Counter-Evidence for Man Made UFO claims

[Ron Collins]

Ron,

What an excellent post! It must have taken you a significant amount of time to put this together.

I worked on it for about 2 hours but thought about it off an on all day. I am thankful that others found it compelling enough to read. I can be somewhat wordy at times.

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."

I thought about the surveillance aspect but it just doesn't make sense. The problem is that satellite technology in the private sector can see anywhere from 4 to 0.5 meter resolution range. IKONOS, Orbview 2 and 3, GeoEye 1 and 2, Quickbird, and Worldview-1 are all currently orbiting corporate owned and operated imaging satellites. There is not a bunch these things can not look at. If they are in the private sector, I think we can all agree that the NRO probably has their resolution ability trumped. combine that kind of tech with on the fly tasking and you have a cheap (when compared to craft development and operation costs) and undetectable surveillance source. I think it is fine to have a craft fill that role if as a part of its "multi-tasking" abilities but it doesn't make good business of tactical sense to use such a craft primarily for surveillance.

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.

Agreed. yet that has not slowed military R&D. In fact the focus is now less about killing the enemy and more about mitigating collateral damage and minimizing casualties. Something this kind of craft would be ideally suited for.

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?)

I did not know that. That is a staggering statistic. The problem I see is that the "manageable" number is an ever decreasing one. The mostly liberal press and the instant coverage of war zone activity has only served to draw negative attention to this number. Nobody is saying, "Wow, we only lost 5000 men!" Instead, our local 10 pm news carries the story of a grieving family and immediately puts a face to one of those statistics. They nearly always end the piece with the current death toll and further break it down to "in the last month" and "since the war began" totals. Unlike Hollywood, the Pentagon views bad press as bad press. Generals do not like bad press and they do not like dead 19 year old boys plastered on TV. Any innovation to help minimize that aspect of war would be deployed ASAP.

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.

That is a really good point. Yet, I doubt that this would stop them from mass producing such a craft and deploying it. Just like stealth tech, the focus would be on protecting aspects of the crafts attributes not in the existence of the craft itself. I think that a track record for that behavior can be established. The F-117A, B-2, UCAV's, SDV(SEAL Delivery Vehicle) and many more. Also, the contractors would be pushing to deliver en masse because R&D does not drive profit margins, production does. Production in small numbers is always more expensive so they would be lobbying like hell to increase the number of units. Couple that with the Pentagons love of technology, obsession with air superiority, and eagerness to reduce the bad press of war fighting and this spells out a recipe for large scale production and deployment.

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.

Good points. Personally, I think that JCS is as much a political body as the administration they serve. So I can se your argument going either way depending on the ideology of the group. I think they would be told though. Rank is everything. I think the info would defiantly make it to JCS despite the pitfalls and security measures one could imagine. I can't explain why I think this (believe me I have tried 4 times in the last 15 minutes), I just do.

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.

Thank you very much for the post. I have enjoyed this greatly. Like an early Christmas present!

 

[Schuyler]

Re: satellite optics. I've heard from so many sources how very very good the modern cameras are, able to read a newspaper over your shoulder--stuff like that. A few points on that score, however.

First, there aren't very many of them, so as an intelligence asset they are rare and valuable. They are also costly to move into place and you can't do it very often. So if you're an analyst, it's a really big deal to call up the satellite boss and say, "I need the camera over this location." They usually won't do it. You're stuck with the signals intelligence you already have.

Next, they are extremely predictable. Anyone who actually knows where and when the satellite passes overhead - every 90 minutes - can adjust their activities accordingly. Not all the Bad Guys (tm) are that sophisticated, but you get the general idea.

That's why an SR-71 type vehicle is handy. It doesn't have a set schedule and it can move over any area you need it to. Clinton axed it on the grounds that satellites could do the job more cheaply, but he did not take into account this versatility. Of course, there might be a replacement, but we don't know that for sure.

One thing I just learned recently about the SR-71 was that it had no downlink capability. They actually had to take film in a can and process it after landing! Perhaps it deserved to be retired. It looked pretty cool and could actually outrun a missile trying to shoot it down, but it was based on pretty ancient technology.

 

[Michael Allen]

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.

Ron, I would have to say that this argument might also topple the idea that this technology has been completely reverse-engineered. Am I right in simplifying your thesis a bit to this argument? E.g..

If the U.S. military doesn't employ/deploy it, then it probably doesn't exist.

 

[Ron Collins]

Ron, I would have to say that this argument might also topple the idea that this technology has been completely reverse-engineered. Am I right in simplifying your thesis a bit to this argument? E.g..

If the U.S. military doesn't employ/deploy it, then it probably doesn't exist.

Yes, that is my contention in a nutshell and yes I think it does topple that idea. The main idea in providing money for weapons contracts is to deploy new weapons that ensure a greater battlefield superiority. These are literally no brainer utilization's this technology would have an immediate positive impact on if deployed. This would translate into less casualties and more money flowing to contractors to integrate the tech into more areas. Basically a win-win to the Pentagon power brokers. Also, we should see some evidence of the utilization the technology in other products from these contractors. The part I did not cover very well is that the contractors are in the R&D arena as much to make money off of spin off technologies as they are about the specific weapons contract. Yet we see nothing that would suggest they are utilizing this technology.

So, if someone was adamant that these are Top Secret military aircraft, they would be asking us to believe that the corporations are OK with JUST making money off the limited R&D aspects and not mass production money, the Pentagon is OK with a rising death toll in two theaters, tests of the technology are conducted in full view over populated areas in and out of controlled civilian and military airspace with no transponder squawk, and other tests flights are conducted across international borders in full view of their citizenry and military. Now, does any of that make sense?

 

[Trajanus]

If the U.S. military doesn't employ/deploy it, then it probably doesn't exist.

The military hasn't employed nuclear weapons for 65 years--had WWII ended two months sooner there may never have been any use--but few would argue they don't exist. Maybe reverse engineered stuff is meant only as a last resort, partly to preserve its secrecy as much as possible.

 

[trainedobserver]

Excellent post Ron. Yes indeed, if such technology were in the hands of human governments and military why isn't it being deployed? Also, why would Gordon Cooper, who was on the leading edge of aeronautics not have some prior awareness of the saucer his film crew recorded?

 

[Ron Collins]

The military hasn't employed nuclear weapons for 65 years--had WWII ended two months sooner there may never have been any use--but few would argue they don't exist. Maybe reverse engineered stuff is meant only as a last resort, partly to preserve its secrecy as much as possible.

Your terminology and mine are different. My definition of deployed means "In Service" not "Use". Nuclear weapons were produced and a vast infrastructure created to contain, protect, and maintain them. I would call all of this a deployment of the technology.

 

[Trajanus]

Your terminology and mine are different. My definition of deployed means "In Service" not "Use". Nuclear weapons were produced and a vast infrastructure created to contain, protect, and maintain them. I would call all of this a deployment of the technology.

The Manhatten project was secret so the first use came as a surprise. Like the first a-bombs, reverse engineered things may only exist in very limited numbers, and the policy may prohibit use unless there's a dire emergency (the government may not want open use/deployment to provide clues to their construction). Afghanistan and Iraq hardly qualify.

 

[Michael Allen]

Trajanus, thanks for the attempted counterexample...I was actually looking for something like what you posted. However I think I'd have to agree with Ron...nuclear weapons have been manufactured and deployed to missile bases and are (even today) on "ready" status. So they are being "used" in a sense as a real deterrent.

I was looking at WWI technology as a model...seeing if any viable (and imminently useful) technology wasn't deployed.

 

[Kandinsky]

The 'man-made' explanation for UFOs doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It accounts for quite a few, but falls short of identifying a great many reported sightings. Some people use it as a default explanation even when the details of the reports don't support them.

I've been trawling through some 1950s Flying Saucer Report issues. They're damn interesting. Back then, some articles criticised the knee jerk 'secret weapon' defence. If it was unidentified, it automatically became a 'secret weapon.' Nowadays the terminology has changed, but the theme hasn't. Instead of 'secret weapon,' it's 'black tech.' The FSR makes a couple of mentions to 'the 3% rule.' This is whereby officials draw attention to the standard explanations of Venus, street lights, airplanes and hoaxes, but ignore the remaining few unexplained sightings.

Added to that is this claim that too many people repeat as some kind of fact. The claim I refer to is when people state, with certainty, that 'black tech' is decades in advance of the technology we are familiar with. They'll usually trot out examples of stealth bombers. Black triangles are cited as prototype aircraft.

As far as I know, we have nothing in the last 50 years that can travel in silence. The stealth bombers are much quieter than conventional craft, but they still make a lot of noise. They aren't designed to move slowly at low altitudes across populated areas. It's hard to find the schemata for these craft on the .gov or .mil sites. Some references are available that detail the amount of decibels these designs have lowered. None that I've found provide stats. Of course, such information is obviously going to be withheld. The point I'm making is that there isn't any evidence at all that stealth aircraft, drones or UAVs can fly silently at slow or excessively high speeds.

The US has been involved in one conflict or other since the end of the 19th Century. In this light, where are all the amazing flying machines? Where were they in Afghanistan, Vietnam, Cambodia or Iraq? Where are they now?

 

[Ron Collins]

The Manhatten project was secret so the first use came as a surprise. Like the first a-bombs, reverse engineered things may only exist in very limited numbers, and the policy may prohibit use unless there's a dire emergency (the government may not want open use/deployment to provide clues to their construction). Afghanistan and Iraq hardly qualify.

U.S. military commanders just do not think this way. If a technology could be shown to simultaneously save lives, provide increased superiority, and show a return on the R&D development it would be deployed. The days of commanders considering losses of a certain percentage of soldiers as OK are over. The President, Congress, and the general public believe that our advanced technology should afford us a near zero loss of life. The Pentagon brass are held to that standard hourly and each death constitutes a command failure, loss of time and of resources, and generates public discontent. ANY chance to curb this would be and has been fast tracked.

Corporation also do not think this way. They loose money on R&D programs. LOTS OF MONEY! They make money off of production lines and utilizing aspects of the R&D in other non-classified products. For instance, The stealth fighter. This was a highly secret developed and deployed system. Yet Lockheed used aspects in other products before it was officially made public. A good example is the Fly By Wire advances. The F117 uses a variant of the FLY BY Wire system where the copper wire in a typical system is replaced by Fiber Optic Cables. The benefit to the F117 is in both weight reduction and an immunity to electromagnetic interference inherent in copper wire systems. This system is used by Boeing, Airbus and others for weight savings in the needed redundant systems. The military would have used private contractors such as Lockheed to do the R&D on any reverse engineering project. This means a contract between the two would be drawn up. This means highly paid lawyers interested in helping the company acquire rights to use aspects of the R&D in other projects. If you doubt this you can search for released FOIA R&D contracts. In them you will find provisions for exactly this scenario.

The fact is that we do not see now, nor have we seen for 60 years, products that are being developed that have anywhere near these performance characteristics. A Boeing 787 costs between 250 and 300 million to buy. You can assume a sub 20% profit on 866 total orders. The Airbus A380 costs about $340 million with a comparable profit margin on 234 total orders. Neither of these aircraft exceed Mach 1. The demand for fast transport is there. The money is big. Why would they not utilize that tech for 60 years? I think it's because they don't have it.

 

[Trajanus]

I was looking at WWI technology as a model...seeing if any viable (and imminently useful) technology wasn't deployed.

The combatants in WWI used everything they had. In WWII all sides refrained from using poison gas. But look at the Type XXI. IIRC the reich could've sent a few into action well before the end of the war but they didn't because they preferred not to alert the Allies about this new "wonderweapon" until a big bunch were ready. Possible parallel with (admittedly hypothetical) reverse engineered stuff?

---------- Post added at 06:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:20 PM ----------

U.S. military commanders just do not think this way. If a technology could be shown to simultaneously save lives, provide increased superiority, and show a return on the R&D development it would be deployed. The days of commanders considering losses of a certain percentage of soldiers as OK are over. The President, Congress, and the general public believe that our advanced technology should afford us a near zero loss of life. The Pentagon brass are held to that standard hourly and each death constitutes a command failure, loss of time and of resources, and generates public discontent. ANY chance to curb this would be and has been fast tracked.

There are other considerations: reverse engineered stuff may be so expensive to build there just can't now be enough to make much difference, and it may not be of much use in unconventional fighting. The US may be sensitive to casualties but in recent wars it has such a great advantage that casualties are nothing anyway, compared to past conflicts. They're at a low, tolerable level without any exotic stuff; they don't have to compromise the obviously tight UFO secrecy.

Corporation also do not think this way. They loose money on R&D programs. LOTS OF MONEY!

Unless the government helps foot the bill.

The fact is that we do not see now, nor have we seen for 60 years, products that are being developed that have anywhere near these performance characteristics. A Boeing 787 costs between 250 and 300 million to buy. You can assume a sub 20% profit on 866 total orders. The Airbus A380 costs about $340 million with a comparable profit margin on 234 total orders. Neither of these aircraft exceed Mach 1. The demand for fast transport is there. The money is big. Why would they not utilize that tech for 60 years? I think it's because they don't have it.

Or it's too expensive to be commercially feasible, and the government wants to keep it as secret as possible.

 

[Ron Collins]

There are other considerations: reverse engineered stuff may be so expensive to build there just can't now be enough to make much difference, and it may not be of much use in unconventional fighting. The US may be sensitive to casualties but in recent wars it has such a great advantage that casualties are nothing anyway, compared to past conflicts. They're at a low, tolerable level without any exotic stuff; they don't have to compromise the obviously tight UFO secrecy.

The military industrial complex can weaponize anything. Especially after 60 years. We put a man on the moon in 10. I can not conceive that they would be OK with developing the technology for that time period without utilizing it for significant advancement in the simple areas I have outlined. Also, what is this low profile you are talking about? How is flying these things in daylight in full view of metropolitan areas or at night with multi-colored lights and displaying odd behave and maneuvers keeping a low profile?

Unless the government helps foot the bill.

An eternal subsidy? This would only help the contractor in making the technology more commercially viable as it would decrease the overall cost per unit. Still, contracts have terms and goals. Plus, the Pentagon wants to see product. They have never been huge fans of spending for non-practical application.

Or it's too expensive to be commercially feasible, and the government wants to keep it as secret as possible.

After 60 years of manufacturing innovation you contend that we cant have created a way to make something commercially viable? I dont buy that.

 

[Michael Allen]

I think a good middle ground thesis is as follows:

(a) The military has recovered some alien artifacts
(b) The corporate-industrial-defense complex has found some artifacts useful and the results have had a part in inspiring human understanding and action toward our current state of technology.
(c) Therefore it is "imminently logical" (Richard Dolan) that, given the body of corroborative eyewitness testimony of flying objects under intelligent control, some of the artifacts recovered have had a subtle (but powerful) effect on anthropogenic technological growth.
(e) Caveat: this does not imply humans have "reverse engineered" alien tech.


Consider this, a certain artifact (which is "used" however clumsily) gives the human understanding at least one powerful advantage: i.e. that something beyond our current state of technological understanding is at least possible in reality as it was in theory. That, by the way, is a powerful motivator for R&D, regardless of timeline.