gyroscope1

3 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by gyroscope1 6y ago

   > Also, ruling out Pais doesn't rule out the entire rest of the American military industrial complex, which is quite capable of developing cutting edge technology on its own. If we assume for the sake of argument that UAPs are expla
2. 2.▲
   by gyroscope1 6y ago

   There is a third option that should have been there for completeness: it’s a psyops. UAPs don’t exist and Pais’ work is a sham. There is no magic tech. This is the safest explanation that does not involve magic, but this requires discountin
3. 3.▲
   by gyroscope1 6y ago

   True that it may be the case whatever the objects were using for propulsion could be explained entirely with known physics, and we just don’t have the explanation yet. However, whether the technology operates within or outside of known phys
4. 4.▲
   by gyroscope1 6y ago

   Then what do you make of this? https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/12/tic-tac-ufo-video-q-... The problem with discounting Pais’s work is that by doing so, UAP becomes left unexplained. From the news so far,
5. 5.▲
   by gyroscope1 6y ago

   The real fun thing about this UFO patent story is that separate to the patent story, recently the Navy acknowledged UFOs (which they referred to UAPs) which the pilots described the object as if it was ignoring inertia. Strangely, one of Pa