2023 UFO Claims by David Grusch
en.wikipedia.orgReports are that roswell ufo were shot down with scalar wewpoms in a thunderstorm, then reverse engineered, part of that engineering involved development of electropulse weapons—suitsble for use agsinst et craft. But currently, 95 % of ufos are our own vehicles, reverse engineered, making use of anti gravity and alternate energy sources, from recovered crafts. they are only ufos to the extent that they are secret—not part of official govmt operation, but part of an extra-governments black ops coalition, funded vy drugs and sex traficking, working with aerospace companies. Thus, when govmt and navy cant identify ufo crafts, they are telling the truth. Tney have t been read into this extra-governmentsl and illegal program. This is what greer snd gruwch are referring to
I like how some of the keys on your keyboard don't work, ha ha! :)
I am disabled with bad eyes. Typing on ipad. Do the best I can. But dont worry. You will be okay: If u cn rd ths, u cn gt a gd jb
It's quite extraordinary to think that a civilization that mastered interstellar travel (or interdimensional, or time, or whatever we think this is about) wouldn't have mastered the art of flying in an atmosphere, something we, monkeys that have gotten down from the trees in the last couple minutes in cosmic terms and that discovered flight a short hundred years ago, can do much more reliably (considering how rarely airliners go down).
There's ways you can make it less extraordinary.
0) What if interdimensional travel is easier than we think, we just haven't figured out the hack yet. Ergo: they're not actually that advanced.
0.5) What if they're hyper-specialized? They're really good at crossing dimensions but not so good at conventional flight.
0.618) What if they're hyper-efficient, and sending these craft for them is like us manufacturing widgets in a manual factory? As in they've reduced the cost so much that a few trips having "defects" is normal and within an acceptable QA tolerance for them?
1) What if unreliability is a fundamental property of interstellar/interdimensional (or whatever we think this is) travel. In a physical-law type of way analogous to the uncertainty principle specifying an inviolable tradeoff between precision of position and momentum.
2) What if they're very promiscuous? What if there's 200 craft in Earth's atmosphere right now, and basically constantly for 1000 years. Assume they arrive and depart at basically constant rate of 40 per second (20 in / 20 out). For 90 years of cover up that's 110,730,240,000: or 110 billion. Assume they only crash on entry or exit. Assume that 20 craft have crashed in that time. That means they have a 1 in 5.5 billion chance of crashing. Googling estimates of airline crashes gives 1 in 1 million to 1 in 11 million. Making them 500 to 5000 times more reliable. Checks out.
I think the extraordinary thing is taking a default anthropocentric point of view, and extrapolating it to the whole universe, and having a high expectation that's highly likely to be valid.
It’s not really anthropocentric WRT physics. If interstellar travel were easy, we’d see lots of different species and some form of distribution along the “willingness to be discovered” axis.
That is what we see, it's just suppressed — with ridicule, and dismissal.
Also, our physics is a human model remember: it's completely anthropocentric. As is the human propensity seemingly to assume that's all the physics there is.
Physics is not anthropocentric. The mass of an electron or the speed of light do not depend on the species measuring it.
While it is possible that life might exist in more than 3 dimensions and be able to protrude into our spacetime (at least, there isn’t anything prohibiting it), I can only imagine such intrusions would be much weirder than the average UAP.
Furthermore, we are venturing so far into speculative territory that I’m not sure we are doing any scientific investigation anymore.
No, but the idea of a totality of physics is: that there's nothing outside it that we don't understand. That's very anthropocentric. And heard in the dismissals people give of possibilities or observations that "violate a law of physics".
There are some pretty weird stuff out there outside the average UAP cannon — of metallic orbs, cigars and clamshells — that may qualify as your intrusions; good word!
Science lives at the edge of the unknown. In this era I think we need to engage in far-out speculation if we're going to understand what comes — especially if we hope to understand it from a non-anthropocentric point of view! Ha ha ha! :)
> that there's nothing outside it that we don't understand.
That we don't understand and that we never observed. This is why I mentioned we wandering into speculation territory - I really can't prove there is no invisible pink unicorn sitting in my living room right now. All I can say is that I am not observing it.
How can you think about something if you've never seen it and it doesn't make sense based on your worldview? Well there's definitely ways that you can view it from a more open viewpoint! Ha ha ha! :) And lots to view: plenty of things we've observed and don't understand! Ha ha ha! :)
> if you've never seen it and it doesn't make sense based on your worldview?
You'll see something that doesn't make sense. Then you'll examine it and start formulating plausible explanations for it, and then you may start testing those against what you know and see if they can predict what is observed in other circumstances you haven't seen before.
The important part is that the explanation needs to be testable. If we just say "something outside our comprehension", it's not usable, because you can't really test that.
Hey, ha ha! I retired my graderjs account so I'll reply you with this one: yeah, definitely it's got to be testable! But you got to be open to it, you know?
* * *
So the first crash was in 1933 in Italy, and it's still a secret? Hard to believe.
not a secret perhaps, but actively suppressed and noised up https://www.theblackvault.com/casefiles/the-ufo-files-of-mus...
also not necessarily the first one either