The UFO phenomenon

[Stripe]

It's so simple that a child can understand it.

It takes years of exposure to the government schools to be able to boldly deny the facts the way Barbarian does.

 

[User Name]

You assume them folk are honest? I, for one, don't assume they are.

I don't simply assume they are honest either, but they do have one thing going for them: evidence, in the form of videotape. On the evening of their abduction experience, the fellow happened to record two UFOs on video, hovering silently above the lake next to their camp. Here is a link to that section of video:

https://youtu.be/KXVAIZdTbZc?t=354

What would you say that lady's saying, "...and soon, I was moving through the wall!", is evidence for? That she was moving through the wall?

Perhaps they did move her through the wall using some technology far in advance of our own, or it might have been a spiritual/out-of-body experience.

According to Christian theology, there is an angelic hierarchy including Seraphim, Cherubim, Thrones, Dominions, Powers (Virtues), Authorities, Rulers (Principalities), Archangels and Angels. And then there are the Nephilim of Genesis 6:4, who were the offspring of the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men." Many commentators believe that these "sons of God" were fallen angels who "came down" from the heavens and produced offspring with human women. These fallen angels were then "reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day" because they "kept not their first estate," according to Jude 6.

Some of the beings called "extraterrestrials" may not necessarily be physical beings from other planets. They may be angels of one kind or another, whether good and/or bad.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Yours is new.

No, Barbarian, it's not new.

You've been lied to:

https://creation.com/josephus-says-genesis-means-what-it-says

There's no point in denying it.

Don't be a revisionist historian, Barb.

Most Christians don't accept your revision.

An appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy, Barbarian.

It doesn't mean you aren't a Christian, it just means you don't agree with the traditional view of it.

You keep bringing this up, yet no one has said anything about salvation but you.

High horse, come off it.

St. Augustine

Augustine, as smart as he was, was wrong on his interpretation of the text.

pointed out that the text itself shows that the "days" (actually "yom") aren't literal days.

Sorry, but special pleading (that's another logical fallacy, by the way) doesn't help you, Barb. Yom does in fact mean a literal day.

It also, in addition to that, has other meanings.

But the meaning of yom is ALWAYS determined by the context.

And the context of Genesis 1 does NOT allow for it to be anything other than literal days.

No Christian at the time was williing to argue that finding with him.

So what?

As late as the 1920s, even evangelicals were OE creationists.

Josephus came before the 1920s, dontcha know? (He believed the earth was YOUNG, and that Genesis was literal.)

It doesn't say that the world is made of protons, electrons and neutrons, either. There area lot of things that are true,that aren't in Genesis.

Which means nothing in the context of this discussion.

What the Bible DOES say is that God created the universe and everything in it in SIX DAYS. Not billions of years.

(Barbarian checks)

We wish He would think for himself.

Nope. In fact many puzzling things have been cleared up lately.

I can't tell you how many Chrome tabs I have open in my browser currently that say otherwise, Barb, but It's a lot.

This one just explained another puzzle:

Following the Big Bang some 14 billion years ago, the universe gradually cooled down, allowing electrons and protons to fuse together to form hydrogen atoms. This was the beginning of the Dark Ages of the universe, which lasted until the first stars were formed. These stars must have emitted large quantities of ultraviolet radiation that was capable of ionizing the hydrogen atoms, because astronomers observed that electrons and protons separated again a billion years after the Big Bang. This is what we call the cosmic reionization period.

Successful new measurement technique

For a long time, astronomers could not explain where the powerful UV radiation needed for reionization had come from. The majority of observed galaxies do not emit ionizing photons and the few known exceptions emit too little to keep the universe ionized.

Anne Verhamme, professor of astronomy at the University of Geneva, proposed that green pea galaxies—a new type of galaxy discovered ten years ago—probably emit large quantities of ionizing photons. This assumption was based on the highly specific properties of rays emitted by the hydrogen atoms in these galaxies, known as Lyman-alpha radiation. Astronomers believe that green pea galaxies resemble primordial galaxies as they are extremely compact, are creating their first generations of stars, and are still rich in gas.

Using data from the Hubble Space Telescope, Anne Verhamme and a international team of collaborators were able to demonstrate that green pea galaxies do indeed emit large quantities of ionizing photons. If green peas are analogous to primordial galaxies, it seems very likely that it was galaxies that triggered the reionization of the universe more than 13 billion years ago.
https://phys.org/news/2019-08-green-peas-clues-early-days.html

For example:

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/world/2019/08/the-star-that-s-older-than-the-universe.html

Astronomers are baffled by new measurements of the age of the universe which appear to suggest it's younger than some of the stars it contains.

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-...a-discovery-breakthrough-latest-a9045951.html

Some researchers had long thought that such hidden galaxies might be out in the universe, waiting to be found. But now they have finally been discovered and cosmologists will have to rethink their understanding of how the universe works.

https://www.livescience.com/hubble-constant-discrepancy-explained.html

There's a puzzling mystery going on in the universe. Measurements of the rate of cosmic expansion using different methods keep turning up disagreeing results. The situation has been called a "crisis."

Astonomers "baffled"?
Scientists having to "rethink their understanding"?
A "crisis"?

You generally don't use these terms if your proposed theory is any good at explaining the evidence.

And that's just three recent articles.

"Might?"

Take it up with the Planck website creators.

In precisely the same way that an observer in China, would find observations to indicate that China is in the very center of the world. Hence, the "Middle Kingdom."

Sorry, but someone claiming that they're at the center of the world doesn't make it so.

The evidence, namely, the CMB, and the Bible, when put together, indicates that the earth is at the center of the universe.

How does this make sense? It turns out that there are a couple of possibilities. First, the Universe could be much, much bigger than the part which we actually observe. If the Universe has the geometry of a "flat sheet" that we assume everyday on Earth, then the Cosmological Principle implies that the Universe must be infinite, since every observer at every "Universe edge" must observe the same global parameters. On the other hand, it is possible that the Universe's geometry is not flat, but curved like a sphere or a saddle. In this case, the Universe would "wrap" around at the edges: just as on the surface of the Earth, you would come back to where you started if you walked in one direction for long enough. Recent observations indicate that the first scenario is most likely true - we see a piece of the infinite, flat Universe that is 15 billion light-years in radius.How does this make sense? It turns out that there are a couple of possibilities. First, the Universe could be much, much bigger than the part which we actually observe. If the Universe has the geometry of a "flat sheet" that we assume everyday on Earth, then the Cosmological Principle implies that the Universe must be infinite, since every observer at every "Universe edge" must observe the same global parameters. On the other hand, it is possible that the Universe's geometry is not flat, but curved like a sphere or a saddle. In this case, the Universe would "wrap" around at the edges: just as on the surface of the Earth, you would come back to where you started if you walked in one direction for long enough. Recent observations indicate that the first scenario is most likely true - we see a piece of the infinite, flat Universe that is 15 billion light-years in radius.
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/pe...th-at-the-centre-of-the-universe-intermediate

I give you, Lawrence Krauss (again, because you missed it; emphasis added):

"But when you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That's crazy. We're looking out at the whole universe. There's no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun — the plane of the earth around the sun — the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe. The new results are either telling us that all of science is wrong and we're the center of the universe, or maybe the data is simply incorrect, or maybe it's telling us there's something weird about the microwave background results and that maybe, maybe there's something wrong with our theories on the larger scales."

Evidence shows that it's so.

The only thing the evidence shows is that there likely IS a center, and that we're at or near it.

Which is consistent with the Bible, which says that the earth is at the center of God's attention.

See above. You've just assumed all sorts of things that you can't show any evidence for. Your philosophical assumptions are just untestable conjectures.

My assumptions are that the Bible is true, all of it, and that it describes how God made the universe, not in full detail, but in enough detail that it can be confirmed through study of the universe.

There is no consensus on the nature of this and other observed anomalies[19] and their statistical significance is unclear. For example, a study that includes the Planck mission results shows how masking techniques could introduce errors that when taken into account can render several anomalies, including the Axis of Evil, not statistically significant.[20] A 2016 study compared isotropic and anisotropic cosmological models against WMAP and Planck data and found no evidence for anisotropy.[21]

Cosmologist Edmund Schluessel has suggested that gravitational waves with extremely long wavelengths could explain the Axis of Evil.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_of_evil_(cosmology)

:blabla:

Darwinists love it when truth is a matter of popularity.

What we don't yet know, isn't proof of anything.

What we DO know is that the CMBr indicates that the universe has a center, and that the solar system is aligned to it.

 

[The Barbarian]

(Barbarian notes that most Christians don't accept JudgeRightly's new revision of scripture)

An appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy, Barbarian.

Christianity is what Christians believe. The argument that you're the only one who isn't out of step, is your fallacy.

(Barbarian points out that even YE creationsts can be saved)

You keep bringing this up, yet no one has said anything about salvation but you.

That's actually what scripture is for. You've lost sight of the reason for it.

Augustine, as smart as he was, was wrong on his interpretation of the text.

He's quite right. It's absurd to imagine mornings and evenings with no Sun to have them. He's a better theologian and either of us.

St. Augustine pointed out that the text itself shows that the "days" (actually "yom") aren't literal days.

Yom does in fact mean a literal day.

Well, let's take a look...

Although yom is commonly rendered as day in English translations, the word yom has several literal definitions:[1]

Period of light (as contrasted with the period of darkness),
General term for time
Point of time
Sunrise to sunset
Sunset to next sunset
A year (in the plural; I Sam 27:7; Ex 13:10, etc.)
Time period of unspecified length.
A long, but finite span of time - age - epoch - season.
...
Thus "yom", in its context, is sometimes translated as: "time" (Gen 4:3, Is. 30:8); "year" (I Kings 1:1, 2 Chronicles 21:19, Amos 4:4); "age" (Gen 18:11, 24:1 and 47:28; Joshua 23:1 and 23:2); "always" (Deuteronomy 5:29, 6:24 and 14:23, and in 2 Chronicles 18:7); "season" (Genesis 40:4, Joshua 24:7, 2 Chronicles 15:3); epoch or 24-hour day (Genesis 1:5,8,13,19,23,31) – see "Creationism", below.

Yom relates to the concept of time. Yom is not just for day, days, but for time in general.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom

Sorry, but special pleading (that's another logical fallacy, by the way) doesn't help you, Barb.

Perhaps you don't know what "special pleading" means:

Special pleading is an informal fallacy wherein one cites something as an exception to a general or universal principle (without justifying the special exception).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

Showing you that the most influential ancient Christian theologian showed how Genesis rules out literal days, is not citing an exception. As you know, his interpretation is the one commonly held by Christians.

Yom does in fact mean a literal day.

See above. It basically means "time" but can mean all sorts of time, including "always" and "forever."

But the meaning of yom is ALWAYS determined by the context.

Which is how Augustine showed that it could not mean literal days in Genesis.

As late as the 1920s, even evangelicals were OE creationists.

Josephus came before the 1920s, dontcha know? (He believed the earth was YOUNG, and that Genesis was literal.)

He also believed that Jews should abandon their adherence to the Law and become Roman citizens, as he did. So not a very good authority, I think.

It does not say God used a big bang to create the universe.

It doesn't say that the world is made of protons, electrons and neutrons, either. There area lot of things that are true,that aren't in Genesis.

Which means nothing in the context of this discussion.

Just pointing out your fallacy of supposing things that aren't mentioned in Genesis, can't be true.

What the Bible DOES say is that God created the universe and everything in it in SIX DAYS. Not billions of years.

I know you assume that it's literal history, but as you see, St. Augustine demonstrated that it couldn't be.

I can't tell you how many Chrome tabs I have open in my browser currently that say otherwise, Barb, but It's a lot.

"It's on the internet; it has to be true!" isn't a very convincing argument.

Sorry, but someone claiming that they're at the center of the world doesn't make it so.

Nor does someone claiming that they're at the center of the universe. It's true that if one looks out from China, it appears that China is the central land of Earth, just as it does if you look out into the universe from Earth. But these are fallacies, for the same reason.

I give you, Lawrence Krauss (again, because you missed it; emphasis added):

"But when you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That's crazy. We're looking out at the whole universe. There's no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun — the plane of the earth around the sun — the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe. The new results are either telling us that all of science is wrong and we're the center of the universe, or maybe the data is simply incorrect, or maybe it's telling us there's something weird about the microwave background results and that maybe, maybe there's something wrong with our theories on the larger scales."

Unfortunately for that belief, there is evidence:

There is no consensus on the nature of this and other observed anomalies[19] and their statistical significance is unclear. For example, a study that includes the Planck mission results shows how masking techniques could introduce errors that when taken into account can render several anomalies, including the Axis of Evil, not statistically significant.[20] A 2016 study compared isotropic and anisotropic cosmological models against WMAP and Planck data and found no evidence for anisotropy.[21]

Cosmologist Edmund Schluessel has suggested that gravitational waves with extremely long wavelengths could explain the Axis of Evil.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_of_evil_(cosmology)

I realize that these recent discoveries don't fit in your belief system. Ignoring them won't make your beliefs true.

 

[7djengo7]

I don't simply assume they are honest either, but they do have one thing going for them: evidence, in the form of videotape. On the evening of their abduction experience, the fellow happened to record two UFOs on video, hovering silently above the lake next to their camp. Here is a link to that section of video:

https://youtu.be/KXVAIZdTbZc?t=354

Obviously you do assume they are honest when they tell you that their video tape is evidence that they saw/experienced this and that: you take their word for it that their video tape is evidence that they saw/experienced this and that.

Perhaps they did move her through the wall using some technology far in advance of our own, or it might have been a spiritual/out-of-body experience.

I, for one, am moved through numerous walls, daily; it's really no big deal. Walking with my own feet, I move myself through walls by means of our own, tried and true technology called "doorways": an in-body experience.

According to Christian theology, there is an angelic hierarchy including Seraphim, Cherubim, Thrones, Dominions, Powers (Virtues), Authorities, Rulers (Principalities), Archangels and Angels. And then there are the Nephilim of Genesis 6:4, who were the offspring of the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men."

Where is it said that the nephilim of Genesis 6:4 were the offspring of the sons of God and the daughters of men?

Many commentators believe that these "sons of God" were fallen angels who "came down" from the heavens and produced offspring with human women.

And many commentators do not believe that.

Some of the beings called "extraterrestrials" may not necessarily be physical beings from other planets. They may be angels of one kind or another, whether good and/or bad.

I do not call any beings "extraterrestrials". What (if any) beings do you call "extraterrestrials"?

 

[User Name]

Obviously you do assume they are honest when they tell you that their video tape is evidence that they saw/experienced this and that: you take their word for it that their video tape is evidence that they saw/experienced this and that.

Without video evidence, their story would strictly be hearsay, and I wouldn't have bothered to post it. With the videotape evidence they presented, their story becomes much more persuasive, at least to me.

I, for one, am moved through numerous walls, daily; it's really no big deal. Walking with my own feet, I move myself through walls by means of our own, tried and true technology called "doorways": an in-body experience.

Yes, that's normally how it works.

Where is it said that the nephilim of Genesis 6:4 were the offspring of the sons of God and the daughters of men?

Genesis 6:4. :AMR:

And many commentators do not believe that.

And many commentators do believe it.

I do not call any beings "extraterrestrials". What (if any) beings do you call "extraterrestrials"?

I would call any being who is not native to this planet an "extraterrestrial." By that definition, angels could be considered extraterrestrials -- Hebrews 13:2.

 

[Stripe]

Christianity is what Christians believe.

Nope.

That's one of the most anti-Christian things you could believe.

The argument that you're the only one who isn't out of step, is your fallacy.

:rotfl:

:mock: Barbarian.

It's absurd to imagine mornings and evenings with no Sun to have them.

No, it's not. :idunno:

Read the Bible. That what it teaches.

Yom relates to the concept of time. Yom is not just for day, days, but for time in general.

Luckily, the Bible is explicit. It says: "Six days."

Difficult to argue with that, although we're sure you'll keep trying.

Perhaps you don't know what "special pleading" means.

His interpretation is the one commonly held by Christians.

Darwinists love to pretend that their ideas are popular. It helps them sleep at night.

I realize that the evidence doesn't fit your belief system, but ignoring it won't make your beliefs true.

 

[7djengo7]

Without video evidence, their story would strictly be hearsay, and I wouldn't have bothered to post it. With the videotape evidence they presented, their story becomes much more persuasive, at least to me.

Your story--that their video is evidence--is strictly hearsay. You heard them say that their video is evidence, and you take their word for it that their video is evidence.

Yes, that's normally how it works.

What's normally how what works?

Genesis 6:4. :AMR:

What are you referring to as "Genesis 6:4"? I'm referring to the Genesis 6:4 found in the Bible. In the Genesis 6:4 that we can read in the Bible, it is nowhere said that any nephilim were the offspring of the sons of God and the daughters of men. Here's the verse:

There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

Notice that we read that "they bare children to them", and that we do not read that "they bare nephilim to them".

And many commentators do believe it.

You already said that, and what was your point in saying it the first time? And what was your point in saying it a second time?

I would call any being who is not native to this planet an "extraterrestrial."

How do you decide when to say that a particular being is native to this planet, and when to say that a particular being is not native to this planet?

Would you say that the video tape you have been calling "evidence" is evidence that some being(s) is/are not native to this planet? If so, which being(s) do you mean? If not, then what would you say that video tape is evidence for?

By that definition, angels could be considered extraterrestrials -- Hebrews 13:2.

So you call angels "extraterrestrials"? What (if anything) besides angels do you call "extraterrestrials"?

 

[User Name]

Quotes from the Washington Examiner regarding the reality of UFOs:

[T]he now-established data on unexplained aerial phenomena is undeniable. Since at least 2004, numerous U.S. Navy aircrews have seen hypersonic- and anti-gravity-capable unidentified aerial phenomena with their eyes and on their gun cameras. This phenomena evidences technical performance capabilities far in advance of any national military. In some cases, that data is matched by satellite tracking, sonar, and radar data sets. This issue is real and significant. (Source: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...-guy-is-failing-to-persuade-people-about-ufos )

UFOs have repeatedly shown what seems to be intelligence in their operation and behavior-response to manned aircraft and monitoring systems in their vicinity. I am led to believe that the Russians (including in the Soviet era) have repeatedly tried and failed to shoot down UFOs, which have practiced evasive techniques.

In addition, UFOs have shown an ability to travel at hypersonic speeds with anti-gravity characteristics. Some underwater phenomena are also capable of supercavitation speeds of hundreds of miles per hour underwater. Note that when it comes to underwater objects, the recorded size indicates they are not torpedoes or vessels of any known type.

Third, UFOs manifest a continuing and special interest in military-nuclear technology (I believe it is notable that credible sightings began following the first use of atomic weapons). Former nuclear forces officers have testified that UFOs have, on occasion, even deactivated U.S. nuclear missiles during test operations.

Fourth, UFOs often show evidence of plasma manipulation, possibly in relation to manifested cloaking capabilities.

I am also extraordinarily confident these UFOs are not the creation of any current government or private interest. They are definitely not U.S. in origin, and they are far in advance of Chinese and Russian capabilities — including in the field of hypersonic capabilities (which the Russians lead in).

So where does this leave us?

With many questions and the need to do more research. Fortunately, albeit secretly, the U.S. government continues to do just that, as do private interests.

Source: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/why-the-ufo-story-is-far-more-interesting-than-you-think

 

[User Name]

From Popular Mechanics:

"The U.S. Navy has confirmed that three online videos purportedly showing UFOs are genuine...In each case, the objects in the videos undertook aerial maneuvers that aren't possible with current aviation technology. In the 2004 incident, according to The New York Times, the objects "appeared suddenly at 80,000 feet, and then hurtled toward the sea, eventually stopping at 20,000 feet and hovering. Then they either dropped out of radar range or shot straight back up."

 

[User Name]

Cmdr. David Fravor was a guess on Joe Rogan's excellent podcast yesterday to discusse the 2004 Nimitz UFO incident, of which he was an eyewitness:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eco2s3-0zsQ

 

[User Name]

3 reasons to investigate the US Navy UFO incidents -- The Hill

U.S. Navy Commander David Fravor and his colleagues are particularly compelling witnesses to an as-yet unexplained incident that occurred off the coast of Southern California in 2004.

As CDR Fravor recalls, he, his weapon systems officer and another two-seat F/A-18F Super Hornet were flying a routine training mission on a calm, clear November day. But their exercise is suddenly canceled and their two-ship formation instructed to divert on a “real-world vector.” Unknown to Fravor and his fellow officers, a nearby ship, the USS Princeton, has spent weeks tracking numerous radar contacts moving in ways that defy explanation.

For the first time, fast-moving fighter aircraft are aloft when the Princeton’s hyper-sensitive radar array picks up the peculiar contacts. CDR Fravor’s Super Hornet and the jet accompanying them are tasked with taking a closer look.

What happens next is best described only by CDR Fravor and one of the weapon systems officers flying that day. In short, Fravor was “weirded out” by an object – with no visible propulsion system or wings – that accelerated, decelerated and, ultimately, disappeared from view at extreme speed, “like nothing [he had] ever seen.”

In Fravor’s account, the USS Princeton’s radar reacquired the object 30 seconds later – 60 miles away. If accurate, this implies a velocity roughly six times that of the top speed of Fravor’s super-fast Super Hornet.

Later that day, thanks to a combination of luck and targeting skill, a follow-up flight managed to capture the object on video. Perhaps most importantly, they are corroborated by radar, infrared and optical data.

A series of similar events occurred 11 years later. Naval aircrews operating off the U.S. East Coast reported contacts with objects conducting extreme maneuvers that defied any known (or remotely conceivable) technological capabilities. Like the 2004 incident, their accounts are reinforced by sophisticated multi-source sensor data.

The Pentagon has confirmed that videos of the 2004 and 2014-2015 incidents are genuine, ultimately drawing scrutiny from Congress.

This raises the possibility that these pilots witnessed technology well beyond the grasp or bounds of science. If these accounts are accurate – and sophisticated sensor data indicate that they may be – the capabilities exhibited by these objects represent an astonishing leap forward from the technological status quo.

As such, a compelling case can be made to invest in fully investigating these phenomena. As CDR Fravor aptly notes, thoroughly (and efficiently) studying such events would amount to less than a rounding error in the Pentagon’s staggering $738 billion budget. The return on investment could be significant, for a few key reasons.

First, the national security implications of getting to the bottom of these incidents are beyond obvious. In addition to posing a serious collision risk, determining the nature of the objects – whether benign, easily-explainable phenomena or potentially threatening – is of critical importance. Indeed, by some accounts, such incidents are occurring with increased frequency.

Moreover, advanced, physics-challenging technology would be the Holy Grail for any nation. Given the anti-democratic and authoritarian inclinations of some major world powers, it is imperative that such capabilities fall into the “right” (i.e., democratic) hands.

Among other possibilities, a civilian-led quick reaction force could be established to rapidly assess such incidents, some of which occurred over several days.

Second, without venturing into the “debate” about the causes of global warming, there can be no doubt that earth’s climate is undergoing tremendous change. The Midwest witnessed multiple “500-year” floods in the span of a few years; powerful hurricanes fueled by warmer waters have battered the eastern seaboard; unprecedented wildfires have devastated the West Coast. Businesses expect to lose $1 trillion due to climate change in coming years, of which the last five were the hottest ever recorded.

With researchers examining how clouds can be manipulated to combat climate change, the remote possibility of acquiring technology that allows for indefinite flight time at extreme speeds deserves particularly close scrutiny.

Third, CDR Fravor argues that if he and the Navy’s sophisticated sensors observed the same phenomenon, there is a good chance that the technology he witnessed could move effortlessly through water, air and space at extraordinary speeds. In the event that such capability exists, mere knowledge thereof should prompt a fundamental shift away from humanity’s baser priorities in favor of loftier, nobler objectives.

Perhaps most importantly, as one of the Navy fighter pilots who reported a close encounter notes, mankind is driven by curiosity. Throughout history the human inclination to explore the unknown has precipitated monumental advances in a short span of time. Given the slim chance that what CDR Fravor, his colleagues and their sensors observed reflects bona fide technical capabilities, a well-funded and efficiently managed public investigation is not only warranted, it should be prioritized.

 

[User Name]

Here is a link to a 270 page paper doing an extensive scientific analysis of every data point that the team could get their hands on in the public domain. Here is another paper, this time from Dr.Kevin Knuth, former NASA research scientist and currently a professor of physics. It is peer reviewed and analyzes a handful of UAP cases, with the Tic-Tac being one of them. Both papers are chock filled with mathematical models that attempt to calculate and infer the g forces and velocities the Tic Tac was able to reach during its interaction with Fravor and his team. This is where things get interesting. According to Kevin Day, he said he tracked the Tic-Tac commander Fravor intercepted go from 28,000 feet to sea-level in approximately 0.8 seconds. This means the Tic-Tac was capable of achieving a velocity of at least 23,864 mph, which is 31 times the speed of sound. The maximum speed of the commander’s F-18 is 1,190 mph. This means the Tic-Tac is 20 times faster than the F-18 (23864mph/1190mph = 20).

Source: https://medium.com/@deep_1645/the-villager-and-the-f-18-6d2ea3a30cd2

 

[JudgeRightly]

http://media2.kgov.com/audio/20190925-BEL192.mp3?mkIY4ub3n7rfdIyuNZpm87_CtBOYaxbA

 

[User Name]

Physicist Michio Kaku says the evidence for UFOs is overwhelming:

 

[The Berean]

Of course UFO's exist. People see unidentified flying objects all the time. But this doesn't mean these UFO's are of extraterrestrial origin. No one has yet to prove that.

 

[freelight]

I've been looking into the evidence for UFOs lately and I have to say that the quality and quantity of evidence for their existence is very compelling. For example, the military has had extensive interaction with UFOs for decades. Recently, classified information has been made available.
What are we to think of the UFO topic?

Great Thread!

I have an older discussion thread on 'The Disclosure Project' here I also many years back had a thread dealing with just the spiritual teachings from UFO contacts/contactees entitled 'ET Theology' if I recall. Wonderful and amazing stuff, - the evidence is out there and accessible in this field. Now as to whether these objects or beings are inter-dimensional or extra-terrestial in origin is another question but we are not alone here on earth, and its likely there are millions of other inhabited worlds in the cosmos, we are not the only planet in the multi-verse or within infinity, unless you would be so narrow minded to assume such.

Keep on keepin on!


---------------------o

 

[Right Divider]

Physicist Michio Kaku says the evidence for UFOs is overwhelming:

That guy believes a lot of crazy things.... so his endorsement means .... nothing!

 

[User Name]

The February edition of Smithsonian's Air & Space magazine proclaims 2019 “The Year of UFOs.”

https://www.airspacemag.com/space/year-ufos-180973965/

 

[User Name]

Pentagon and MoD officials feared UFOs were either “demonic” or sent by God, former investigators reveal

UFO investigations carried out by the Pentagon and British Ministry of Defence were hampered by the religious beliefs of senior staff, former employees have revealed.

Two men who worked on secret UFO programs on both sides of the Atlantic said their work received ‘pushback’ from high-ranking officials who feared fast-moving objects glimpsed in our skies were either ‘demonic’ or divine.

Luis Elizondo, who headed up the US Defense Intelligence Agency’s secret Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP), spoke out about his work in a New York Times article last year.