Counter-Evidence for Man Made UFO claims

[Ron Collins]

I figured I would make this post somewhat separate from "jratcliff"'s post. I kind of like the idea he proposed. Is there a way we can increase or decrease the probability that many classical UFO sightings are indeed manufactured by man.

In doing so we must keep a few things in mind.

A) There is no way to feasibly eliminate a possible explanation. Unless that explanation is patently absurd. That the classical UFO is man made is not an absurd notion.

B) No government or corporate entity would spend 50 plus years developing a technology without a very lucrative result.

So with that being said I think there are some questions we can ask and provide counter-evidence for. By counter-evidence I mean evidence that suggests they are not a product of man in his current state of technological sophistication. We can do this by identifying the characteristics of the reported craft and possible uses for which this technology would be invaluable.

A quick note. As Friedman is quick to point out, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." In pursuing this particular aspect we have to keep this firmly in mind else we fall into the same false logic trap many debunkers find themselves. However, identifying many needs that such technology would fill and assessing their probable value to the the associated field may yield an ability to largely decrease the probability that they are man made craft.

To my mind, the easiest way to show this is by looking at the U.S. military. The collective U.S. military has far and away the largest budget of any military in the world. Comprising the sum greater than many nations GDP. Through entities like DARPA and R&D programs with top military contractors that specialize in weapon and transportation development the U.S. military has been the progenitor to a great many technological applications that have eventually found their way to the private sector. This is a natural progression. Those with the money get the benefits of technological advances first. Then, after a period of time, the contractor will take elements of the development and infuse them in product lines with less security and greater depth of market. GPS technology is a great example as is night vision technology. Therefore, I assert that the U.S. military would be heavily involved in the development of such craft.

At this point we can start to identify the characteristics of the craft reported in most sightings. Then we can ask what roles in military service such a craft would fill.

Characteristics
1- Sizes ranging from 20 or 30 feet in diameter to over 1 mile. (I will use the classical sighted craft for this argument.)
2- The craft is able to hover
3- The craft is able to ascend or descend vertically or horizontally at speeds from the very slow to the thousands of miles an hour
4- The craft is able to make non-aerodynamic maneuvers. (ie. right angle turns and instant acceleration to many mach without producing a sonic boom )
5- The craft are reported to be very quiet or outright silent
6- the craft can land in many different types of terrain and may possess the agility to maneuver horizontally at low altitude around possible obstructions.

Ok, now we have our characteristics criteria. So lets start to identify military roles such a craft with these characteristics would be suited... if any.

1- Covert Insertion and Extraction. This is a Special Forces Commanders wet dream. A craft of these characteristics would simply be used for EVERY SINGLE deployment. BAR NONE! This sort of a delivery and extraction platform would be so heavily utilized by the special forces it would be as if there were no other forms of insertion and extraction. The ability to silently and quickly deploy to a target location, execute the mission, and silently extract what special forces is all about. This craft would be purchased in bulk and utilized to death.

2- Battlefield Emergency Medical Evacuation. Thousands of soldiers die because they could not get medical attention for theor wounds quick enough. Though this particular issue has benefitted greatly from medical, communication, training, and transportation advances in the past several decades, this type craft in different configurations could dramatically reduce the "time to treatment" for injured soldiers. I can see a faster, silent, air ambulance to transport an injured soldier to a another larger craft big enough to house a few operating rooms for a sort of hovering emergency hospital. Each soldier represents a very large monitory and time investment by our military. Absolutely no commander sends his/her troops into harms way without medical contingency planning. This is equal parts asset economy and moral duty. Especially in todays complex media-centric society. Unlike any other war or action in U.S. history, now every soldier has a face and name for the local media outlet to bring to the masses. This causes the pentagon a PR hit, recruiting suffers, budgets get harder to justify, and blame needs to be assigned possibly hindering or ending careers. All of this can be avoided if the soldier lives. Yes, it is tragic that a soldier was irreparably injured but one can easily justify with the fact that they knew they could be killed going in. After all it is the military. But, when a soldier dies, he/she suddenly becomes a son or daughter. Therefore, it is very easy to understand that any technology that shows promise in saving lives would be quickly and efficiently utilized.

3- Battlefield Surveillance. This usage is just blatantly obvious. But, for the sake of completeness I will throw an idea out. One craft could house a multitude of surveillance and counter-surveillance hardware to deploy against a target at just about any location in any weather regardless of terrain. In my opinion, this is a mission the craft is currently utilized for by the occupants of the craft.... whoever they might be.

4- Combat Resupply. For a good primer on possible advantage such a craft would have in regards to this all but overlooked issue one needs only to look at the circumstances encountered during the Battle of Mogadishu in 1993. Pinned down and under constant fire from all sides Army Rangers, Delta operators, 4 Navy SEALS and a few Air Force Pararescue troopers were essentially fighting to honor the code of "No One Left Behind" as they tried to secure a perimeter around at least two downed helicopters. (there were actually 4 downed birds that day, only 2 in the city) As they fought, the enemy fire kept resupply efforts stalled and the men were quickly running out of ammunition, water, and medical supplies. In this type scenario a craft could shoot in and drop a payload with pinpoint accuracy and accelerate instantaneously away before taking to much if any enemy fire. The silence of the craft would also help to decrease the possibility of alerting the enemy to your goal.

5- CAS (Close Air Support). A squad of soldiers is pinned down with a sheer cliff at their back and they are engaging a numerically superior superior force as close as 15 or 20 yards away. They need help and quick. So, the commander calls for CAS. High above a C-130 gunship get the call for help, or its an apache helicopter, or an F-16....whatever, they com in and fire on the opposing force (hopefully) with accuracy (again, hopefully) eliminating or significantly reducing the threat. Gunships are inaccurate behemoths better suited to destroying a tank or supply column. Fighter craft are too fast and their rate of sustained fire is too low. Several passes are required allowing for the enemy to scatter and an industrious enemy to prepare to take down the fighter. The helicopter is currently your best friend in this scenario. The major problems are their limitations in altitude higher than 10,000 ASL (at seal level) where the air is too thin to provide stability. Also, they are very loud and alert the enemy to what is about to happen allowing them to take cover. The helicopters ability to stay on station and deliver a constant rate of fire on target from a hovering or slow moving low altitude is a huge advantage. But, the disadvantage is that it is a relatively slow lumbering beast when leaving the fight making it a nice target for enemy forces. Obviously a craft possessing the characteristics above would be or great use here. It would, by virtue of its silence, speed, and maneuverability help to save the lives of hundreds of soldiers and strike fear in the enemy.

6- Rapid Troop Deployment. With a craft that can travel at those speeds and with that range of sizes one could easily imagine the ability to transport an appropriate number of troops to a given location in a very short amount of time. The concept of rapid deployment is a key issue in military theory dating into pre-history. You do not need to be Sun Tzu to understand the benefits of quickly deploying troops to a location that affords you a great advantage and in a strength large enough to seize that advantage. Such a craft would easily allow the battlefield commander to deploy a sufficient force to areas of increased activity or to a strategic location. As this is a tenet of military theory from any age such a craft would be immediately utilized for this purpose.

7- Fighter/Attack Aircraft. Every fighter or attack aircraft in the history of war flight has had to deal with the limitations imposed by the laws of aerodynamics. Thrust and lift have to be utilized to overcome gravity. So could the military use a craft that is 5 or 10 times faster than any enemy aircraft and can easily out-maneuver aerodynamic craft? Of course they could. Modern warfare begins with a concept called Air Superiority. If you control the sky then you can use this medium for things like resupply, troop movement, surveillance, and attack. Without air superiority these concepts become many orders of magnitude harder to accomplish. Any halfway decent battlefield commander knows that gaining control over the airspace is essential to a swift victory.

8- Psychological Warfare. We have a craft that has the following characteristics (See the list above). The C-130 Gunships are affectionately known as Steal Rain by the Afghan forces. They have an almost boogie man mystique there. For good reason. They fly at night and using FLIR technology and the careful application of .50 caliber vulcan cannons, 20mm guns, and guidance assisted rockets rain pure destruction from the sky. This one platform is an enormous tool in the psychological warfare game. It effectively says, "If you gather in groups to attack our interests, this craft will find and destroy you before you have a chance to take cover". Unfortunately, it is big, noisy, and largely inaccurate. This coupled with the rules of engagement (it can only engage an enemy target at night) and the ridiculous red tape of communicating with ground troops from another branch of service, has been the cause of more than a dozen friendly fire deaths in Afghanistan alone. Sorry, that is a big pet peeve. I digress. Such a device would not only be a devastating morale killer in the enemy but a huge morale booster for the U.S. Military.

9- Mission Specific Mobile Weapons Platform. This is a role is currently filled by a variety of helicopters or converted light cargo aircraft like the C-130 from the air and the ubiquitous stalwart of military ground transportation the High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) more commonly known as the Humvee. This is a very broad spectrum of possible configurations. I include it because such flexibility in mission configuration would cause any battlefield command to salivate uncontrollably. Imagine a single craft that could afford kitting for both ground, sea, and air missions. This may not seem sexy, but it would be the Holly Grail of military hardware.

I could have come up with 10 or probably 100 things to prove my point but I'm tired and want to go to bed. My point in all this is to show that there are at least 9 serious issues that the military could solve with the advent of that single piece of technology. The fact that not one of these is being filled by this technology or a obvious element of its technology then we can safely reduce the probability of these craft being man made to a very low number. All but non-existent.

If you are still reading this, then thank you. Sorry for the novel. I just feel strongly the idea that it is all man made craft is not at all correct. Though it remains a possibility, I have to say given this counter-evidence I feel safe in saying that they are not man made. Or at least not man made utilizing our current levels of technology. Let me know if you agree or disagree.

Thanks,
Ron

 

[Ron Collins]

I realize this is a long post, sorry. Does anyone have feedback to what I have written? Positive or Negative?

 

[Darkly Brooding]

Just so a decent write up isn't left hangin' for you RonC, it's my belief and understanding (from various unconfirmed sources of course), the purpose for the larger triangle craft were as high altitude surveillance and weapons platforms. I guess that would be covered in points #3 & #9.

There's also ample proof that the military has had discussion of, has the strategic need for, and the desire to produce such a platform dating back to the Reagan era.

This would also cover the argument from those who claim that if we have such vehicles we would certainly have used them in recent theatres of conflict. There would be no way of verifying they haven't/aren't, yet it's reasonably plausible that they are & do simply from the reason mentioned above.

Furthermore, there are a number of examples of uncommitted designs for massive air transports from Lockheed skunkworks,...almost too many to believe they haven't been developed in one form or another, by one source or another. The concept of using anti-gravity systems to lighten loads for these ships (reportedly up to 89% mass) would also be pretty hard for the military to say no to, if such tech exists.

Of course reports from people like Tim Ventura of AmericanAntigravity.com, that such anti-grav devices have not only been developed in small scale by SARA, but shut down and shelved nearly 5 years ago, tells me they may already have such tech developed and don't want other developers going near tech that's top secret and possibly already deployed. I can't think of any reason why they wouldn't otherwise jump all over this opportunity to develop it from this source, other than, they already have it.
source: Defense contractor's anti-gravity discovery disclosed

Needless to say the science is there to produce such craft(anti-grav) and the fact that they keep this kind of new-found knowledge of physics secret also speaks volumes.

I can also understand why sighting one would be a rarity if these things are intended to hover at 120,000+ feet, and remain aloft, possibly unmanned, for extreme lengths of time, and restrict themselves to nocturnal basing at undisclosed locations. At that altitude it would be very difficult to spot or track one if you weren't specifically looking for one. Add to that the desire to keep this underwraps and not over-use such vehicles (maintain/deploy for surveillance but design them for multiple purposes), and you have a fairly decent argument for their existence.

Finally, there's the video & photographic evidence of some very unique and very similar craft operating in our skies dating back to Belgium traingle wave in '89 and up to today as found on youtube channels like seeingUFOsPA. Although I can't think of any aircraft that this might be, there's plenty to suggest it's man-made and unknown, and flying regularly enough to be caught multiple times on film. Too similar to be coincidence imo.

 

[Unky]

Wow, this is an impressive post. Looks like milk and cookies kept someone awake. You make a lot of good points here. Regarding "B" it's difficult to predict how long any government would support classified research of an advanced propulsion system with practically unlimited black budget funding before it determined that such a project was no longer useful to pursue.

I've always felt the "human explanation" for UFO's prior to the year 1960 was so ridiculous it wasn't even worth discussing. This feeling was compounded when NRO historian Gerald Haines released what has now become the CIA's official UFO explanation in 1997. (BTW the idea of a NRO historian is a bit of an oxymoron since almost everything the agency has done since its existence was officially acknowledged in the early 90's is still classified.)

 

[Kieran]

Just so a decent write up isn't left hangin' for you RonC, it's my belief and understanding (from various unconfirmed sources of course), the purpose for the larger triangle craft were as high altitude surveillance and weapons platforms. I guess that would be covered in points #3 & #9.

There's also ample proof that the military has had discussion of, has the strategic need for, and the desire to produce such a platform dating back to the Reagan era.

This would also cover the argument from those who claim that if we have such vehicles we would certainly have used them in recent theatres of conflict. There would be no way of verifying they haven't/aren't, yet it's reasonably plausible that they are & do simply from the reason mentioned above.

Furthermore, there are a number of examples of uncommitted designs for massive air transports from Lockheed skunkworks,...almost too many to believe they haven't been developed in one form or another, by one source or another. The concept of using anti-gravity systems to lighten loads for these ships (reportedly up to 89% mass) would also be pretty hard for the military to say no to, if such tech exists.

Of course reports from people like Tim Ventura of AmericanAntigravity.com, that such anti-grav devices have not only been developed in small scale by SARA, but shut down and shelved nearly 5 years ago, tells me they may already have such tech developed and don't want other developers going near tech that's top secret and possibly already deployed. I can't think of any reason why they wouldn't otherwise jump all over this opportunity to develop it from this source, other than, they already have it.
source: Defense contractor's anti-gravity discovery disclosed

Needless to say the science is there to produce such craft(anti-grav) and the fact that they keep this kind of new-found knowledge of physics secret also speaks volumes.

I can also understand why sighting one would be a rarity if these things are intended to hover at 120,000+ feet, and remain aloft, possibly unmanned, for extreme lengths of time, and restrict themselves to nocturnal basing at undisclosed locations. At that altitude it would be very difficult to spot or track one if you weren't specifically looking for one. Add to that the desire to keep this underwraps and not over-use such vehicles (maintain/deploy for surveillance but design them for multiple purposes), and you have a fairly decent argument for their existence.

Finally, there's the video & photographic evidence of some very unique and very similar craft operating in our skies dating back to Belgium traingle wave in '89 and up to today as found on youtube channels like seeingUFOsPA. Although I can't think of any aircraft that this might be, there's plenty to suggest it's man-made and unknown, and flying regularly enough to be caught multiple times on film. Too similar to be coincidence imo.

The Belgium sightings of UFOs during the 1989 and the late 1990's occurred in a country where the headquarters of NATO is. I wonder was it indeed an exercise to test the response from an intrusion into Allied airspace.
Well the idea that it was Alien spacecraft still stands.

In essence what ever the small triangle is, it was capable of doing speeds that even modern fighters had trouble following.
Well basically, the triangle from the photographs i have seen, have three white lights on the outer edges and one red light in the middle. The problem for me is. How would a human pilot fly the craft, when there is no visible windows. The surface looks entirely black like no visible means of viewing outside. I not aware of any craft that has no windows even advanced craft like the stealth bomber has windows.

I wonder could a human pilot purely on computer equipment alone, and let us not forget the dangers of a breakdown in technology.

 

[Ron Collins]

The Belgium sightings of UFOs during the 1989 and the late 1990's occurred in a country where the headquarters of NATO is. I wonder was it indeed an exercise to test the response from an intrusion into Allied airspace.
Well the idea that it was Alien spacecraft still stands.

In essence what ever the small triangle is, it was capable of doing speeds that even modern fighters had trouble following.
Well basically, the triangle from the photographs i have seen, have three white lights on the outer edges and one red light in the middle. The problem for me is. How would a human pilot fly the craft, when there is no visible windows. The surface looks entirely black like no visible means of viewing outside. I not aware of any craft that has no windows even advanced craft like the stealth bomber has windows.

I wonder could a human pilot purely on computer equipment alone, and let us not forget the dangers of a breakdown in technology.

UAV's (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle) or UCAV's (Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle) have no windows nor a need for them. FLIR cameras, GPS, and other navigation and visual aid payloads help remote pilots or autonomous software packages complete the assigned mission. We are just in the infancy stages of UAV/UCAV technology. I'd be willing to bet that in 10 or 20 years we will have the capability of deploying a wide assortment of unmanned craft for virtually any mission or role. Be it surveillance, fighter, bomber, or support roles it is conceivable that this sort of technology will become the norm.

So, my point being that the craft itself speaks very little as to the biology/physiology of its pilot or creator. No matter the configuration. The point I have made in my post is that if such a craft were manufactured by humans from this day and age, it would see widespread usage in our military. Such a craft is noticeably absent so that makes the man made explanation highly unlikely. Though, I would stop far short of declaring it alien, interdimentional, or anything else. There simply is not enough data to support such a statement.

 

[Ezechiel]

I realize this is a long post, sorry. Does anyone have feedback to what I have written? Positive or Negative?

We don't have these capabilities, thus their origin is external. Its a normal reflex the majority of people don't have because we are supposedly the ultimate creation of the universe.

For those who've witnessed these demonstrations, its obvious they are alien and their technology is superior.... for all others: humans are the best of the best of the best

Covert Insertion and Extraction. This is a Special Forces Commanders wet dream. A craft of these characteristics would simply be used for EVERY SINGLE deployment. BAR NONE! This sort of a delivery and extraction platform would be so heavily utilized by the special forces it would be as if there were no other forms of insertion and extraction. The ability to silently and quickly deploy to a target location, execute the mission, and silently extract what special forces is all about. This craft would be purchased in bulk and utilized to death.

On logic alone, the man-made UFO claims for these types of behavior crashes big time. We don't have these types of craft... period.

On logic alone, given the age of the universe vs the age of our solar system and factoring in the time it takes for monkeys to evolve into high-tech sentient animals and propagate. We should be buzzed regularly by these craft (regardless of distance).


What is surprising is what they do with all that technology:

• Covert operations
• Rumors of aggression
• Abductions
• Buzzing nuclear facilities... etc.

On a macro scale, we are no threat to them and they apparently are no threat to us. Why they operate on a micro scale is what interests me... Is there any military strategy based on this approach ?

Passive infiltration ? Micro scale interventions... trying to tweak human genetics ?

Suddenly I feel like a lab rat

 

[Red]

I ran into this information previously for another thread, but am posting it here due to its relevance. What I thought was interesting is that they are working on quieter helicopters.
Boeing recently developed an unmanned helicopter that has a whisper-mode making it four times quieter than conventional helicopters when hovering or moving slowing: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/01/a160t_back_in_black/

And here is another article that would seem to indicate that stealth (quiet) helicopters have been in development since Vietnam:
http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/16047922.html
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/mh-x.htm

Obviously a quiet helicopter would have the advantage in combat and reconnaissance.

 

[Kieran]

UAV's (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle) or UCAV's (Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle) have no windows nor a need for them. FLIR cameras, GPS, and other navigation and visual aid payloads help remote pilots or autonomous software packages complete the assigned mission. We are just in the infancy stages of UAV/UCAV technology. I'd be willing to bet that in 10 or 20 years we will have the capability of deploying a wide assortment of unmanned craft for virtually any mission or role. Be it surveillance, fighter, bomber, or support roles it is conceivable that this sort of technology will become the norm.

So, my point being that the craft itself speaks very little as to the biology/physiology of its pilot or creator. No matter the configuration. The point I have made in my post is that if such a craft were manufactured by humans from this day and age, it would see widespread usage in our military. Such a craft is noticeably absent so that makes the man made explanation highly unlikely. Though, I would stop far short of declaring it alien, interdimentional, or anything else. There simply is not enough data to support such a statement.

I'm resistant in many ways to the idea that the Belgium sightings was a secret still classified human created craft and also I'm resistant to the belief that it was an alien spacecraft. I'd agree with most of what your saying in your post. However, the craft seen over Belgium might still be classified for a number of reasons. It has no wings, it might be using a new type of engine or propulsion, has no visible windows. As you have stated we have a number of unmanned Reconnaissance aerial vehicles in operation, but at this stage present time nothing of the size of a craft observed in Belgium.It's just speculation what i am saying here, but as an opinion i wouldn't be surprised if did turn to be the case that the Belgium triangle was an creation by humans with maybe and that is still open to debate and has no final resolve, through having learned or gained knowledge to new things from studying ET technology.

Or maybe it is Alien, it is similar to the larger craft described or that has been reported in UFO lore. It's possible the craft reported is just one size and length and people are just confusing the width and diameter in their Experiences

I'm still unsure it would be used for battle. The threats that are out there in the world are not suffice, to openly show of craft that in my opinion is light years ahead of every country today, never mind in 1989. Stealth is outstanding bit of technology, but still it has some base in reality, it's possible a real mystery would happen and questions would be asked among scientists and engineers if the triangle was shown and used by the American military.

Stealth was viewed as possible by other nations as achievable, if they had the spending power or drive to do it. China is in the process of developing a stealth fighter of there own. I think it will go into mass production either in 2010 or 2011.

 

[Trajanus]

It's just speculation what i am saying here, but as an opinion i wouldn't be surprised if did turn to be the case that the Belgium triangle was an creation by humans with maybe and that is still open to debate and has no final resolve, through having learned or gained knowledge to new things from studying ET technology.

Occasionally we hear of enormous sums going into "black budget" projects. Given that, and ample time for study, you may well be right.

China is in the process of developing a stealth fighter of there own. I think it will go into mass production either in 2010 or 2011.

I wonder how good compared to F-22.

 

[Schuyler]

Ron,

What an excellent post! It must have taken you a significant amount of time to put this together. I'm just sorry I didn't get to it right away. Also, the follow-ons are really great as well.

For the sake of the argument, either the military does have this technology, or they don't. I know that's absurdly tautological, but let us say that they do. If they don't, I have little to say. It's the Space Brothers, Orthon, or (I dearly hope) Aura Rhanes, so that's why I'm on the "They do" side for the moment.

If they do, they don't seem to be using it. Oh, they might be using it for very black surveillance ops or extremely top secret issues, but they don't seem to be using it for all the things that would give them such an incredible advantage that "resistance would be futile."

You could say with some justification that resistance is already futile and that the American military is currently effectively so dominant that no other nation on the planet could effectively win a conventional war. I know this has nothing to do with morality, "fairness," hearts and minds of people, or IED warfare. I am not attempting to argue what is right or wrong here. I'm just saying that if you fear for you and your country's life, you better hope the US military is on your side. That has been true historically for over 100 years and it is true today.

Now, given that reality, it might be the case that the US military need not deploy these advanced technologies simply because they don't have to. The casualties are 'manageable' and historically very low. (Did you know, for example, that the military losses during the US Civil War are more than all other wars is US history combined?)

So, if the US military has these capabilities and is NOT deploying, you are still faced with the question, why not? The answer could be that the wars in which the US is engaged are not life threatening, and that the last time the US engaged in warfare using advanced weapons, things got out of hand very quickly. (You also have the issue of deployable quantities.)

I know full well that the use of atomic weapons on Japan is controversial. I actually took an entire course on this issue. I know the pros and cons and don't wish to debate it. I agree with everyone. For me, it is a personal issue because had that not been done, there is a good chance I would not be typing these words. My father was in the Philippines. The plan of attack was to invade Japan, and the US expected to lose---one million men. I know it's easy to claim immorality from the lofty viewpoint of the 21st century, but that was the mindset at the time. 160,000 vs 1 million was the choice that was made.

Whether that is all true or not is debatable, particularly in hindsight. But the fact is, it happened, and after it happened, the world knew it was possible. Once it was known to be possible, it was no longer the case that you had to ask IF it could be done. the answer was: Yes, it could. The question became: How can we get it? Well, the Soviet Union, as one example, was able to get a jump start by the very knowledge that it was obviously possible, and, helped by such stalwart ethical theorists as the Rosenbergs, was able to get enough knowledge to make their own, and for over a half century, the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) has been with us.

Now we inhabit a world where such restrained and mature democracies such as Iran and North Korea regularly threaten the world with destruction without seeming to care about the 'mutually assured' part, assuming restraint by everyone else.

Now we come to it. If the US military has these wondrous technologies, why would they make the world realize it was all possible and risk other countries take advantage of that knowledge and build their own stuff, either because they knew it was possible, or by means of espionage? If I were the Chief of Staff and actually knew my country had these capabilities, I believe I would be tempted to NOT show all my cards and to reserve the very best of what I had in case things got REALLY serious.

I am not insisting any of the foregoing is true. You could make a very good case that it isn't true at all and I could certainly make this case that we do not as well as you could. I'm simply taking Ron's post at face value and saying that IF it is true, then this scenario would explain why we are not seeing much deployment in the way of advanced technologies.

 

[Trajanus]

If they do, they don't seem to be using it. Oh, they might be using it for very black surveillance ops or extremely top secret issues, but they don't seem to be using it for all the things that would give them such an incredible advantage that "resistance would be futile."

Or, despite its great promise, it hasn't come into general use, even in the military. That might be because they just can't afford much of it.

I'm just saying that if you fear for you and your country's life, you better hope the US military is on your side. That has been true historically for over 100 years and it is true today.

Some exceptions like Vietnam. Luck has also played a role. Without a Russian front in WWII to divert so much German strength, a conventional victory would've been questionable. Also, had it not been for nuclear deterrence, the enormous conventional forces of the soviet bloc c 1970 or 1980 could've given NATO a run for its money.

(Did you know, for example, that the military losses during the US Civil War are more than all other wars is US history combined?)

IIRC Antietam or Chickamauga was the bloodiest battle in US history. But regarding overall losses you got to take into account that many were due to disease--probably the leading cause of death in armies prior to the 20th century.

The plan of attack was to invade Japan, and the US expected to lose---one million men. I know it's easy to claim immorality from the lofty viewpoint of the 21st century, but that was the mindset at the time. 160,000 vs 1 million was the choice that was made.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki may have been flattened for the same reason Dresden was--just to intimidate the Soviet Union, hence prevent too much postwar trouble.

Now we inhabit a world where such restrained and mature democracies such as Iran and North Korea regularly threaten the world with destruction

No I don't think they do. Ahmadinejahd's alleged threat to "wipe Israel off the map" was said to be a mistranslation.

Now we come to it. If the US military has these wondrous technologies, why would they make the world realize it was all possible and risk other countries take advantage of that knowledge and build their own stuff, either because they knew it was possible, or by means of espionage? If I were the Chief of Staff and actually knew my country had these capabilities, I believe I would be tempted to NOT show all my cards and to reserve the very best of what I had in case things got REALLY serious.

I agree absolutely. Makes great sense.

 

[Kieran]

Occasionally we hear of enormous sums going into "black budget" projects. Given that, and ample time for study, you may well be right.



I wonder how good compared to F-22.

Don't know but 2010 or 2011 is not far away to find out. It's been discussed before enormous monies have been spent. The stealth bomber more and likely was created from such money. The question is, having we/ humans created new technology by looking at Et technology or have the black project designers and engineers and scientists created something new by themselves with no help and keeping it in the dark for a number of reasons. It is using no petrol in essence is a new engine and also has no wings or windows.

 

[Trajanus]

The question is, having we/ humans created new technology by looking at Et technology or have the black project designers and engineers and scientists created something new by themselves

Friedman sure is receptive to the former idea.

 

[Red]

Now we come to it. If the US military has these wondrous technologies, why would they make the world realize it was all possible and risk other countries take advantage of that knowledge and build their own stuff, either because they knew it was possible, or by means of espionage? If I were the Chief of Staff and actually knew my country had these capabilities, I believe I would be tempted to NOT show all my cards and to reserve the very best of what I had in case things got REALLY serious.

Schuyler,
I think you have made an interesting point that is quite valid. I don't know how applicable this would be, but it seems that the government denied for years that it was developing any stealth aircraft until they deployed the technology for general combat.

 

[Kieran]

Friedman sure is receptive to the former idea.

Well there is only three options. Two of the suggestions are speculative.And the last one, Well all UFO'S are not of human design.

 

[Trajanus]

Don't know but 2010 or 2011 is not far away to find out.

To really find out there would have to be a combat test. Maybe the Chinese will barter many of the jets for Mideast oil, so they'll be tested over Syria or Iran.

 

[ckbarrus]

Schuyler,
I think you have made an interesting point that is quite valid. I don't know how applicable this would be, but it seems that the government denied for years that it was developing any stealth aircraft until they deployed the technology for general combat.

Not quite. During the run up to the 1980 presidential election Jimmy Carter admitted the existence of the Stealth ATB (Advanced Technology Bomber) after being continually criticized by Republicans on his opposition to the B-1 (Carter approved both B-2 and F-117 programs). Of course the actual airplanes weren't displayed until the mid/late 80s.

 

[Ezechiel]

Hiroshima and Nagasaki may have been flattened for the same reason Dresden was--just to intimidate the Soviet Union, hence prevent too much postwar trouble.

Imagine being forced against a wall to take insane and horrific decisions based on war statistics as in: We've got the bomb and we save a million American lives by frying 200,000 Japanese civilians. This is truly the crux of technological superiority, the ability to decide who dies or lives to perpetuate its ideology. A true Indiana Jones moment.

Kyoto was saved by a honeymoon

the only person deserving credit for saving Kyoto from destruction is Henry L. Stimson, the Secretary of War at the time, who had known and admired Kyoto ever since his honeymoon there several decades earlier."[

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki


Imagine for a moment that you are an alien with supreme technological abilities on a visit to planet earth .... who do you talk to ? or do you have your own Indiana Jones moment

 

[Schuyler]

Not quite. During the run up to the 1980 presidential election Jimmy Carter admitted the existence of the Stealth ATB (Advanced Technology Bomber) after being continually criticized by Republicans on his opposition to the B-1 (Carter approved both B-2 and F-117 programs). Of course the actual airplanes weren't displayed until the mid/late 80s.

This was seen by the military and intelligence communities as a slip-up and reason not to let presidents know everything. For all practical matters the general public didn't know about stealth until the military revealed it. Of course, other governments paid attention immediately.