is axually a force field.

[RogerDodger 797]

9 hours ago, AxeElf said:

Yes, but dense enough that the strong force takes over for gravity.

Basically every "solid object" is axually a force field.

Your brain is mostly empty. 

[GutterBoy 2,276]

On 6/6/2023 at 2:19 PM, RogerDodger said:

 

Gravity deforms space.

This was my favorite.  I think he meant to say distort.  It's clear the only thing deformed is his brain.