Emails show Navy's 'UFO' patents went through significant internal review
thedrive.com
thedrive.com
> Every one of Pais' recent inventions depends on what the inventor calls “the Pais Effect,” described in numerous publications by the inventor as the “controlled motion of electrically charged matter (from solid to plasma) via accelerated spin and/or accelerated vibration under rapid (yet smooth) acceleration-deceleration-acceleration transients.”
Since it all seems to boil down to that Pais Effect, I wonder what details there are to analyze what it actually is. Rather than critiquing the designs, that effect seems to be the thing to look at.
Edit: found another article, which quoted Pais on what that effect is.
> Mr. Tingley, do realize that my work culminates in the enablement of the Pais Effect (original physical concept). The Pais Effect comprises the generation of extremely high electromagnetic energy fluxes (and hence high local energy densities) generated by controlled motion of electrically charged matter (from solid to plasma states) subjected to accelerated vibration and/or accelerated spin, via rapid acceleration transients.
> Such high energy EM radiation can locally interact with the Vacuum Energy State (VES) - the VES being the Fifth State of Matter (Fifth Essence - Quintessence), in other words the fundamental structure (foundational framework), from which Everything else (Spacetime included) in our Quantum Reality, emerges.
> The Engineering of the Pais Effect can give rise to the Enablement of Macroscopic Quantum Coherence, which if you have closely been following my work, you understand the importance of.
I don't know enough to figure out if this guy is some modern Tesla or another kook.
I came across his work because I noodle occasionally on a thread of questions that started with "is there a maximum RF frequency?" and the implications that leads to.
My hypothesis is that there must be such a limit, given that EM waves propagate at the speed of light, thus their wavelength is the c (ms)/ f(Hz) and I could not really imagine a wavelength that is shorter than the Planck constant. But a related question is the propagation of the E and B fields, which change with respect to frequency, and so what is the limit to their change rate (first derivative) with respect to the speed of light (or looked at another way, the ability of space-time to accommodate that change), all very interesting corner cases like looking at gravity on the event horizon of a black hole.
Anyway, you start going down this rat hole you find a lot of "interesting" ideas (and begin to wonder if maybe you're one of the crazies and you just don't know it yet :-)). There are a lot of easily composed questions in that space, like "Can you conduct a current in a wire that is thinner than an electron?" Which have simple answers like (there is no metal smaller than compressed hydrogen so you can't create such a wire so you can't get there from here,) And less simple answers, "What are the electrical properties of a wire made out of compressed hydrogen then?" (which was the focus of one of the room-temperature superconductor experiments).
You may find, as I have, you sometimes get math that "works" in that you've not violated any mathematical principles in deriving it, but doesn't represent a physically realizable system.
My guess, is that this guy ended up down one of those paths and has a nice, mathematically sound, derivation which, if realized into a system, would have some pretty interesting attributes. And yet the tricky bit is that last one. Sort of the mass-less pulley problem. So many interesting things are possible if you can precisely bend (or smooth!) spacetime, but how you get there from here is a still strictly in the realm of science fiction.
Isn't this already pretty well understood? For photons, E=h*f, so if you get high enough energy you will start to see pair production happening?
Pair production won't happen until two photons collide, with a large /relative/ momentum. So if they have the same frequency and are traveling in the same direction, no pair production.
But, you're absolutely correct in the case of /astrophysical/ photons. A high-energy astrophysical photon will have to pass through, among other things, the background of CMB radiation, and that gives plenty of opportunities to pair-produce, so there is in fact a cutoff to the spectrum of photons we expect from far-away events.
So it's not a limit of the universe, exactly, but it is a limit to what we can know about the universe with our current theories.
What's claimed here is that he developed such a physical theory, an experimental apparatus which detects affects from this theory and developed a workable device which leverages those affects to achieve ground breaking propulsive effects.
Holy cow. This reads like the craziest, most psychotic r/IAmVerySmart post ever. Like that friend from high school who posts batshit stuff on Facebook but practically flunked out of school.
More likely? It’s a way to funnel money around.
- Is it an outsider?
- Is there a conspiracy to explain why their revolutionary ideas are not accepted by mainstream?
- Do they operate outside of or attack the peer review process?
- Is there one clear egomaniacal leader with a cult of personality?
Of course, I suspect even his claim of observing a new phenomenon is a scam (a scam that he might have conned himself into believing), but someone should be able to reproduce it.
Tesla was disgusted by earrings. He had to calculate the volume of his food to enjoy it. Pretty clearly he had mental issues, which is usually what the more crude expression "being kooky" implies.
No they aren't. It's actually the opposite. Everything we accept as science started off as "kooky". Germ theory was started by a "kooks" who thought there were small invisible organism that made us sick. It wasn't until microscopes were invented that they were validated.
From mendel to copernicus, much of science was viewed as "kooky" and rejected initially by the educated elites. The idea of continental drift was ridiculed and mocked for decades until it was found to be correct.
> All the ones worth anything are published in peer reviewed journals.
Actually, all the ones worth anything aren't published in peer reviewed journals initially. The truly transformational ideas are almost always rejected because journals exist to maintain the status quo.
Also, you have a slavish reverence for "insiders" when they are flawed creatures as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man
All great science is "kooky". But not everything "kooky" is great science. So not mutually exclusive at all.
An excellent example of this from modern times:
>An Israeli scientist who suffered years of ridicule and even lost a research post for claiming to have found an entirely new class of solid material was awarded the Nobel Prize for chemistry on Wednesday for his discovery of quasicrystals.
“People just laughed at me,” Shechtman recalled in an interview this year with Israeli newspaper Haaretz, noting how Linus Pauling, a colossus of science and double Nobel laureate, mounted a frightening “crusade” against him, saying: “There is no such thing as quasicrystals, only quasi-scientists.”
After telling Shechtman to go back and read the textbook, the head of his research group asked him to leave for “bringing disgrace” on the team. “I felt rejected,” Shachtman remembered.
https://www.reuters.com/article/nobel-chemistry/corrected-up...
It is overwhelmingly likely that he's simply a crackpot.
Ideas are a dime a dozen, especially if they're as simple as imagining matter being built out of tiny blocks or disease being caused by tiny invisible things.
Jad: The version I know is that he was actually sitting at his desk looking out the window, and he was imagining window washers falling from their scaffolding, but it's the same exact idea.
https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/episodes/91726...
Well, Newton had lots of very kooky ideas. And yet...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leibniz%E2%80%93Newton_calculu...
Tesla would never survive in modern academia or get tenure.
No, I'm not claiming that---but you're doing a good job of making it look that way!!!
It would be nice for you to respond thoughtfully and rationally to what I said instead of merely launching a defensive attack. I wasn't trying to put you on the defensive.
I've been in academia. Have you?
Not that it’s relevant, but I’ve been in academia for the past ten years. I’ve been working with physicists for the past two years.
I'm sure this all sounds dumb, I'm not a physicist, but it's fun to think about.
Except there is no mechanism through which this could work. That would be like me saying "if I flip these bits arranged in a pentagram fast enough surely this will create an AGI." It doesn't make a bit of sense.
Have you considered the Higgs mechanism [0]?
Perhaps an adjacent theory? I am fascinated with such a concept but I am by no means an expert at all.
I would appreciate if you could expand more on your comment, thanks!
Akakakakakakakakakak
100% crank.
Full on "You're not even wrong..." territory.
Based on the insanity (why try to patent this?), I suspect the author is a kook who convinced non-experts (e.g., patent attorney) to create this patent application, with no effective internal peer review. The author's colleagues and managers either lack the specialization in the field to call B.S., or decided to stay out of it because a patent application is not worth the drama.
The oddity here is still the involvement of the CTO. Who I assume is far detached from the actual research, lacks the expertise to review, and trusted the author's claims.
the most simple answer, the answer with the most historical analogues (think government-funded remote viewing research well into the 1980s): it's a grift.
Over 85% of our operational missions have produced accurate target information...approximately 50% of the 700 missions produced usable intelligence
- from https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00788...
50% is very high because they are generating things like plans, locations, facility layouts, not yes-no answers.
If you're still having trouble believing this, but consider yourself an open-minded person I encourage you to try RV for yourself. I believe there is a subreddit that is not terrible. For RV, I don't think you need to believe it works, nor have a theory how it could, in order to get results, however keeping open-minded is useful to getting and interpreting the data you receive in RV.
Ray Hyman was commissioned (by the same government agency that released the document you posted) to review their work and found it to be disingenuous and a farce - you can read more of what he has to say here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20100709201315/http://www.csicop...
In the meantime, take a look at this (I acquired it from Mr Puthoff himself just now, especially for you)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1R8Kop6mFSmjm1gWCxiPotUtgtGT...
Right now i do believe what i can do real, and i believe the results reported in these papers are real also. I would love it if there were a better resource collection for these results and I think I'm going to build a simple website bringing that together.
You make a very strong case for your skepticism, but let me try to add more information to that. What you make of that is up to you.
I think the argument that it's a grift is easiest to unpick because of the paranormal nature of this topic you can see from your own skepticism and widespread skepticism of it that these kind of things are held to a higher standard of evidence and a greater scrutiny then say other defense contractor projects that use more conventional technologies. From that point of view I think it's more likely that a random you know defense contractor tender response is going to be some sort of a grift because it's going to promise that it can deliver XYZ results but it's not actually going to do that and the reality is you see that commonly these projects go over budget and over time. so it's actually more likely that a random defense software project is going to be a grift rather than the sort of paranormal stuff once it's been accepted and funded through multiple rounds of scrutiny and assessment.
Because people are so unwilling to believe it and because it's sort of a dangerous topic to be involved with you know it has to be able to deliver results because people are more likely to pull funding from it. So I think that's a useful heuristic argument and I think it's a valid response to counter the sentiment that it must be a grift because . The fact that it is funded and in a program makes it much more likely that it's not a grift especially that it's relatively less of a grift compared to other more conventional programs.
I also don't think that all of the documents relating to this is some sort of psyop or disinformation because from my assessment maybe I've covered less than 5% of all the documents but they look to be documents from different time periods with different authors different styles and the documents are all in different formats it just seems like it would be too much effort to fabricate all of these documents.
So I believe that the programs were real programs and they're not grifts they did deliver results and I believe that's reflected in the documentation that's been released.
To address your other points
they weren't, though. the truth is that SRI was running these studies in an unscientific fashion (read some of those results and see how liberally they counted something as "accessing the target")
50% of collection missions having usable intelligence is very high because they were producing complex diagrams, locations, layouts. You say they weren't, and perhaps you are claiming that they're not producing these things but here's a list of sample papers where you can clearly see they are producing these things as output of the RV transcript sessions.
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/document/cia-rdp96-0...
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/document/cia-rdp96-0...
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/document/cia-rdp96-0...
If you want to find many more just go to the CIA for reading room and search for "remote viewing transcripts drawings".
Alternately you're saying they weren't assessing things properly by being too loose with how they marked getting on target. But in my experience there's a confidence score that clearly reflects the proportion of accurate irrelevant and inaccurate elements in the data. And the period at SRI was basically pilot research to develop protocols and procedures that could be taught to military people and reproduced and there was sufficient success in those pilot phases that military programs were introduced and the 50% usable intelligence figure comes from the operational phase after 700 missions. So they were actually tasked to be an intelligent source for various operations and the 50% usable figure was not SRI research, it was the military assessing the results.
So your claim that either they weren't producing complex results or that they weren't getting sort of credible results it's not supported by the evidence that I've seen.
There's no perfect intelligence collection source there's flaws in all kinds of data from all kinds of sources of intelligence and so this sensor is not unique in that it has not a perfect accuracy but it still provides useful information.
to make money off of several lunatics in the military who were funding their research.
I honestly don't get the impression that the military people involved in this project were lunatics. I'm not saying there have not been any lunatics in the military nor am I saying that there have been no lunatics involved in remote viewing or other side projects. But from my contact with the documentation about this I honestly don't think any of those people will lunatic they seem more like people who perhaps are on the spectrum from skeptical to open-minded but they seem to share a sort of courage required to calmly assess evidence and adopt a rational conclusion even if it flies in the face of like a culturally normative sort of taboo.
I think this is a great moment to introduce you to a Master of Strategic intelligence thesis by someone out of the I think it's the defense intelligence college. it contains a lot of great military references and comments by military people about these programs and I think it helps provide a sort of rational perspective as well as addressing you know comments skeptical concerns and I really highly recommend you have a read of it cuz I think it's a valuable document that might add to your perspective about this.
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/document/cia-rdp96-0...
so I honestly think the skeptical perspective about this that denies the reality of it that says it's a fraud a result of two things one is it's basically a sort of laziness and a poverty of looking at the research about it and the second thing that I think that it is a result of is is people taking advantage of others who were not willing to go to the research and look it up to kind of spread this misinformation for who knows whatever motivations.
the bar is so low for this kind of stuff that you can just continue the grift for decades of "further studies", especially when claiming the soviets were doing it too.
I think the reality is, and i believe you see this too, is that the bar is far higher for this "kind of stuff" than for other more conventional tech. And no doubt saying the Sovs were doing it added motivation, but the same could be said for many projects of that era.
and don't you find it alarming that Puthoff from SRI is one of the guys involved in To the Stars, which is inarguably a grift?
Well slightly yes. I can't say definitively that two stars is a grift but it certainly doesn't inspire me with total confidence. But then again who knows? I'm not exactly sure how to assess what it is and I think it's quite complex for anyone to do that. But at the same time you know putoff is just one of the people who's been involved in these projects and if you look into the research all of these other names that are not mentioned so often in public start to come up. again I'm not really sure what that is reflective of is it something where it's like putoff is someone who simply wants to make himself publicly known about this whereas other people don't want to come forward about this, is putoff some sort of a disinformation plant or could it be something else. I think it's probably just as likely but harder for most people to accept that you know there are all of these sort of technologies that are real and their programs that deal with them but there's quite little but some public knowledge about that and then there are a few people who you know are basically lead scientists in that area and they their work cuts across a lot of those programs. so i actually don't think the fact that someone is involved in this or not when there's in reality many many people involved in this over many years, I don't think that fact is actually informative and I don't think it should kind of prejudice your judgments about this.
From you Hyman link:
This is because the current claim is based entirely upon a negative outcome — the sole basis for arguing for ESP is that extra-chance results can be obtained that apparently cannot be explained by normal means. But an infinite variety of normal possibilities exist and it is not clear than one can control for all of them in a single experiment. You need a positive theory to guide you as to what needs to be controlled, and what can be ignored. Parapsychologists have not come close to this as yet.
What he's saying is that you can't claim anything from statistically significant results because you know they could be due to any number of unknown mechanisms. But the same general criticism could be made of any scientific measurement. So to me as sort of someone with a science background this sort of anti-scientific perspective is completely bogus and irrational because on the one hand you want the public to accept the results of science but on the other hand you have this person standing up and saying in fact you know all of science is bogus but trust me you know this is a scientific perspective. Which is of course crazy and false.
I think this kind of craziness is basically emblematic of how far you have to reach and the sophistry you have to kind of use try to spin that all of this data is somehow you know not acceptable.
I'm surprised that this sort of general dismissal on gets any traction with you. I know it seems compelling because the guy speaks in an authoritative tone and provides a sort of comforting rejoinder to the somewhat unsettling new information that psychic phenomena is real. So my framing of this is it's sort of like a PR exercise and basically a sort of public service from the agency to release this seemingly discrediting information. it's basically like to ensure that the release of these documents is not too upsetting or too disturbing.
But I think if you want more perhap coherent skeptical analysis of remote viewing data you should examine the AIR report.
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/document/cia-rdp96-0...
However why should you accept the conclusions of this particular analysis when there's so much data there that you can look at and think for yourself and work at your own conclusions.
I'll finish up by making what I think is the strongest point about this that I can make it's that the kind of data that you can generate from remote viewing is so specific in terms of images diagrams colors events people places times that when there is overlap with something that happened in the past or the present or the future between coincidence as a way to dismiss it it's basically impossible because the amount of information that's there and the impossibility of having any way of obtaining that information means that like the probability of you are in a single session or a handful of sessions creating the correct overlap of that information is it's virtually impossible and so I don't think coincidence is a valid dismissal. It's vanishingly low hit that randomly. And because of that the remote viewers only need to be right once but the skeptics have to be right every single time. Because if the remote viewers are right just once it proves that there is something that cannot be explained through you know regular means. and if you're willing to open your eyes and look at the evidence or even if you're willing to try this for yourself I believe that you will see that the remote viewers have been right not just once but many many times.
Why do Skunkworks projects need patents?
This seems totally counterintuitive. Why reveal any details about the work being done?
With that said, I believe most US military patents are kept confidential, so your final question is still pertinent: "Why reveal any details about the work being done?"
So we're talking about it instead of watching what they're actually doing. The Dr. in this story seems like a made up persona to my untrained eye. Maybe a real person, but not sure about what else. Maybe even a useful idiot (term, not derogatory toward Dr. Pais) who thinks they are patenting things, causing the Drive and others to chase down all these meaningless stories and dead ends to keep everyone busy.
Was US military filing public patents for stealth planes or did they make them and keep them secret for as long as possible.
At the least though, the degree and the tonality of banal detail here, with some public records corroboration, decreases the odds this was ever in any way part of some grand strategy of disinformation, or a leak of something big that had been held under wraps. It reads as just a credentialed (and convincing) kook who got someone with authority to listen to him.
Maybe that person in authority thought "well, it doesn't cost much to try", or, "we need to keep this guy (Pais) happy so he'll finish his other more important tasks" -- then again, maybe they did think in terms of grand disinfo strategy. But nothing outlandish is really required to explain what we can now see.
> After one of his academic papers describing the patents was accepted for publication in 2016, Pais wrote in an email to several NAVAIR employees that “What is most unique about this paper is that it has already won the approval of Dr. [REDACTED], one of the world’s top authorities in Advanced Power and Propulsion/Quantum Vacuum Engineering, who has given his unreserved approval of this paper, calling it “a very good paper.” [REDACTED] has also forwarded the paper to several of his colleagues, including [REDACTED], another top subject matter expert.”
Things started in 2017 with TTSA and the Pentagon's acknowledgment of a series of videos regarding craft that showed strange movements of a unknown craft[1]. The fact is there is a pentagon program looking into this phenomenon, whether they are a psyops organization designed to deceive or mislead the public or a genuine org that is fact finding is yet to be revealed.
Couple that with the acknowledgement of a series of fantastic technology patents that show off technologies not known by mainstream science by a engineer in the Navy [2].
Even more interesting is some of the technology in the Navy patents(room temperature superconducting) has recently been shown to be feasible(although with strict environmental controls) by MIT [3].
I am uncertain what is going here, If these craft are indeed genuine my suspicion is the Govt has made a lightspeed advance in technology and these craft being seen are products from a unknown skunkworks, if that is not the case than possibly China has made the leap. If they are not genuine, then the US is running a brazenly deceptive misinformation campaign with the media(and China). The other alternatives which would be a truly unknown source, or a known extraterrestrial source. The last two being least probable.
[1] - https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/18/insider/secret-pentagon-u...
[2] - https://patents.google.com/patent/US10144532B2/en [2] - https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/28729/docs-show-navy-g...
[3] - https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/10/14/1010370/room-tem...
So the DoD is trying to normalize UFO reporting in hopes of keeping tabs on Chinese and Russian aircraft.
Commander: "What do you mean, you've 'seen those fancy new stealth fighters' before?!? They're flying over our base!!!"
Fighter pilot: "Sorry sir, we thought it was a UFO and it wasn't in the briefings before, so we didn't report it because we'd look dumb."
Intel guy: "Uh, yeah, I've got intelligence photos of these from spy sats, but since none of you had ever seen one, you weren't need-to-know... yet. We've seen them on the tarmac, but we have no idea what they're loaded with."
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/23/us-navy-guidelines...
It sounded like Mr. Fravor saw something in his airspace with his own two eyes. I don't know what it was (blimp, foreign aircraft, whatever), though I doubt it was extraterrestrial. (Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence)
I couldn't spot anything obviously wrong with Mr. Fravor's story by itself.
On the other hand, if the DoD wanted to nudge their pilots to report things they see, and had a story like David Fravor's to put out there in order to encourage current pilots to report what they see, that would be a propaganda event to encourage, so to speak, at least by declassifying harmless footage and not squashing the story.
The breakthroughs from CFS (the MIT fusion spinoff) are in specific production techniques and uses of known superconductor materials that are "high temperature", but not "room temperature". They are (excitingly) industrializing some well-established science.
The other 'recent breakthroughs' in room-temperature superconductors are similar to many accomplishments in the past, i.e., they were achieved under extremely high pressures, and do not operate on anything related to the concepts that Pais describes in his navy patents.
The Pais patents and these other works are not related; these new 'breakthroughs' do not grant Pais' work any bonus of credulity -- but lots of reporting out there relies on only briefly noting that fact, and hoping that readers may glaze over it and see connections where there are none.
edit: furthermore, the relationship between the patents and the videos as a concerted campaign has also been left for readers to make -- it's part of what makes this into some 'overall narrative', and what makes reading about these bits fun, but as I suggested in another comment, this background detail from the article on the patent process, I feel, begins to suggest concretely that the timing of all this UFO-ish stuff is (unfortunately!) just coincidence.
https://www.jpost.com/omg/former-israeli-space-security-chie...
I don't know if you guys ever had a chance to hear the stories someone with severe mental illness can create.
I had and they seem a lot with what this gentleman is saying.
It's a blend of real and fantastic facts. They give those things names we already now. Think about it: why would a galactic spanning organisation be called "Galactic Federation"?
Why not another name?
I mean, if I were trying to translate the idea of a limited liability corporation into non-English, I'd probably come up with a phrasing that ended up being very similar (if not the same) to whatever they use in Dutch or Japanese or Chinese etc. If you had a multi-star-system government that wasn't an empire, it doesn't seem a stretch that you'd call it something similar to a 'federation'.
Think about it: why would a galactic spanning
organisation be called "Galactic Federation"?
Imagine you were in charge of such a galaxy-spanning organization, encompassing multiple worlds, species, and cultures. Needless to say, communication in general and naming things in particular would be quite the challenge.
Literal names and clarity are probably the primary things you want to really value there.
Particularly if you're in charge of saying "hello" to a new species (humans, in this case) who are likely to find the experience a bit overwhelming. There's more than enough new information for them to absorb, right? Keep things as simple as possible.
Yeah, "Galactic Federation" sounds about right.
Or Very Massive Ensemble of Genetic Transport Devices.
Or anything totally new, which could gives us a notion of a galactic point of view, non-human point of view, outside of earthly concepts.
But anyways, I want to believe!
We called the earth beneath our feet "Earth". Our moon "Moon", our star ("our sun" in common language) "Sun". Our military has a force that deals with flying in the air and we called it "Air Force". Our first space force is called "Space Force". Historically, one of the biggest companies that dealt with the east indian area was called "East India Company" despite being British.
So, I'd answer back with "why not"?
Our residence and office of the leader of our country is The White House.
"Air Force" only sounds more normal than "Space Force" because most of us weren't around when it was the "US Army Air Corp".
Admittedly they could've called it something slightly cooler based off other names, like the US Cyber Command.
uuuurrrrloooop gleeeick flurrrumpa
The moment of first contact with a race of nuclear-armed savages is uh, pretty fraught, I'd imagine.
If I was in charge of that alien delegation, you best believe I'd have a well-rehearsed slide deck translated into the humans' native dialect(s)!
Sincerely, glrorpoepopo pvivinsinoborpo from gleebinimus alpha
Are the aliens using PowerPoint, now? Oh goodness, not sure I welcome our new galactic overlords.
Plenty of people were saying the NSA was syphoning tons of US citizens' info but before Snowden offered proof they were just dismissed as conspiracy theorists and lunatics...
Honestly killing or trying to silence people coming out about UFOs and alien races on earth might do more to legitimize their claims and if I was trying to keep this secret I would do my best to continue to let the public ridicule their claims and never do anything that might give some proof that I cared about their revelations.
This is also not the first high-ranking government official to make such claims, see the ex-Canadian Defense minister who made very similar claims in 2015. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3051151/Gove...
It's at least mildly curious/interesting that the stories sound fairly similar to each other.
What's most disturbing is that openness to crackpot theories now extends into high levels of national institutions. How many make the argument, 'these things are unexplained'. Lots of things are unexplained; the difference between crackpot and real is evidence - publicly available evidence - that supports it. And evidence of odd phenomena is not at all evidence that they was caused by aliens - centuries ago, it would have been attributed to a god or demon. Remember that 'I don't know' is a normal human condition - get used to it.
The Israeli general who claimed that Trump would soon reveal an alien presence among us also said
> Eshed explained that the timing was simply due to how much the academic landscape has changed, and how respected he is in academia. / "If I had come up with what I’m saying today five years ago, I would have been hospitalized," he explained to Yediot. / "'today, they’re already talking differently [a bout alients]. I have nothing to lose. I’ve received my degrees and awards; I am respected in universities abroad, where the trend is also changing.'" https://www.jpost.com/omg/former-israeli-space-security-chie...
Really? Is that serious? People need to be really, really troubled. Disinformation is flooding society.
I.e., there were not ever, actually, any such experiments, or any of the other obvious BS. There was, instead, an operation to convince people that there had been such experiments. The operation was a success: people do believe it, to this day.
"Men Who Stare at Goats" is a terrifying book by Jon Ronson exploring the program. You have to read between the lines to pick up the full consequence.
This stuff has all the hallmarks of such an operation. It is hard to imagine what point it could have. What we know that we don't know is what they are up to, or why. The patent language is spume blown off the top of the wave. The wave itself we have no information about.
Talking about "intergalactic flight" is fundamentally the kookiest bit. What galaxy would you fly to, and why? There are a trillion solar systems a thousand times closer, in our own galaxy. Surely one or two of those would be of some interest? Or a planet, a trillion times closer than that?
But, what's intriguing to me as a non-American is while NASA is spending Billions exploring space, Millions directly into trying to find evidence of life, so much so that a possible evidence of a gas which could only be generated through biological process from microbes could be considered greatest scientific discovery.
So attributing these UFO to Aliens doesn't make any sense to me. If not anything, America cares about its money right?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_National_Reconnaissance_O...
I think there are probably a couple of technologies that are only used in rare occasions, like how we first learned of the cool stealth helicopters because one crashed during the raid on Osama bin Laden's compound.
But same as you described the discrepancy between different agencies' priorities, in reality, they're all largely fragmented as individual entities as well. With little fiefdoms here, little fiefdoms there, budget battles, pet projects, clawing of funds, burrowing. Agencies are held together by two things - a dusty org chart that's drifted far away from reality long ago, and procedural stuff like budgeting and delegation of authority that just has to be observed.
Between duplicative functions performed by competing departments and counterproductive internal priorities that reflect the coteries they come from, IMO, not that dissimilar from larger established private companies.
The more evidence there is of “official” support for these ideas, the more effective the distraction.
Admiral A: What happens if they actually discover something groundbreaking?
Admiral B: Oh uh, we better have our people work on it too, just in case there's something there, so we're not left in the dust in case the other people find something first.
Perhaps the existing, "floats on water Navy" feels abandoned and unregarded because their only remaining function is to be a cover story?
Assume for a moment this is true; and there's these new interlinked technologies available now that are hard to make at present, but it's like the first Gatling gun: people are going to figure it out. The world can be kept in the dark only so long once you actually show this and make any use of it, so how to maximize your advantage in that time?
I wouldn't say "cover story." The boats — especially the subs — are still pretty crucial to a lot the Navy's functions. Laying/tapping undersea cables, for example; or shipping and escorting classified cargo and workers to set up bases and outposts
Think of it like: an Army Engineering Corps is just a bunch of skilled labor that can march around. A Naval Engineering Corps, meanwhile, is a bunch of skilled labor and a handy, defended floating base full of heavy equipment and building material.
The Navy hasn't been about "gun boats" in the sense of "boats that themselves project power" for a while; but the Navy's boats do still need to be "gun boats" in the sense of being fortresses that can defend themselves from a nation-state trying to claim the big pools of mobile resources they house.
And, just the same, the Navy doesn’t spend most of its time, budget, or manpower on “naval warfare”! What naval warfare the Navy does accomplish, can almost be seen as a secondary concern to the larger purpose the US government puts the Navy to: serving as a logistics and spec ops arm through which the non-military departments of the Executive can accomplish military goals.
Who runs and mans the Hawaii Cryptologic Center? The Navy. Guantanamo Bay? Technically a Naval base. All our spy satellites? Naval. That kind of thing, when you add it all up, costs more money, and has more military members working on it, than all the actual direct war-fighting the Navy gets up to.
Which sounds great in theory but then you realize that your local matter might be things like electrons and thus currents which are what you need to throw off that EM.
So while in theory it might work if you could find things that can move faster than they're allowed to, we don't really know how to do that just yet. Or so it seems to me.
Wow this sounds like a great idea
I'm game right there. I think this "[shell with] embedded polycrystalline ferroelectric ceramic material" is probably a bit more ceramics than I have, so there's some work ahead.
This is way beyond my pay grade. :)
The fun is that we have only two options to explain these.
1. Pais’s work is moot. Therefore the UAP must be from aliens.
2. The UAP that the pilots saw were secret demos of Pais’s work. This rules out aliens from being involved in the UAP. But this means the Navy now has an anti-gravity engine and a fusion reactor.
Pais' work is obvious crackpot nonsense. Whatever objects the pilots saw, or think they saw, weren't actually breaking the laws of physics even if they appeared to be.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/12/tic-tac-ufo-video-q-...
The problem with discounting Pais’s work is that by doing so, UAP becomes left unexplained. From the news so far, the object was accelerating at a rate no human could withstand, with no detectable propulsion. Discounting UAP would be much more difficult.
Just because something appears to defy the laws of physics, doesn't mean it does, and informed opinion is still just opinion. When someone can independently validate Pais' work by constructing an alternative model of physics that allows for gravity control and withstands experimental and predictive scrutiny, and maybe also build one of these UFOs and demonstrate in a repeatable manner that the claims being made are possible, then it's plausible.
Until then, everything we have is speculation. The most likely interpretation is still that this phenomenon can be entirely explained by conventional physics, and possibly cutting-edge classified technology, and that the "UFO patents" are unrelated to what's actually going on here.
However, whether the technology operates within or outside of known physics is not the point.
The point is that discounting Pais’ work rules out the possibility that UAP is a classified human technology, which then the only options we are left with for UAP are it is either aliens or time machines. If we accept that the two events (Pais’ work and the UAP) are unrelated, then since UAP cannot be humans it must be something else. This is where the fun begins.
No it doesn't. The relationship between these patents and UFO footage is being made by web articles and HN posters who believe in the UFO narrative, it's simply inferred because the stories became viral at about the same time.
Also, ruling out Pais doesn't rule out the entire rest of the American military industrial complex, which is quite capable of developing cutting edge technology on its own. If we assume for the sake of argument that UAPs are explained by advanced classified technology, Pais and his patent still aren't necessary for humans to be responsible.
Technically that would be possible for the sake of argument.
A government contractor who invents something would like to prevent other government contractors from infringing on their invention.
Also, if an inventor keeps an invention secret and private then another inventor may be able to independently invent the same thing, patent it, and then prevent the first inventor from using the invention.
Patents like these are coded signaling to USA's adversaries of a new-but-no-so-exciting advancement in weapons tech.
For example, Chinese military scientists would be able to read this and see some new tech in these patents, but it's buried under layers of nonsense in order to obscure it from the general public - a sort of coded threat to announce without announcing, the secret-military-science version of test flights with new aerial platforms.
It sounded bogus to me the first time I heard it, but then I imagine hearing about what the codebreakers were up to in WWII would sound pretty bogus to a layman then, too.
Since Government exists for the public good, it should already be incentivized to produce research. Patenting that research so that people can't utilize it defeats the whole point.
What am I missing?
Governments don't necessarily have to treat patents the same way as private companies do, either. Legislation can require a fairly open licensing scheme for reasonable rates, for example, which balances recouping expense with making the publicly-funded work publicly available.
You don’t need a patent system to incentivize research, people and companies can just treat new inventions as trade secrets and never tell anyone how they work. Plenty of tech companies already do this. Google has not filed patents disclosing exactly how their search system works, for example.
The U.S. military has an additional tool to protect knowledge: classification. Again, there is no patent on public file for a functioning hydrogen fusion bomb.
So why would the Navy file a patent on something? It is plausible that their goal in doing so was to disclose its existence.
That's its (stated) purpose from the viewpoint of society. Patents' purposes from the viewpoint of the inventor is to secure the 20-year monopoly on the invention (or to secure a plausible threat). Nobody would file a patent for the sole purpose of disclosure. If you really want to disclose something, there are a million easier, better, and cheaper ways to do it.
>So why would the Navy file a patent on something? It is plausible that their goal in doing so was to disclose its existence.
If they wanted disclosure, they could just post it on their website and issue a press release. Or publish a book. Or a journal article. Or add it to their podcast. They already do all these things. Why not for this?
I am still a little surprised that they are allowed to keep secrets, for the same reason.
Yes, it can.
US-government created works are automatically public domain in the US, but the government, IIRC, still holds international copyrights on them, and moreover can own (even American) copyrights on anything whose creation makes it subject to copyright.
A trade secret does.
A patent doesn't.
suppose the government spends a large amount of public funds on research that turns out to have a very narrow commercial application. if the findings can be freely used by a couple niche companies, it's effectively a subsidy to them. not necessarily a bad thing, but we might want the government to be more intentional about granting subsidies. if instead the companies have to negotiate a license, the government can recoup some of the public's money and allocate it to more research.
If the Pais effect is not described in detail, shouldn't that invalidate any patents?
The patent doesn't indicate anything more than that the idea exists in some specificity. It's something for the inventor, later, when / if the tech doesn't need to be secret anymore.
Many would argue the exact opposite: that these patents are nonsense intended to squander adversarial resources spent on vetting them.
I mean yeah, most people are going to look at these and call them crackpot nonsense, but the drawings look pretty simple, and since they're all apparently based on this one particular effect all you have to do is test the one effect to disprove all of them.
It goes without saying that these patents and the release of such complementary "UFO" videos wastes some amount of time assessing their authenticity at the very least.
I have no opinion on whether it's an effective tactic or not. But it does seem like one must assume it at least adds noise to be filtered out.
As in, look for people that have something interesting to say about these ideas?
For me, the most interesting aspect of the article was that, with a little bit of detective work and some OSINT, the author was able to deduce nearly every single redaction in the emails.
In this case, it's another type of arrogance, that these patents couldn't work because it seems to violate "what we know", which is arrogance that "what we know" encompasses "everything that is."
Arrogance can be comfortable, but it's not scientific. It seems there's a reflex to insist that sky ships "can't be alien" and "weird propulsion" can't be possible. I think this reflex is crazy. Just keep an open mind, because "there's so much we don't know."