UFO smoking gun

It's all here in this NASA paper:

ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19800010907.pdf

To summarize it's a paper about field propulsion, some kind of warp-drive using lasers and magnets, nothing tinfoil here, we all know that it's allowed by Einstein's equations and that NASA Eagleworks has been openly working on these things for years.

Here's where it gets weird: Right off the bat they start mentioning UFOs claiming to "not be involved in UFO research". Why mention UFOs? it's just a physics paper.

Then it gets weirder: Despite this disclaimer, the entire paper is essentially them admitting that UFOs could be real aliens and we should study the phenomena with "photographic spectra", "magnetic measurements" and "geiger counters" in order to glean information about their propulsion systems. In short, stories of scientists prodding crashed spacecraft in Area 51 is bunk, it's really about monitoring emissions from UFOs in the sky.

Finally there's the picture that I have included in the bottom half of pic related. NASA's ideas for a field propulsion craft; it looks exactly like the famous UFO that was seen in 1947.

So the take-home message from this is not that aliens are real, this isn't proof of that but that NASA does take the idea of space aliens seriously. Not only that but they are actively involved in studying UFOs and have even gained something from it.

Other urls found in this thread:

lunahelia.com/resources/acholt/holt.htm)
youtube.com/watch?v=BtSYjgmyHRc
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

>ASTRACT
more like ass tract

this "paper" is full of nonsense, what the fuck is this?

Flying wing research has been done as early as 1935 and this is with proof and documented by the Germans,stuff could have been work in progress much earlier.
Someone taking on theoretical research on different types of propulsion is nothing new.
If you thing there are really UFOs than you should get your head examined.
Seriously.

>we all know that it's allowed by Einstein's equations

It isn't, actually; reading through that paper, it's relying on speculative physics that have not been borne out in the last 38 years of physics research. Nobody has developed a working theory unifying electromagnetic fields and gravitational fields that has achieved acceptance. (Kaluza-Klein theory was promising for a while, but no evidence has been found for it and, like other GUT attempts, tends to predict that protons should decay. We looked and, as far as we can tell, they don't.)

Also, all known warp-drive and wormhole solutions to Einstein's equations have the slight problem that they either require truly astronomical (as in, large-planet-sized) amounts of exotic mass-energy, or require squeezing that exotic mass-energy into Planck-scale structures and Planck-scale densities, or both. Also, it's unknown whether exotic mass-energy could ever stably exist or be manipulated in such quantities and configurations. They work mathematically, but nobody knows how to get from a universe which has not been warped in such a fashion to one which has, or whether such a configuration actually represents anything physically possible and not a flaw in our theories. (General relativity is almost certainly not valid at the Planck scale, as that's around where quantum gravitational effects are believed to become too significant to ignore.)

>Right off the bat they start mentioning UFOs claiming to "not be involved in UFO research". Why mention UFOs? it's just a physics paper.

Because the paper clearly states that it's inspired by UFO research, and NASA is trying to cover their asses and say "somebody else wrote this for us" so they don't look like they're too closely involved with the fringe?

Anyway, yes, of course NASA's interested. That's the whole point of Eagleworks, and its predecessors including the program this paper's for - [cont]

>the best debunk that you could come up with is that there is one typo
10/10
>Flying wing research has been done as early as 1935 and this is with proof and documented by the Germans,stuff could have been work in progress much earlier.
If you read the Arnold report you would know that these flying wings were doing 1,200 mph. Way out of the league of even the craziest Nazi aircraft. The Horton Ho-229 is typical lazy "debunking" from skeptics, the only link is that they look the same, they did not share the same performance characteristics at all and there's zero evidence that the USAF ever managed to fly it or a variant in 1947.
>Someone taking on theoretical research on different types of propulsion is nothing new.
Yes and that's what I said, Eagleworks still does this stuff. My question is why all the UFO woo in this NASA paper? it says right there that they think it could be aliens yet you say "I need to get my head examined"?

> Nobody has developed a working theory unifying electromagnetic fields and gravitational fields that has achieved acceptance
Yes it does say that it's all based on the assumption that a unified field theory exists in the first place. It is indeed a very speculative paper but I am not trying to say it proves aliens or warp drive I'm simply saying
>of course NASA's interested
exactly this that NASA believes aliens warping their way here in flying saucers is an actual real possibility and should be investigated, both the UFO and a unified field theory that would allow this.

-there are so many wild and out-there ideas on the fringe, many of which still have some intriguing evidence or conjectures behind them. Even if they're thought to be impossible by mainstream science, we could always be wrong, and it would be so valuable if one of them paid off that it's worth looking into them on the off-chance there's a pony in there. That's what Eagleworks *is* - NASA's playground for the really crazy ideas, to explore stuff that looks far-out or fringe, but has intriguing hints at plausibility that it (warp drive, reactionless thrusters, cold fusion, antigravity...) and see if it really has found something beyond mainstream science. It's like how people do really precise tests of stuff we're pretty sure is true - Lorentz invariance, for example - just to double-check.

So of course they're interested in UFOs! They have so much evidence behind them, but they're also so implausible and so much of that evidence appears shaky that they're stuck on the fringe. But if you're deliberately mining the fringe to explore the wild ideas, *especially* if you're looking for space applications, UFOs are impossible to ignore.

(This is also why the military was so interested in them for years. The slightest possibility that some unknown agents - aliens? Soviets? - with capabilities far more advanced than your own craft are invading your airspace unhindered and fucking with you deserves serious consideration. If you're going to ignore something like that, you'd better be really goddamn sure.)

>exactly this that NASA believes aliens warping their way here in flying saucers is an actual real possibility and should be investigated, both the UFO and a unified field theory that would allow this.

Well, it says at least one person at NASA believed that in 1979. Doesn't say anything about what they believed.

What my point is, is that "possibility", and "plausibility" are different things. Almost any organization that does a lot of R&D is going to have some group that looks into the really far-out, crazy concepts - Skunkworks, DARPA, Eagleworks, the Breakthrough Propulsion Program - because if one of them pays off, it'd be huge. So "NASA thinks UFOs are an actual serious possibility, requiring more research" isn't quite the right angle to take - more like "NASA doesn't think UFOs are impossible, and it would be so important if they were real that it's worth looking into."

If you think there's a 99.99% chance that cold fusion or whatever is impossible, and you have billions of dollars to spend, then it's well worth diverting a few million dollars to look into that 0.1% left over - because if it was real and we had just missed it, it would be worth tens of billions of dollars to have found that out. Really really big payoff times really really small chance = still worth putting some money into.

>NASA doesn't think UFOs are impossible
The reason why I made this thread is because most of Veeky Forums thinks UFOs are impossible. NASA clearly doesn't as you say so why is it that a bunch of college kids think they are right and NASA wrong?

Like, I am virtually certain UFOs are not alien spacecraft - but I am not absolutely sure, and I'm not at all sure that I'm right to be that certain. Certainly I'd be too risk-averse to put any money on UFOs being totally bullshit, no matter how good my beliefs tell me the odds should be. So I am really glad that serious, respected organizations *do* investigate it and give this stuff a serious look - because if they are alien craft, I *really* don't want to be ignorant of that.

The calm voice if reason. Right here on Veeky Forums.... when we all thought it would neve-...
>*sniffs and wipes tear*

(cont) the reason is that Veeky Forums hasn't properly studied the phenomenon. They just heard about UFOs, assumed it's campfire tales and dismissed it. I used to be like this as well until I read some cases one day and realized that there really could be something to it. Then my first question to myself was "Is it even scientifically possible?" and the answer was yes for there is no proof that we are alone in the universe and and warp drives are a slim possibility. Therefore why Veeky Forums dismisses something that is a) scientifically plausible and b) actually being worked on by NASA as being "paranormal" is beyond me.

IKR? usually Veeky Forums is very knee-jerk in it's response to UFOs, the replies are actually decent and well though out this time.

shut up we are trying to have at least some discussion before /x/ shitposters invade.

Took the words right out of my mouth, I've been telling Veeky Forums until I'm blue in the face "look I'm not saying it's aliens but it could be and we should keep an open mind just in case" and I am met with replies of "hurr it's definitely nothing!" "hurr there's nothing to study!" "durr!". Well wtf is NASA doing in that paper? Giving actual methods for studying UFOs. Take spectral data, radiation readings etc. IIRC the ball lightning phenomenon was finally solved by spectral data from a photograph proving it was vaporized silicon.

You're really going about it the wrong way, then.

People filter stuff mentally based on how they react to it. "UFOs" pattern-matches to their kook bingo sheet, and so triggers the reflexive bullshit deflectors. Think of it like an immune response - people who take ideas seriously and keep an open mind can be argued into *anything* if they're not very careful, so once they have a worldview established, they shut out everything contrary without realizing it unless it looks like somebody who can be trusted, has done proper research, seems to be coming from a place they're comfortable with.

You are doing everything possible to trigger that mental immune response and pattern-match to "kook, is trying to convince you of bullshit, do not waste mental processing power on, do not incorporate bullshit into worldview." If you want to convince people, you have to not trigger that and find a path which moves them from their current state to one which incorporates your belief, without touching those mental barriers. It's like one of those complicated interlocking puzzles.

...

the typo is not a debunk, it's a joke
the "paper" has no content at all. just dribble and drawings

UFOs are not possible because the object is not unidentified to the organization that operates it. You like to be nonspecific about that organization, because while NASA experimenting with exotic aircraft is possible what you really want to trick people into believing in is aliens. Nobody is falling for it, because despite what the online IQ test says, normal people are smarter than you.

Personally, my viewpoint is that UFOs are Weird. Almost all UFO cases are probably bullshit, but there are so many of them, so many people (some quite respectable) utterly convinced of what they've seen, and quite a few well-documented or notable cases that are just too weird for me to find any plausible explanation of, that I just don't feel comfortable writing it all off as human error, honest mistakes, delusion, fraud, and the unreliability of perception and memory. And I'm wary of simply trusting the experts that say it's bunk, given that UFOs have in the past been actual then-classified experimental craft, that Roswell actually was a cover-up (not of aliens, see Project Mogul), and of other secrets and deceptions.

But on the other hand, there's so much to support the human error hypothesis, so much shaky or false evidence that the UFO community bases its theories upon, and so many holes and problems with the extraterrestrial hypothesis that I definitely don't trust it either. Or, really, any other explanation.

So, I dunno. Hypotheses non fingo; I feign no hypotheses. UFOs are weird.

If I had to bet, I'd say that there's probably at least one unknown phenomenon beyond human error that is responsible for some UFO sightings, but no more specific than that and I'd only give it 50-50 odds.

I don't know, and I don't know what I don't know or what (if any) reasoning I've gotten wrong when considering the evidence. All I know is that there's definitely an enormous amount of bullshit, misinformation, and erroneous reasoning in the UFO community, and that the mainstream usually isn't too terribly wrong in the long run - but "almost everybody I know who seems reasonable believes X" is something I'm not comfortable basing a conclusion on.

there is nothing to debunk as the paper claims the science required to turn these scribblings into a space ship doesn't exist.

>someone is blatantly lying to me
>but they lied to me hundreds of times
>therefore they're probably telling the truth some of the time

Is this Veeky Forums probability theory in action?

Haha stay in denial
>NASA paper clearly says UFOs could be aliens
>Running completely contrary to the skeptic line that aliens don't exist
>Nothing to debunk

>the same one person makes all UFO reports
>all UFO reports are the same

>the concept was of private, unofficial research
this "unofficial research" is the source of the claim that there are aliens. that is to say, it's made up

this isn't a paper
it's a "paper"
it clearly wasn't published in a peer reviewed journal

You got that backwards
The skeptic line is that UFO's are most likely not aliens. Not that there no aliens.

All of these mentally ill trailer trash are essentially the same.

Look, you're making a classic mistake here.

Say you were going to buy a bunch of lottery tickets. I could tell you that you weren't going to win big, that you were never going to win more than you spent, and I would be right.

You could say, in response, that of course it was possible that you could get rich buying lottery tickets, and you would be right.

Even if we assume that everybody in 1979 NASA was accurately represented by that belief, and that that belief is still valid evidence 38 years later, and that these are in fact the same people posting on Veeky Forums, there's no contradiction.

UFOs could be aliens. An ideal rational person would never assign 0 confidence to anything; that would require infinite evidence to the contrary.

And, nonetheless, you can still say that aliens aren't real and have never visited Earth. Because if you're confident enough in something, even though you know it's possible you're wrong (an ideal rational person never assigns 100% confidence to anything either), the risk of being wrong is negligible.

And then, of course, there's the difference between uncertainty and confidence based on the available evidence, and meta-uncertainty from your real existence as a fallible human based on the possibility that you're misinterpreting the evidence or missing possible explanations.

Are aliens visiting Earth? No, almost certainly not, for many reasons. Or, "no", for short. Should "aliens" come up in the brainstorming session for "everything that might cause UFOs"? Yes. Should we probably double-check if UFOs are aliens anyway? Yes.

And is it possible for evidence to accumulate over time, such that a belief was reasonable in 1979 but no longer seems likely in 2016? Yes.

>Jimmy Carter
>Mentally-ill trailer trash
Name one time NASA has endorsed something that was "entirely made up"
Who cares, it's clearly giving the thoughts of a high-level government organization on the issue. as I said the viability of the concepts in the papers isn't the point it's the mere fact that NASA takes it so seriously.
So it could be aliens? Exactly.

>Name one time NASA has endorsed something that was "entirely made up"

What do you mean by "endorsed?" Let somebody talk about at a conference run by another organization hosted at a NASA space center, and then write it down as conference proceedings? Because that's where that paper came from.

(Source: lunahelia.com/resources/acholt/holt.htm)

>So it could be aliens? Exactly.
Yes indeed it could be. Could. COULD!!!!
But most likely it's not. So chill.

>it's the mere fact that NASA takes it so seriously.

I think you're seriously overestimating the level of support required or implied by writing a (non-peer-reviewed) paper.

All this implies is that
>A. At least one (1) person thought this was an interesting enough idea to write down, and
>B. at least one (1) person (possibly the same person as A) at NASA thought it was worth saving a copy and giving it a document number, and
>C. that this was at least the case at one point in 1979.

This implies approximately the same level of present organizational support or interest in the concept as that one guy wearing an "offensive" shirt at the Rosetta comet landing implies about the ESA's attitude towards women.

Specifically, Alan C Holt was just a guy who worked at NASA in 1979, and this was something he wrote up based on his own research to present at the 15th Joint (AIAA/SAE/ASHE) Propulsion Conference, which was held *at* the Lyndon B Johnson Space Center. Hence the disclaimer, because he didn't want to give the false impression that this constituted any kind of organizational endorsement of his concept.

Like, this paper is also on the AIAA technical reports server. (AIAA-80-1233
Prospects for a Breakthrough in Field Dependent Propulsion). Does that imply that they support it, or just that every technical paper presented at an AIAA-sponsored conference ends up on there?

Im the OP from the other thread, thanks OP for making another thread, its nice to actually see Veeky Forums having an educated, concrete discussion about this rather than it being its usual single digit reply thread of people discarding it to /x/. Its genuinely intrigued me lately and I've never understood why it cant be normal discussion on Veeky Forums because of the abundance of evidence

Just in case anyone on Veeky Forums thinks they are shrewd enough to try to scientifically dispute the science behind this video, go at it. I'd be interested in what you have to say.

In this video, Robert Lazar discusses how extraterrestrial craft operate and manipulate gravity to travel.

youtube.com/watch?v=BtSYjgmyHRc

there is a thread about him already.
Take it there.

>Gravity A
>"Found in the nucleus of all matter on earth"
>"Gravity A is the force that holds together the mass that makes up protons and neutrons"

Someone tell Gell-Mann.

>Element 115 is stable
This gona be good.

>Add a proton on to E-115
>Becomes E-116
>Decays releasing "anti-matter"

Well I'm not going to do too much calculation because I can already see that this won't work. From what he describes it sounds like he's talking about [math] \beta ^{+} [/math] decay. So we've got a hard upper limit on the amount energy you can extract per decay of 0.511 MeV, you're going to have to put in more than that to add a proton to the 115 nucleus.

You're welcome. My problem is that everywhere is ridiculously polarized on the issue. /x/ is full on reptillians on the moon mode and Veeky Forums refuses to discuss it at all.

Switch "UFOs" with "miracles" and see if there's any difference. Then shut the fuck up and go back to .

Arguing like a 10 year old.

No, seriously. How does your argument not apply to miracles, psychics, etc? It's just rampant speculation with no basis masquerading as a hypothesis. You belong in and you know it. Now go back.

UFO =/= ALIEN SPACESHIP

>and we should study the phenomena with "photographic spectra", "magnetic measurements" and "geiger counters" in order to glean information about their propulsion systems
If the "government" ignores stuff like this it is weird, but if they look into a wide known phenomena it is also weird.
I dont get you guys

>it is impossible to not identify a flying object

Everything confirms "UFOs are serius bizness". All nuts essentially think the same way, they just have a different slogan.

There is no even remotely plausible scientific mechanism behind miracles and psychics. There is for UFOs, warp drive.

Psychics has been studied and thoroughly debunked. 100% of the time the person was found to be either faking it or just failed the test. With UFOs 95% are fraud or misidentification the other 5% are genuinely unexplainable without invoking aliens. Now imagine if all those CIA studies had found out that 5% of psychics passed every test with flying colours and were proven to not be fake. Would they just say "ok let's just ignore it"? No.
>UFO = alien spaceship
ftfy

>but that NASA does take the idea of space aliens seriously
they alway did
I dont know why that would surprise anyone. They dedicated whole programs/ teams to the possibility of alien life

>Ufology is the act of not identifying a flying object
Really makes you think...

>UFO = alien spaceship
thats simply wrong.
those terms shouldnt be confused

think about it all you want, but it is nothing I said or implied

Did you not read the OP at all?

Yet Veeky Forums still believes there are no aliens on Mars or Enceladus. It's staring you closed minded fools right in the face, every year they ask congress for money to go hunt aliens. And if they find the bugs on Mars then that pretty much means life is everywhere and by extension there is intelligent life out there somewhere. Wake up sheeple!

is this the tinfoil hat hour again ?

ufo is real
the is antichrist

>There is no even remotely plausible scientific mechanism behind miracles and psychics. There is for UFOs, warp drive.
I think you are confusing a concept of *science fiction* with a scientific mechanism. If a warp drive is scientific then so is the psychic aura field. The warp drive is just a name for magic that science fiction authors need to get things to go to other galaxies in their story. The only relevant difference is that people who read science fiction know it's fiction, while people who use psychics actually believe it. Well, apparently not everyone knows it's fiction (you).

>Psychics has been studied and thoroughly debunked. 100% of the time the person was found to be either faking it or just failed the test.
That's bullshit. Statistically, a small amount of psychics will ace any test through sheer chance. And most psychics have not been studied at all, just like most UFO sightings. If you want UFOs to be taken seriously you should take psychics seriously as well. You're being hypocritical.

If there was anything to study, UFOs would probably be debunked as well. All you have is this textbook argument from ignorance: we can't explain UFOs, therefore aliens. In reality, the only reason we can't explain UFOs is because there is very little information about them. If I move something very fast in front of your face, and you try to explain what you saw even though it was only a blur, do you say it was an alien? Magic? Well obviously it has to be since you can't determine what it is! Do you see the irony?

>Yet Veeky Forums still believes there are no aliens on Mars or Enceladus.
So does NASA. You are being disingenuous with your word choices. Conjecturing about something doesn't mean you believe it's true. Pointing out that there is no evidence for something and that it's a waste of time thinking about it does not mean "it's impossible". Anything is possible. Aliens are possible. This is not a particularly exciting or informative statement. Miracles are possible. Psychics are possible. Until I see hard evidence of these things I won't take them seriously though. If I took one seriously then I would have to consider them all. There has to be a base level of plausibility. It can't be 0.

So what are you saying?

>>Switch "UFOs" with "miracles" and see if there's any difference. Then shut the fuck up and go back to .
>it is impossible to not identify a flying object
This does not make sense as a response.

Is anti-gravity even conceivably possible?

>NASA is searching for aliens
>See, why don't you believe they're on Mars?
Drink bleach

it does.

you cant equate UFOs with miracles.
It isnt a miracle that there unidentified flying objects. There are many mundane scenarios where this could be the case

Yes, but under current theories of physics, it is impossible. There are of course alternative theories that would allow for it, so it's certainly concievable, but those are considered unlikely to be true and any that have been refined enough to attempt to predict the world have not held up when those predictions are tested.

The simplicity and accuracy of GR suggests that it's probably captured some important aspect of the structure of the Universe, and most modifications to GR that would allow antigravity tend to look pretty unnatural or require the existence of phenomena considered probably unphysical (such as independently existing long-term negative mass) or which disagree with experiment.

You can actually do some interesting things in known physics with gravity, but because matter couples so weakly to gravity, you need stuff like large quantities of neutronium-density matter moving at relativistic velocities to get usefully strong fields. Unfortunately, known physics does not provide us with any attractive solutions to the engineering problem this presents.

>It isnt a miracle that there unidentified flying objects.
OK, so I can see you don't understand how analogies work. Get back to me when you figure it out.

well, most of the time they dont just work by randomly switching words like you suggested here

It is actually pretty much the exact opposite you giant retard

Veeky Forums BTFO

"U.A.P. That's the latest nomenclature."
www.google.com/search?q=define%3AUAP+ufo

UAP says a lot about Ufology. It wasn't ufologists who introduced it, it was the British Ministry of Defence. The term pretty much shows that there are serious organizations out there who would like to study it but don't because of the stigma. The British government's solution was simply to rename it in order to get support for their study.

>protons don't decay
Over an infinite time span?
What are the decay requirements for Kaluza-Klein? What are some theoretical decay metrics for protons which could still be validated, if it's possible to test them at all?

Proton decay may be a deliberate distraction. 5-dimensional Kaluza-Klein (following Einstein/Bergmann 1938) is still alive: C. C. Briggs, A possible theoretical basis for propulsive force generation by both conventional and unconventional means - arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/9912/9912120.pdf

I don't get why it would be secret, I mean the rocket equation has long been widely available. Why all the secrecy around warp drive? And in any case secrecy has done jack shit for keeping tech in the hands of one country in the past due to simultaneous discovery. If the Americans have worked out warp drive you bet the Russians have as well just like with the atomic bomb.

Ayys aside, is the physics in the paper even legit?

>Russians have as well
Of course, and others. But at a certain level there's only one 'ruling body' which transcends such tribal limitations.
"Disclosure is impossible and at the same time, inevitable."
www.google.com/search?q=A.D.,+After+Disclosure

Contrary to popular beliefs most religions won't really care. Astral beings are all over the Bible, Koran, Torah etc.

Collapse of religion was mentioned in the 1961 Brookings Report for NASA recommending coverup of findings but more interesting considerations can be found in the French COMETA Report (available at www.ufoevidence.org/topics/cometa.htm).