UAP: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 47: | Line 47: | ||
=== 2024 === | === 2024 === | ||
{{Tweet | |||
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg | |||
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1766245545340002643 | |||
|name=Eric Weinstein | |||
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein | |||
|username=EricRWeinstein | |||
|content=NOTE: Above reference to the work of Prof. Kaiser and to JRE #1945 are included to establish that both were in the public domain, independent, in high levels of agreement, and that there was *ample* time for AARO to investigate these claims which appear not to have any impact. | |||
|thread= | |||
{{Tweet | {{Tweet | ||
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg | |image=Eric profile picture.jpg | ||
| Line 98: | Line 107: | ||
CONCLUSION: This report purports to have studied the questions raised surrounding UFO/UAP related research of the US federal Government. It, in fact, appears to have studied a carefully chosen SUBSET of the claims selected from among those which appear to have mass appeal to the so-called "UFO Community." It completely, or nearly completely, avoided reporting on all questions surrounding issues which have been raised in serious research and by PhD level researchers who have raised scientific questions in this area. This continues the pattern of using PhD level government scientists who appear to avoid the actual research questions most likely to involve sensitve Special Access Programs and Stovepiped Research which are compartmentalized by design. Whether the omissions are due to issues of avoidance, misdirection (e.g. so-called Limited Hangout strategy), ignorance or incompetance cannot be discerned from the information given. | CONCLUSION: This report purports to have studied the questions raised surrounding UFO/UAP related research of the US federal Government. It, in fact, appears to have studied a carefully chosen SUBSET of the claims selected from among those which appear to have mass appeal to the so-called "UFO Community." It completely, or nearly completely, avoided reporting on all questions surrounding issues which have been raised in serious research and by PhD level researchers who have raised scientific questions in this area. This continues the pattern of using PhD level government scientists who appear to avoid the actual research questions most likely to involve sensitve Special Access Programs and Stovepiped Research which are compartmentalized by design. Whether the omissions are due to issues of avoidance, misdirection (e.g. so-called Limited Hangout strategy), ignorance or incompetance cannot be discerned from the information given. | ||
RECOMMENDATION: It is simply not possible to treat the current AARO report as historically complete or comprehensive. To gain the public trust, the successor to AARO would have to expand and redo this analysis with input from domain professionals who are trusted by the public not to have an apparent agenda or government background (e.g. Prof. David Kaiser of MIT or Dr. Nima Arkani Hamed of IAS, Prof. Brian Keating of UCSD, Avi Loeb of Harvard) Otherwise, it is relatively easy for scientists to | RECOMMENDATION: It is simply not possible to treat the current AARO report as historically complete or comprehensive. To gain the public trust, the successor to AARO would have to expand and redo this analysis with input from domain professionals who are trusted by the public not to have an apparent agenda or government background (e.g. Prof. David Kaiser of MIT or Dr. Nima Arkani Hamed of IAS, Prof. Brian Keating of UCSD, Avi Loeb of Harvard) Otherwise, it is relatively easy for scientists to "[[Follow the Silence]]" in government reports to see what is *not* being addressed or discussed. | ||
|media1=ERW-X-post-1766244211987476587-GIL1a0fa8AA-5bB.jpg | |media1=ERW-X-post-1766244211987476587-GIL1a0fa8AA-5bB.jpg | ||
|quote= | |quote= | ||
| Line 115: | Line 124: | ||
}} | }} | ||
|timestamp=11:26 PM · Mar 8, 2024 | |timestamp=11:26 PM · Mar 8, 2024 | ||
}} | |||
|timestamp=11:32 PM · Mar 8, 2024 | |||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 06:29, 13 October 2025
This article is a stub. You can help us by editing this page and expanding it.On X
2021
Name a single species on earth so insignificant that biologists do not bother to include it on the phylogenetic tree or consider it interesting?
Neil:Pardon me for asking, but isnât *this* an egocentric anti-curiosity position elevating radical obligate âdebunkingâ over science?
How egocentric of us to think that Space Aliens, who have mastered interstellar travel across the Galaxy, would give a shit about humans on Earth.
This isnât meant as a dig. I am trying to use your same exactly choice of normative framing that you used to dismiss my fellow inquiring minds in the wake of the UAP report. Happy to remove it if we can get rid of the invective. Thanks.
*exact
2024
Many of you are asking for my reaction regarding the just released @DoD_AARO report. There is much to say. I want to think carefully before saying more. I am not unsympathetic to US National Security needs in this.
In February of 2023, @joerogan invited me for four hours onto the world's largest English Language program (episode #1945) to describe in detail the mystery of potential US Government involvement in UFOs and Post-Einsteinian physics during the mysterious "Golden Age of General Relativity". It has been seen and discussed by millions as expected. I was thus eager to see how thorough this report would be by combing it for search strings raised in my research.
REFERENCES:
"Glenn L Martin Company": 0
Bryce Cecile DeWitt: 0
Institute for Field Physics: 0
Research Institute for Advanced Study: 0
Louis Witten: 0
Roger Babson: 0
Agnew Bahson: 0
Gravity Research Foundation: 0
Gravity: 1 (pg. 32)
Rennaisance Technologies: 0
UNC Chapel Hill: 0
Solomon Lefschetz: 0
Freeman Dyson: 0
Herman Bondi: 0
Negative Mass: 0
"Scientific and Intelligence Aspects of the UFO Problem"
Australian Intelligence 1971 Report: 0
Australia: 0
George Rideout: 0
Edward Teller: 0
Robert Oppenheimer: 0
David Kaiser: 0
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base: 1 (pg. 18)
Curtis Wright Aerospace Buffalo: 0
Pascal Jordan: 0
Mansfield Ammendment: 0
Joshua Goldberg: 0
Office of Global Access: 0
University of Texas, Austin: 0
Center for Dynamical Systems: 0
Physics: 5 (pgs. 16-17, 53)
Relativity: 0
Albert Einstein: 0
George Bunker: 0
Welcome Bender: 0
George Trimble: 0
CONCLUSION: This report purports to have studied the questions raised surrounding UFO/UAP related research of the US federal Government. It, in fact, appears to have studied a carefully chosen SUBSET of the claims selected from among those which appear to have mass appeal to the so-called "UFO Community." It completely, or nearly completely, avoided reporting on all questions surrounding issues which have been raised in serious research and by PhD level researchers who have raised scientific questions in this area. This continues the pattern of using PhD level government scientists who appear to avoid the actual research questions most likely to involve sensitve Special Access Programs and Stovepiped Research which are compartmentalized by design. Whether the omissions are due to issues of avoidance, misdirection (e.g. so-called Limited Hangout strategy), ignorance or incompetance cannot be discerned from the information given.
RECOMMENDATION: It is simply not possible to treat the current AARO report as historically complete or comprehensive. To gain the public trust, the successor to AARO would have to expand and redo this analysis with input from domain professionals who are trusted by the public not to have an apparent agenda or government background (e.g. Prof. David Kaiser of MIT or Dr. Nima Arkani Hamed of IAS, Prof. Brian Keating of UCSD, Avi Loeb of Harvard) Otherwise, it is relatively easy for scientists to "Follow the Silence" in government reports to see what is *not* being addressed or discussed.
Today the DoD released our Historical Record Report Volume 1.
AAROâs report covers more than 70 years of the U.S. record relating to UAP, draws from interviews, archival research, and partnerships across government and industry.
Read it here: https://statics.dod.teams.microsoft.us/evergreen-assets/safelinks/1/atp-safelinks.html
NOTE: Above reference to the work of Prof. Kaiser and to JRE #1945 are included to establish that both were in the public domain, independent, in high levels of agreement, and that there was *ample* time for AARO to investigate these claims which appear not to have any impact.