UAP
This article is a stub. You can help us by editing this page and expanding it.On X
2021
At this point, the story I am tracking isnât âLittle Green Menâ. It is âOfficials inexplicably change course on UFO narrativeâ.
Also, the story about âTechnology never before seen.â Would make more sense with âTechnologyâ replaced by âPhysicsâ.
The US/Europe seriously diverted attention from doing real theoretical physics almost 40 years ago in 1984 to explore physics inspired mathematics. Did China/Iran/Russia/Israel? I donât know.
But I can tell you this: no one in government is appropriately focused on new physics.
Imagine in 1900 some âcrankâ told you about thermonuclear weapons. Would you listen or laugh? Well, theyâd be only 5 decades away with no aliens necessary. And powered flight hadnât happened yet!
Thatâs how powerful a ânew physicsâ advantage is. Weâre behaving like lunatics.
Any time ANYONE at least 1/2-way viable says something weird or kooky or interesting (Wolfram, Lisi, etc.) the cost of a Department of Energy 1hr phone call is negligible. Almost no one with that background says anything like this. Maybe less than 1 such PhD âlunaticâ per year.
Do I think Wolfram, Lisi, Kaku, Smolin, Klee Irwin, Sarfatti, Woit/Penrose etc are right or on the doorstep of new physics? No! But Itâs also totally irrelevant to the security risk.
It wouldnât matter to me at all. I would check in with all of them: the cost is zero. The risk?
The thing I like least about Geometric Unity is not being able to know what it would unlock if true, any more than Einstein and Bohr understood Lise Meitner, Stan Ulam & Edward Tellerâs weaponization of New Physics.
We are talking about UFOs while not worrying about New Physics.
Think about the g-2 muon anomaly. Have you heard as much about that suggesting the possibility of New Physics from high precision (rather than high energy) as you have about the TicTac UAP?
Similarly, how often do you hear about UAP technology rather than physics issues. Right??
I have no idea what to make of the change in the UAP narrative. What I can tell you with certainty is that for such an ENORMOUS change in the narrative there is no sane explanation for the DOE not to be talking new physics risks and taking every one of the few claims seriously.
As we saw over & over in the 20th century, any small change in physics can change everything almost overnight. From A-Bombs to Semiconductors.
The handful of PhD level claims are of negligible cost to investigate & dismiss compared to a single fighter jet.
DOE lost the plot.
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.
Â
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.
Â
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.