5 ms·

There's other ways to conceptualize it however. Assume for a minute NHI craft have crashed, what plausible alternative hypotheses can explain that against our o

There's other ways to conceptualize it however. Assume for a minute NHI craft have crashed, what plausible alternative hypotheses can explain that against our objection of: If they are so advanced, and bother to come all the way here, then they just crash and discard it? ? Here's a few possibilities: - They are so advanced. Coming here is as easy for them, as riding a cheap bicycle to the store is for us. We discard our bicycles (just take a look at Shanghai, for instance). They break or get beat up, we don't stress it (I'm not speaking to the morality of that -- personally, I feel, "Those poor little abandoned bicycles!") -- and maybe they have a similar relationship with their crafts. And maybe even with their occupants, which may simply be pilots that are just avatar bodies, or drones. - They're not that advanced and it's easy for them to come here (obviously via some means or pathway which is hard for most of us currently Earthbound humans to imagine right now!) and they fuck things up. But, their fuckups are cheap. Simple. - They are actually here all the time, in great numbers. Let's say 40,000 per second, zipping around Earth, 24 hours a day, every day of the year. And let's say, in a good year, the government detects and picks up 16 - 20 crashed objects. Let's generously say there's 2x that that actually crash. So they have odds of crashing of around 1 in 30 billion trips. Our best air travel safety is 1 in 11 million flights. So they are around 1000 times safer than commercial air travel, at significantly (to our minds) higher demands. So that reframes their crashing from this incredible thing that splinters the fantasy of their apparently advanced natures, and paints it instead as, a pretty low defect rate indicative of a level of capability orders of magnitude beyond ourselves. In other words, not all that contradictory as we, in our own human limitations, first would think! Hahaha! :)

lagrange77 3y ago
> - They are actually here all the time, in great numbers. While this would explain the advancement/crash conflict, wouldn't the vast number of them also likely cause other artefacts, besides crashes? Even in near space, which we observe closely. Also: do you imagine a cloaking tech or dimension travelling for that scenario?
- keepamovin 3y ago
  I think there's a number of aspects to that, including cloaking, potentially dimension traveling, and other artefacts such as huge numbers of tracks on advanced radar. Definitely they are cloaked, or invisible. Besides the support of corroboration with our hypothesis explaining crashes, this is also supported by inconsistent visual confirmation for objects seen on radar, or FLIR. Sometimes people can see these radar/FLIR tracks with their eyes, sometimes not. People have also reported seeing them fade out, or instantly disappear. Some amount of this invisibility could be due to teleporting, going through subspace, going to another dimension, or something else we don't really understand so well, rather than just optical camouflage. Other artefacts are an interesting aspect, too. In such large numbers, we'd expect them to be picked up very frequently on advanced radars used by Earth's militaries. However, militaries have demonstrated a clear policy of withholding information that arises from these classified sensor platforms in order to protect the secrecy of their capabilities. In other words, they've basically admitted to the public that even if they were detecting them with advanced radar in large numbers, they wouldn't be telling us. If we imagine them moving by teleporting discretely from point to point (with say a maximum jump distance of a few tens of km) rather than moving continuously, it could explain many things about both their anomalous "non interacting, transmedia, high speed, maneuverability", and also that, if they were so crowded, their 'traffic lanes' would also be sparse in motion as they skip large distance by moving discretely.
  - lagrange77 3y ago
    While i have no objections to the discrete drive, a conspiracy of the world's militaries seems a little far-fetched to me.
    - keepamovin 3y ago
      > a conspiracy of the world's militaries seems a little far-fetched to me Really? Well one way to think of it is no military will reveal tracks only accessible to their most classified radar systems, because all militaries wish to protect the secret capabilities of those systems. If that doesn't suffice for you, we can go a bit deeper haha! :) Perhaps you don't need to use the word "conspiracy" if that makes it hard for you to think about. I know that word has become loaded (CIA invented the term 'conspiracy theorist' apparently as a term of abuse to discredit any who threatened to reveal their secrets), and it's meant to (and indeed seems it can!) cloud thought, but all 'conspiracy' really means is "breathing together": con-spire. But perhaps you can think of it rather like a loosely coordinated mutual self-interest, rather than the tighter collaboration suggested by conspiracy. Whatever the reality may be beyond the classified veil, which may nevertheless surprise your priors, there's precedent for loosely coordinated mutual self-interest in a number of areas, that will also explain the lack of transparency the world's militaries seem to share around discussing and revealing plentiful data about the UFO topic: - there's a classified but revealed international system in place for atomic test notifications between enemy nations, as well as rocket launches, to inadvertently avoid trigger global thermonuclear war. - all nuclear states already 'conspire' to keep the technical and engineering secrets of atomic weapons out of public awareness, to preserve their own advantage (to, erm, annihilate each other ha! :S) - sworn enemy special services / intelligence services often collaborate / interface together at a high level, in secret, in ways that would seem surprising to their populations who only have the picture of spy-vs-spy and enemy-nation Given these pertinent existing realities, it's rather less hard to consider how all militaries would share a common goal of projecting strength and capability (for that is what they are required to do to accomplish their mission of protecting their populations), and that, if all Earth's militaries were confronted with a global threat, which well outpaced their own capabilities, and against which they had no effective defense, and had the choice to be able to A) tell their populations they were outmatched and essentially no longer 'fit for service', or B) keep that embarassing truth secret by any means necessary while continuing to pretend everything was fine, I think you'd likely agree with me that this 'conspiracy of the world's militaries' would rather choose A than admit to B. Would you not? Haha! :) Secondly I think you'd agree that no 'conspiracy' was required in order to keep that so. :) hahaha :)
JKCalhoun 3y ago
Occam's razor seems appropriate here. Some of the ideas you raise — I wonder, why aren't non-government individuals finding these objects, parading them around? We have amateur astronomers tracking spy satellites for kicks. And we all know people in government leak — we've had 60+years for troves of classified documents to have been leaked. Instead we get surgery on an alien puppet with grainy After Effects. To be sure, I Want To Believe, but I also try not be a butterfly to my fantasies.
- keepamovin 3y ago
  > Occam's razor seems appropriate here. Sure, but what's your occam's razor take? I don't think Occam here justifies a denial of all data. That seems more like fantasy or pseudoscience. > Some of the ideas you raise — I wonder, why aren't non-government individuals finding these objects, parading them around? We have amateur astronomers tracking spy satellites for kicks. That's a good point. I'm not sure why. It seems some of the reasons could be: they are often cloaked to amateur level capabilities, but advanced sensor systems can detect them; or, perhaps selection bias where there stories from 'credible' military witnesses end up reaching more people, which is likely to be an artefact of CI disinfo as these folks are more controllable than civilians; or, a bias of the objects themselves to do ISR over military airspace; or, even as has been reported by witnesses, anything they obtain (photographs, fragments, objects) are confiscated by people from 'government' who tell them not to talk about it and try to gaslight them that it was nothing; or even because militaries may occasionally be able to bring down and capture these, but given that, individuals would have a harder time securing one. You don't have read far into the history to find cases that include interactions like the confiscation mentioned, if you doubt there's anything to those last few points (I don't think you doubt that, tho! Haha :)) > And we all know people in government leak — we've had 60+years for troves of classified documents to have been leaked. Instead we get surgery on an alien puppet with grainy After Effects. That's true about leaks, but it's a common (amateur, sorry to say haha!) error to think that there has been "perfect secrecy" around this topic. Rather, this topic has very clearly been "hidden in plain sight", surrounded by a moat of protective disinfo and counterintelligence. There have been many documents leaked about this, many "insiders" have come forward (real or fake), and much data is there already. These leaks haven't been covered as widely in the media, perhaps, as other big leaks on other topics, which may contribute to an impression you may have that there is nothing out there about this. The craftily engineered 'topic area denial' arising from decades of CI disinfo can explain part of this, as well as more direct connections with media. David Grusch and his "40 secret whistleblowers" is merely the latest in a long line of insiders, but this one has reached a little further into public awareness it seems. > To be sure, I Want To Believe, but I also try not be a butterfly to my fantasies. I think you can do both. Don't be so afraid of your desires and imagination, that you don't trust yourself to investigate something. I mean, it seems only a CI/disinfo engineered aversion to trusting yourself to explore this topic, when the same dynamic is at play in anything: from science, to creating a new product, to writing a book, right? It is sad tho that you seem to think others are being butterflies to what you see as their fantasies, sad that you need to try to mischaracterize it like that. And sad that you feel you need to denigrate the minds, beliefs and analysis abilities of others like that, so you can feel safe? Because you can't find a reconciliation of this in your own brain? Rather than being open to that, you have to shut it down? You shouldn't treat other people like that. But also not treat yourself like that. If you're stopping yourself from thinking about this topic, because you think 'Oh, it's just fantasy', that's ridiculous. It's just like being imprisoned by the decades of legacy CI disinfo programming around this. Don't be like that, you're better than that! :) i mean that. The more people that look at this, and unblinker, and unleash themselves from whatever imagined limitations have curtailed their thinking on this particular topic, that they would have no trouble deploying elsewhere, the better it is! This thing is a problem or an opportunity for humanity, we need lots of people lookin' at it. It's ok if you want to stay in the shadows, but just don't try to keep anyone else there with you. That's abusive. That kind of abusive attitude is sadly an artefact of the decades of CI disinfo that tried to obfuscate the topic by discouraging people from consider it by persuading them it was a fool's game. It's not a fool's game. The fool's game is where you stand right now -- if you think it's too ridiculous to consider. I get if you just don't want to consider it, because it's too difficult, because no time, whatever -- and that's fine! -- but that's different. Have a good one! :)

lagrange77 3y ago

> - They are actually here all the time, in great numbers. While this would explain the advancement/crash conflict, wouldn't the vast number of them also likely cause other artefacts, besides crashes? Even in near space, which we observe closely. Also: do you imagine a cloaking tech or dimension travelling for that scenario?

keepamovin 3y ago
I think there's a number of aspects to that, including cloaking, potentially dimension traveling, and other artefacts such as huge numbers of tracks on advanced radar. Definitely they are cloaked, or invisible. Besides the support of corroboration with our hypothesis explaining crashes, this is also supported by inconsistent visual confirmation for objects seen on radar, or FLIR. Sometimes people can see these radar/FLIR tracks with their eyes, sometimes not. People have also reported seeing them fade out, or instantly disappear. Some amount of this invisibility could be due to teleporting, going through subspace, going to another dimension, or something else we don't really understand so well, rather than just optical camouflage. Other artefacts are an interesting aspect, too. In such large numbers, we'd expect them to be picked up very frequently on advanced radars used by Earth's militaries. However, militaries have demonstrated a clear policy of withholding information that arises from these classified sensor platforms in order to protect the secrecy of their capabilities. In other words, they've basically admitted to the public that even if they were detecting them with advanced radar in large numbers, they wouldn't be telling us. If we imagine them moving by teleporting discretely from point to point (with say a maximum jump distance of a few tens of km) rather than moving continuously, it could explain many things about both their anomalous "non interacting, transmedia, high speed, maneuverability", and also that, if they were so crowded, their 'traffic lanes' would also be sparse in motion as they skip large distance by moving discretely.
- lagrange77 3y ago
  While i have no objections to the discrete drive, a conspiracy of the world's militaries seems a little far-fetched to me.
  - keepamovin 3y ago
    > a conspiracy of the world's militaries seems a little far-fetched to me Really? Well one way to think of it is no military will reveal tracks only accessible to their most classified radar systems, because all militaries wish to protect the secret capabilities of those systems. If that doesn't suffice for you, we can go a bit deeper haha! :) Perhaps you don't need to use the word "conspiracy" if that makes it hard for you to think about. I know that word has become loaded (CIA invented the term 'conspiracy theorist' apparently as a term of abuse to discredit any who threatened to reveal their secrets), and it's meant to (and indeed seems it can!) cloud thought, but all 'conspiracy' really means is "breathing together": con-spire. But perhaps you can think of it rather like a loosely coordinated mutual self-interest, rather than the tighter collaboration suggested by conspiracy. Whatever the reality may be beyond the classified veil, which may nevertheless surprise your priors, there's precedent for loosely coordinated mutual self-interest in a number of areas, that will also explain the lack of transparency the world's militaries seem to share around discussing and revealing plentiful data about the UFO topic: - there's a classified but revealed international system in place for atomic test notifications between enemy nations, as well as rocket launches, to inadvertently avoid trigger global thermonuclear war. - all nuclear states already 'conspire' to keep the technical and engineering secrets of atomic weapons out of public awareness, to preserve their own advantage (to, erm, annihilate each other ha! :S) - sworn enemy special services / intelligence services often collaborate / interface together at a high level, in secret, in ways that would seem surprising to their populations who only have the picture of spy-vs-spy and enemy-nation Given these pertinent existing realities, it's rather less hard to consider how all militaries would share a common goal of projecting strength and capability (for that is what they are required to do to accomplish their mission of protecting their populations), and that, if all Earth's militaries were confronted with a global threat, which well outpaced their own capabilities, and against which they had no effective defense, and had the choice to be able to A) tell their populations they were outmatched and essentially no longer 'fit for service', or B) keep that embarassing truth secret by any means necessary while continuing to pretend everything was fine, I think you'd likely agree with me that this 'conspiracy of the world's militaries' would rather choose A than admit to B. Would you not? Haha! :) Secondly I think you'd agree that no 'conspiracy' was required in order to keep that so. :) hahaha :)

JKCalhoun 3y ago

Occam's razor seems appropriate here. Some of the ideas you raise — I wonder, why aren't non-government individuals finding these objects, parading them around? We have amateur astronomers tracking spy satellites for kicks. And we all know people in government leak — we've had 60+years for troves of classified documents to have been leaked. Instead we get surgery on an alien puppet with grainy After Effects. To be sure, I Want To Believe, but I also try not be a butterfly to my fantasies.

keepamovin 3y ago
> Occam's razor seems appropriate here. Sure, but what's your occam's razor take? I don't think Occam here justifies a denial of all data. That seems more like fantasy or pseudoscience. > Some of the ideas you raise — I wonder, why aren't non-government individuals finding these objects, parading them around? We have amateur astronomers tracking spy satellites for kicks. That's a good point. I'm not sure why. It seems some of the reasons could be: they are often cloaked to amateur level capabilities, but advanced sensor systems can detect them; or, perhaps selection bias where there stories from 'credible' military witnesses end up reaching more people, which is likely to be an artefact of CI disinfo as these folks are more controllable than civilians; or, a bias of the objects themselves to do ISR over military airspace; or, even as has been reported by witnesses, anything they obtain (photographs, fragments, objects) are confiscated by people from 'government' who tell them not to talk about it and try to gaslight them that it was nothing; or even because militaries may occasionally be able to bring down and capture these, but given that, individuals would have a harder time securing one. You don't have read far into the history to find cases that include interactions like the confiscation mentioned, if you doubt there's anything to those last few points (I don't think you doubt that, tho! Haha :)) > And we all know people in government leak — we've had 60+years for troves of classified documents to have been leaked. Instead we get surgery on an alien puppet with grainy After Effects. That's true about leaks, but it's a common (amateur, sorry to say haha!) error to think that there has been "perfect secrecy" around this topic. Rather, this topic has very clearly been "hidden in plain sight", surrounded by a moat of protective disinfo and counterintelligence. There have been many documents leaked about this, many "insiders" have come forward (real or fake), and much data is there already. These leaks haven't been covered as widely in the media, perhaps, as other big leaks on other topics, which may contribute to an impression you may have that there is nothing out there about this. The craftily engineered 'topic area denial' arising from decades of CI disinfo can explain part of this, as well as more direct connections with media. David Grusch and his "40 secret whistleblowers" is merely the latest in a long line of insiders, but this one has reached a little further into public awareness it seems. > To be sure, I Want To Believe, but I also try not be a butterfly to my fantasies. I think you can do both. Don't be so afraid of your desires and imagination, that you don't trust yourself to investigate something. I mean, it seems only a CI/disinfo engineered aversion to trusting yourself to explore this topic, when the same dynamic is at play in anything: from science, to creating a new product, to writing a book, right? It is sad tho that you seem to think others are being butterflies to what you see as their fantasies, sad that you need to try to mischaracterize it like that. And sad that you feel you need to denigrate the minds, beliefs and analysis abilities of others like that, so you can feel safe? Because you can't find a reconciliation of this in your own brain? Rather than being open to that, you have to shut it down? You shouldn't treat other people like that. But also not treat yourself like that. If you're stopping yourself from thinking about this topic, because you think 'Oh, it's just fantasy', that's ridiculous. It's just like being imprisoned by the decades of legacy CI disinfo programming around this. Don't be like that, you're better than that! :) i mean that. The more people that look at this, and unblinker, and unleash themselves from whatever imagined limitations have curtailed their thinking on this particular topic, that they would have no trouble deploying elsewhere, the better it is! This thing is a problem or an opportunity for humanity, we need lots of people lookin' at it. It's ok if you want to stay in the shadows, but just don't try to keep anyone else there with you. That's abusive. That kind of abusive attitude is sadly an artefact of the decades of CI disinfo that tried to obfuscate the topic by discouraging people from consider it by persuading them it was a fool's game. It's not a fool's game. The fool's game is where you stand right now -- if you think it's too ridiculous to consider. I get if you just don't want to consider it, because it's too difficult, because no time, whatever -- and that's fine! -- but that's different. Have a good one! :)