List of UFO Black Budget Projects

a reply to: LiquidMercury

Aquatone was the code name for the CIA U-2 development.

originally posted by: 0bserver1
a reply to: Jukiodone
Sorry man didn't know you were working on all those programs, I think I missed all those projects coming by in congressional hearings

What does that even mean?
You dont need to be working on any of those programs to know a badly curated mash up of truth and fiction when you see one.

When someone has 7 concurrent topics on the front page of a UFO forum- all with little or no analysis/research/insight - just seems like (lazy) forum sliding using a chatbot to do the legwork.

a reply to: Jukiodone
That's what I was thinking.

For an example of why you don't need to be part of the programs to do critical thinking, there was a NASA employee with lots of knowledge of NASA's space programs, who took an interest in the "secret space program" claims some were making. He said that he would like for anybody making those claims to discuss the topic with him, because he wanted to know things like where the launches were allegedly happening, and where the substantial amounts of rocket fuel came from. He pointed out that there are relatively few sources who can supply the large volumes of specialty rocket fuels that a secret space program would need, that they have limited and known production capacities, etc. He also pointed out that hiding launches for a "secret space program" was practically impossible, since such large rocket launches don't go unnoticed even from rather large distances.

What he discovered was that none of the people making the "secret space program" claims about bases on the moon, or on other planets, wanted to discuss these "technicalities" of how it was accomplished, and he began to wonder if the people making those claims even believed them themselves, given how little effort they had put into thinking through what such a program would require and how it would be next to impossible to keep it totally secret. I think he finally concluded that the people making the "secret space program" claims didn't even want to expose the topic to critical analysis of plausibility, because it falls apart when that's done, and that the claimants seem to be more interested in providing "UFO-tainment" than pursuing truth.

a reply to: Arbitrageur
And you don't think that they didn't find any other propulsion system to secretly do covert missions along side the steam punk ones we're seeing?

Well for what I'm following these days what's released so far only raises more questions for me and that is not only in the realm of this pre disclosure or whatever we are witnessing.

It seems all to orchestrated sometimes, something is creating all these events, but it ain't us for sure and it doesn't want to ne known either

a reply to: Jukiodone
I don't know maybe i didn't understand you to well ...

a reply to: 0bserver1

What makes you think we’re advanced enough to even understand what we’re looking at, let alone recreate and operate it, even if we did get our hands on a craft?

a reply to: Zaphod58

But Einstein did make the equation and the US did build the atomic bomb
You were the ones to build the first cars , first planes first on many things, not?
Why are you convinced the US can't pull that one off?

a reply to: 0bserver1

Because they developed those things organically. There was previous technology leading to them. You don't go from internal combustion engines to gravity manipulating drives without something in between. As one author put it, if you get your hands on technology that advanced, you have to develop the tools, to develop the tools, to develop the technology. You can't just look at it, and build it, or use it without some kind of understanding and equivalent technology.

a reply to: Zaphod58
You got a point there , but something is going on , we can possibly think that all of those stories bare any truth , and if this is all BS then its a good catalyst for scientists to research this stuff and all of those stories are more then a century old , time enough to actually build such a craft or device with the technology we have today?

Or it's the opposite disinformation to release fabricated stories believing that the US is technological superior to any nation and when real threats doomsday clock scenarios reaches midnight
the bluff call the cards and it all ends there ?

But what do we really know only that we want to know

I like these posts because it provokes some of the more elderly, knowledgeable members to grudgingly re-post what was common knowlege a generation ago!

So, yeah, some of the specifics are rubbish from people exploiting the interest, or they were paid to muddle the conversation, or both, but ultimately there is a there, there. Simply watch the skies for some number of consecutive nights to confirm.

If the level of secrecy truly involves a more accurate physics, excluding things like other life or past civs, then we have reason to sharpen pitchforks and light torches.

I'm of the opinion that our basic reality should be in the common pool of human information if we are to cling to any notion of an egalitarian system, freedom or meritocracy.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Zaphod, have you ever personally witnessed a UFO/UAP that you couldn't reconcile with your understanding of current technology?

Apologies, if you've covered this already (as I'm sure you probably have).

Thanks!

a reply to: Caecus

I've seen a couple of things that use technology that was supposedly under development or cancelled, but nothing that couldn't be explained with current technologies or near future technologies. I've seen a few things that were pretty unusual though.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Care to elaborate (what you can) on the "unusual"?

I've witnessed a few unusual events myself... nothing spectacular like a 'craft' per se, more like luminous 'objects' that didn't display commonly known/accepted aeronautical physics and/or absence of standard (FAA/Military) aircraft lighting (viewed from different angles).

Would that be similar to your experience?

a reply to: Caecus

Sounds like laser or maser (microwave laser) plasma technology.



They can even make them talk.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: 0bserver1

What makes you think we’re advanced enough to even understand what we’re looking at, let alone recreate and operate it, even if we did get our hands on a craft?

I suggest the simple thing to do here is to think in terms of consciousness and technology.

If it is conscious we can "talk".

If it is nuts and bolts technology you can't "talk" to it.

originally posted by: NewNobodySpecial268

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: 0bserver1
What makes you think we’re advanced enough to even understand what we’re looking at, let alone recreate and operate it, even if we did get our hands on a craft?

I suggest the simple thing to do here is to think in terms of consciousness and technology.

If it is conscious we can "talk".

If it is nuts and bolts technology you can't "talk" to it.

So, are you saying that if we discovered advanced technology, and it was conscious, we could just talk to it and ask it to explain things about itself to us?

a reply to: Caecus

The big one that I can talk about was one night over Alabama. I noticed a light coming up behind us high up. It was fast too. It came from me noticing it, to over the horizon ahead of us in about a minute and a half, tops. I checked with a bunch of people and there were no satellites on that track at all, not just that night. It had no lights that could be seen, and appeared to be either high enough that it was sun lit, or it had a plasma bloom around it.

a reply to: NewNobodySpecial268

Which still doesn't get us to being able to replicate it. We would still have to develop several levels of technology to even get close to that point.

a reply to: Zaphod58

or it had a plasma bloom around it.

You don't say?

You see, the thing is that there is nothing preventing plasma from appearing to travel at amazing speeds or turn on a dime, similarly to how we can steer laser pointers. Plasmas can also be produced or "travel" in water.

a reply to: IndieA

Yep, thst is about it.