Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
UM-Bot

Secret Pentagon research projects revealed

136 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

stereologist
12 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

All science begins with an understanding of theory. From my reading the development of theoretical underthings is making some progress.  Technological or practical application seems distant but this is alwys the case with any emerging technology In 1900, who would have foreseen working televisions 25 years later? 

I think lots of people working in that area understood that images could be scanned and transmitted a dot at a time. Take a look at the history to see how incremental developments and a number of researchers in many places accomplished this technological feat.

You mention for instance anti-gravity with less success. Please point to anything that is more than as I stated "no success". Gravity can't be blocked and it can't be reversed or reduced. Gravity works as predicted as seen in recent successes with the LIGO.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Mystify
On ‎2019‎-‎01‎-‎25 at 8:19 PM, stereologist said:

False. Eyewitness testimony is not the base of any fact. Another false statement is that it has to happen to someone for it to exist.

Eye witness account is the best. What can be better than first hand experience?

Otherwise someone will always be there to say, "I didn't see it, so I don't believe it"... happens every day. There are always people who refuse to believe unless a DIRECT experience happened.  So explain to me what TRUTH is to them then?...;. you can't. I just did.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
1 minute ago, Mystify said:

Eye witness account is the best. What can be better than first hand experience?

Otherwise someone will always be there to say, "I didn't see it, so I don't believe it"... happens every day. There are always people who refuse to believe unless a DIRECT experience happened.  So explain to me what TRUTH is to them then?...;. you can't. I just did.

 

Eyewitnesses are notoriously bad. People are released from jail all of the time that spent decades in jail due to eyewitnesses. How often are there people in the news telling completely different stories and they were all eyewitnesses?

Eyewitnesses are terrible. They get things wrong. Their memories change.

What is better? Actual evidence is better. Things that can be studied and checked after the fact are better.

Does it have to happen to someone for it to exist? No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
11 hours ago, stereologist said:

I think lots of people working in that area understood that images could be scanned and transmitted a dot at a time. Take a look at the history to see how incremental developments and a number of researchers in many places accomplished this technological feat.

You mention for instance anti-gravity with less success. Please point to anything that is more than as I stated "no success". Gravity can't be blocked and it can't be reversed or reduced. Gravity works as predicted as seen in recent successes with the LIGO.

 

 I don't really accept the connection between transmitting one dot of sound as evidence that tv would one day become reality  but lets say i do, and then take it back a notch. In 1800 who would have predicted television ? 

lol of course it seems to us NOW that gravity cannot be blocked or reversed  That is simply a lack of of our present technology and theoretical sciences.  To get to a point where we  can, will take research development and advancement of both science and technology.

  But this will only happen if we believe it can be done. The EFFECTS of gravity can be neutralised by applying counter gravitational forces, for example. 

Gravity is an easy one we will probably have anti gravity devices this century (if you don't count mag lev as anti gravity )  but worm hole technology  seems to require a lot more energy and is further away; maybe  another century. 

To be clear, the neutralisation of gravity is only really a matter of the application of sufficient energy in a specific location. beginning with hot air balloons, gliders, powered flight and rockets.

One day you will be able to  strap on a small belt which neutralises the effects of gravity .   

You do not get something for nothing in science. 

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
10 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

 I don't really accept the connection between transmitting one dot of sound as evidence that tv would one day become reality  but lets say i do, and then take it back a notch. In 1800 who would have predicted television ? 

lol of course it seems to us NOW that gravity cannot be blocked or reversed  That is simply a lack of of our present technology and theoretical sciences.  To get to a point where we  can, will take research development and advancement of both science and technology.

  But this will only happen if we believe it can be done. The EFFECTS of gravity can be neutralised by applying counter gravitational forces, for example. 

Gravity is an easy one we will probably have anti gravity devices this century (if you don't count mag lev as anti gravity )  but worm hole technology  seems to require a lot more energy and is further away; maybe  another century. 

To be clear, the neutralisation of gravity is only really a matter of the application of sufficient energy in a specific location. beginning with hot air balloons, gliders, powered flight and rockets.

One day you will be able to  strap on a small belt which neutralises the effects of gravity .   

You do not get something for nothing in science. 

I suppose you don't understand the incremental nature of the processes involved. Going back in time to 1800 is rather meaningless isn't it unless you want to go back hundreds more years and consider stories of people looking at mirrors or pools of water and seeing remote events.

You appear to make the mistake of thinking that physics changes from place to place or time to time. I know there are many people that think there is an alien physics and a human physics and that simply is an idea due to lack of understanding of basic concepts. All of the theoretical understanding of gravity shows that it is never blocked. There is no hint of anything else. All of the observations of the universe show that it cannot be blocked. Your statement "The EFFECTS of gravity can be neutralised by applying counter gravitational forces, for example. " is a whimsical suggestion at best. It really makes no sense at all.

Your suggestion of "we will probably have anti gravity devices this century" is more whimsy. 

With science as an incremental field we know that any hint of anti-gravity would appear a long time before such a thing could be verified and reproduced. No place in the galaxy hints at such a situation.

Here is more malarkey "To be clear, the neutralisation of gravity is only really a matter of the application of sufficient energy in a specific location. beginning with hot air balloons, gliders, powered flight and rockets." That's completely daft. The items you list do not rely on "neutralisation of gravity". All of those items are described by Newton's laws of motion.

For those with an actual understanding of physics it should be noted that there have been a number of studies done looking into the matter of indeterminate forces acting in the universe. Some of these have been resolved and others are being investigated now. None of these issues has ever been investigated as some sort of anti-gravity events since real physicists know what has been proposed here is gibberish.

1. Pioneer anomaly

2. Galactic formation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mystify
23 hours ago, stereologist said:

Eyewitnesses are notoriously bad. People are released from jail all of the time that spent decades in jail due to eyewitnesses. How often are there people in the news telling completely different stories and they were all eyewitnesses?

Eyewitnesses are terrible. They get things wrong. Their memories change.

What is better? Actual evidence is better. Things that can be studied and checked after the fact are better.

Does it have to happen to someone for it to exist? No.

 

Actual evidence STILL needs to be seen by someone to be VALIDATED. So regardless... EYEWITNESS is inevitable in the process bro... simple. I agree memories are hard to believe in some people and some cases... but still doesn't change the fact that inorder for something to be validated it has to be observed by someone to NOTE it. That's why it's called observe.

 

Seriously... I don't think you've read enough into all SSP programs out there and ALL of what the higher ups have been disclosing.

 

https://divinecosmos.com/davids-blog/1209-endgame-pt-2/

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mystify

And before you say they HAVE to be credible to be worthy, I'll agree. Hence ALL the credible people that have come forward. Don't be last to catch on to what is REALLY going on in the world. Who the hell wants to wake up last to what's happening? F-that. I want to know everything...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
15 hours ago, Mystify said:

 

Actual evidence STILL needs to be seen by someone to be VALIDATED. So regardless... EYEWITNESS is inevitable in the process bro... simple. I agree memories are hard to believe in some people and some cases... but still doesn't change the fact that inorder for something to be validated it has to be observed by someone to NOTE it. That's why it's called observe.

 

Seriously... I don't think you've read enough into all SSP programs out there and ALL of what the higher ups have been disclosing.

 

https://divinecosmos.com/davids-blog/1209-endgame-pt-2/

 

 

 

 

Great. Now you are moving the goal posts. Someone who examines evidence is not an eyewitness.

An eyewitness is someone that has first hand knowledge of the event. Eyewitness is not someone that looks through the potential evidence at a later time. These people have second hand or third hand knowledge.

The eyewitness is the one seeing what happened and they are notoriously bad at getting it correct. It is not "memories are hard to believe in some people". It is people in general are bad at reporting what they saw.

 

Seriously?  Now you want to pretend that there is an unknown you want to pull into this. Imagine that, not all of the facts are a case are known.

 

 

Thanks for the joke link. That diving cosmos is a funny hoax site. It is the scraped up vomit of 2012. It reads like David Wilcock, the hoaxer. He was  one of the 2012 proponents with no new ideas of his own but he sure sold a lot of stupidity to the gullible fools. I was trying to find even one piece of truth at the link but couldn't. Usually sites like that begin with something truthful and then go off the deep end. Not that site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
15 hours ago, Mystify said:

And before you say they HAVE to be credible to be worthy, I'll agree. Hence ALL the credible people that have come forward. Don't be last to catch on to what is REALLY going on in the world. Who the hell wants to wake up last to what's happening? F-that. I want to know everything...

 

Don't depend on hilarious joke sites like divine cosmos for any info.

So who do you think is credible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
16 hours ago, Mystify said:

 

Actual evidence STILL needs to be seen by someone to be VALIDATED. So regardless... EYEWITNESS is inevitable in the process bro... simple. I agree memories are hard to believe in some people and some cases... but still doesn't change the fact that inorder for something to be validated it has to be observed by someone to NOTE it. That's why it's called observe.

 

Seriously... I don't think you've read enough into all SSP programs out there and ALL of what the higher ups have been disclosing.

 

https://divinecosmos.com/davids-blog/1209-endgame-pt-2/

 

 

 

 

Most cosmologists and phyicists accept the existence of black holes. 

Nobody has ever seen one, however. We've merely measured their effects. 

So there are no direct witnesses. Therefore they can't exist ? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leo Krupe
20 hours ago, Mystify said:

 

Actual evidence STILL needs to be seen by someone to be VALIDATED. So regardless... EYEWITNESS is inevitable in the process bro... simple. I agree memories are hard to believe in some people and some cases... but still doesn't change the fact that inorder for something to be validated it has to be observed by someone to NOTE it. That's why it's called observe.

 

Seriously... I don't think you've read enough into all SSP programs out there and ALL of what the higher ups have been disclosing.

 

https://divinecosmos.com/davids-blog/1209-endgame-pt-2/

 

 

 

 

I have a fossil of a trilobite  (which existed approximately 520 million years ago to 250 million years ago). Does that mean I'm an eyewitness to the Paleozoic Era? If I go to Ford's Theater in Washington DC, and stand where Abraham Lincoln was shot, does that mean I'm an eyewitness to the assassination?

If ever there was a time to use Inigo Montoya's line about meaning, this is it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.