16 mins · San Francisco, CA · Edited ·
On Jan 3, 2015, at 11:31 PM, Jacques Vallee wrote:
Beowulf is right on. About 1970 Paul Baran (inventor of packet switching at Rand and arguably the true grandfather of the Internet) tested the first radio prototype of
the Arpanet by spread spectrum on the range of frequencies of the SFO control tower. He could do that without interference with air operations because the spread spectrum signal was undetectable -- low in the noise....
Like · · Share
Jack Sarfatti http://stardrive.org
On Jan 3, 2015, at 6:34 PM, Jack Sarfatti <email@example.com> wrote:
Ignoring the UFO data in front of our noses is a fatal mistake. Meantime let's see if the fly by anomaly is caused by a small wormhole. There are credible reports by Eric Davis of a small wormhole at the Bigelow ranch in Utah. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skinwalker_Ranch
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 3, 2015, at 4:07 PM, Robert Addinall wrote:
I actually tend to think that few civilizations will end up building Dyson spheres. Again, my suspicion is that it's possible (though not easy in the initial stages) to develop techniques for generating and containing negative energy/mass, and then you have warp drive/wormholes. At that point you can colonize (or terraform and then colonize) new planets. Most likely you don't want more than two or three billion inhabitants per planet (Earth is probably currently overpopulated). You'll primarily use FTL (some sort of wormholes or else readable quantum entanglement) for communication and not put out significant radio signals. So, I would really expect to *only* see regular planetary systems. We can't really say anything for certain until we get enough telescope resolution to see Earth-like planets and whether (1) they show evidence of biological processes like photosynthesis and oxygen-rich atmospheres, and (2) lights illuminating metropolitan areas.
Even such observations would not rule out intelligent life of very different forms than those found on Earth.
From: creon levit NASA - National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Sent: Saturday, January 3, 2015 5:02 PM
To: JACK SARFATTI
Subject: "zeroth order null result" from WISE for free energy and for UFOs.
More evidence of no high level ET civilizations in our galaxy: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1408.1134.pdf
The Gaia mission, currently in orbit, will provide a much tighter (probabilistic) bound. It is surveying a billion local stars. If any of them have a something like a Dyson sphere, we will know.
The Kepler mission found that most stars have planets, and that a significant fraction have habitable planets. So for those like me who do not at present find UFO evidence convincing, these missions, and the negative results from all SETI searches to date, reinforce the Fermi paradox. It leads one either towards “we are alone” or to the great filter.
For an amusing but serious summary of these issues see Bostrum’s essay "why I hope the search for extraterrestrial life finds nothing"
Stardrive, ISEP, Internet Science Education Project
10 mins · Like · Remove Preview
Jack Sarfatti On Dec 29, 2014, at 3:19 PM, Jack Sarfatti <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
From: Hal Puthoff
Date: December 29, 2014 at 2:01:38 PM PST
Subject: Re: The RAND Corporation on UFOs !
Though overlooked by many, the recently declassified UK MOD report (so-called Condign Report, interestingly enough!), assembled in 2000 by the Defense Intelligence staff, though written to 'get out of the pubic UFO business,' has within its > 100 pages a number of gems of technical details, including an assessment EM frequencies hypothesized to possibly be involved in the Rendlesham Forest event. Available on the Internet from the UK National Archives - see below.
<< Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) in the UK Air Defence Region
The Ministry of Defence has released this report in response to a Freedom of Information request and we are pleased to now make it available to a wider audience via the MOD Freedom of Information Publication Scheme. Where indicated information is withheld in accordance with Section 26 (Defence), Section 27 (International Relations) and Section 40 (Personal Information) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
UAP in the UK Air Defence Region: Executive Summary
UAP in the UK Air Defence Region: Volume 1
UAP in the UK Air Defence Region: Volume 2
UAP in the UK Air Defence Region: Volume 3 >>
From: Kim Burrafato <email@example.com>
To: Creon Levit
Sent: Mon, Dec 29, 2014 3:19 pm
What about the testimony of Base Commander, Colonel Charles Halt, and all of the other airmen who were up close and personal witnesses to the highly strange events at Rendlesham forest? All the people involved in Rendlesham were reliable, extensively vetted RAF Bentwaters USAF security personnel — after all, this was a NATO nuclear weapons storage facility. They would never have attained those security positions if they weren’t exemplary soldiers. Unlike Roswell, where key witnesses weren’t interviewed until many years after the alleged incident, the majority of witnesses in the Rendlesham forest incident are alive and well. Halt maintains to this day that the object he and others observed at Rendlesham was extraterrestrial technology. Despite the apparent lack of physical and photographic evidence to that effect, we cannot discount all that important detailed and reliable eyewitness testimony. And it’s a safe bet that if any physical or photographic evidence was gathered, it has been sequestered deep within the black catacombs of the national security establishment.
On Dec 29, 2014, at 9:43 AM, creon levit wrote:
Ok I'll read John's book too !-)
On Dec 28, 2014, at 11:25 PM, Colonel John Alexander wrote:
The evidence in favor of UFOs is simply overwhelming and I agree with Hal's comment on Bentwaters. In my book, UFOs: Myths, Conspiracies, and Realities that is one of my top cases as it had physical evidence as well as veridical eyewitnesses. In addition, it was not a singular event. Like the Phoenix Lights and Gulf Breeze it recurred over long periods of time. That said, the ETH is only one hypothesis and may not be the best fit when all the evidence is considered. As I end my book, whatever it is (they are) the UFO phenomena are more complex than we ever imagined.
4 mins · Like
Jack Sarfatti On Dec 28, 2014, at 1:13 PM, Robert Addinall wrote:
My current guess is the same as that of the 50s AF generals; probably a small percentage of reports are caused by interstellar vessels. The rest would have mundane explanations and I'm also willing to entertain other explanations; perhaps a handful are some sort of "interdimensional" clouds of energy/organisms that occasionally show up. Some reports seem to indicate rather odd, amorphous shapes and lights, but others, such as those cited in the RAND report, do seem to clearly indicate mechanical craft.
I would consider "killer" proof to be recovery and verification of a physical artifact in the public domain:
1. A spacecraft or substantial component of a spacecraft (ie. large piece of wreckage with enough intact components and structure to indicate that it could not have come from any other type of aircraft).
2. An EBE (extraterrestrial biological entity). At least a more or less complete body that could not be mistaken for anything else. Preferably a living being who can talk to reporters, academics, government officials etc on camera.
3. Keep in mind the possibility that a mechanical artifact might also be a self aware AI that could talk to us. So, #3 is a combination of #1 and #2.
Now if we prove that we can generate and contain negative mass or negative energy density and go ahead to build a working warp drive or wormhole generator, such a human made artifact would be highly suggestive - you would probably be justified in making the leap of saying that UFOs are mechanical craft driven by this type of technology and so the AFC explanation is correct. However, in the absence of a physical artifact or being, either mechanical or biological, I feel that we must simply treat the AFC explanation for the small percentage of reports unexplainable by mundane reasons as a good one, but we can't be certain.
Given that FTL travel also necessarily implies possible time travel, some of the craft may be ours from our future light cone, or from civilizations that have become connected with us in some way in our future light cone. I treat this as a subset of the AFC hypothesis. Aliens need not be totally alien. How such back from the future interactions might play out we do not yet know - whether there is some chronological protection mechanism law of physics that makes consistent closed timelike curves (CTCs) or whether they are actually changing their past/our present.
2 mins · Edited · Like
Jack Sarfatti On Dec 27, 2014, at 11:33 AM, Robert Addinall wrote:
They did quite a good job IMO.
1. Cocteau's estimate of how many highly advanced civilizations may exist in the galaxy was very good and almost exactly how I've tried to articulate the problem at times. I'll probably now use this as a reference. I was surprised at the estimate of 100 million advanced civilizations/average spacing of 10 light years between advanced civilizations. My estimates tended to be an order or two of magnitude lower, but his methodology seems solid even ~45 years later. Of course we now know for certain that most, if not almost all, stars do develop planetary systems, but observing earth sized planets is difficult, so we're still not sure how abundant they are. We do know that a fair number of stars appear to have planets too close or too far to be in a habitable zone, but even that is already taken into account by Cocteau; he estimates 1000 million sun-like stars out of 100 billion stars and drops the number with planets in acceptable orbits to somewhere around 600 million.
Interestingly recent observations and computer models seem to suggest that binary and trinary star systems can have planets in stable orbits around each star, so long as the stars orbit a common barycenter at a sufficient distance; indeed some studies claim to have detected planets circling the two main Alpha Centauri stars (the third smaller star would circle the whole system outside of the two local systems). So perhaps Cocteau's estimate is even conservative.
To get ~10 LY average spacing we should expect civilizations in at least two of the following three systems with reasonably sun-like stars: Epsilon Eridani (though it's probably too young), Tau Ceti and Alpha Centauri. To maintain the spacing places like Gleise 86 would probably have to be inhabited too. So, either there should be loads of activity out there, or else: (a) correctly sized planets in habitable zones are very infrequent for some reason we don't yet understand; (b) for some reason we don't yet understand life fails to get started or to evolve beyond relatively small, simple forms; (c) civilizations tend to destroy themselves.
I keep an open mind but in the absence of data all I can say is that my instincts suggest that (a), (b), and (c) are wrong, which should mean that Cocteau's methodology holds and that there is a lot going on around the galaxy.
2. Another point where we now have a bit more to go on - the old light speed limit discussion further down in the paper. We now have the Thorne wormhole and Alcubierre warp metrics and the associated requirement for negative energy or mass, and we also have the accelerating expansion of the universe, which suggests that negative energy does exist in the universe. This is much more than having no clue as to how interstellar travel might work. Possibly we've actually already figured out generally how it works, but not the details yet. Obviously we can't build anything like this until we know how to generate and control negative energy.
Things like Jack's idea about changing the flexibility of spacetime by changing the speed of light might be techniques that further augment FTL travel or reduce the negative energy requirement.
1 min · Like
On Jan 4, 2015, at 6:28 AM, Paul Murad <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
There are two problems here. They are that either the document is fake or the document has any disinformation.
If disinformation is to be successful, it has to have some level of truth or honest information.
This is a necessity for establishing credibility for the entire document. Whenever we got any Soviet disinformation, the problem was to find those pieces that had legitimate information for credibility. The same is to be true if this is real in this document. Regardless, some real information needs to be established.
Personally I feel the document is a fake because there is no clear identification of a government organization. Government types like to make sure people know about where things are going or from where. That involves highly classified documents so you can refer back any questions or what points may cause problems. I might have missed this but with a quick scan, I did not see such information...
I read the Einstein/Oppenheim meeting and are you implying it was a fake? If you look at it, this looks like a precursor for what this country has performed with respect to treating UFOs and so on. Einstein carries significant weight. If it is a fake, then it was well done! This information is similar to what Col. Corso said regarding early UFO activities so there is some correlations. The question is to find out the truth from the lies.
It would be interesting if there was any mention of UFOs in the Einstein papers. I doubt it. Same for John Archibald Wheeler’s papers because he switched to gravity research around 1952 at the peak of the flying saucer craze and he had top security clearance.
Regarding typographic comments, this does not fly for several reasons. Secretaries may have had errors in documents or if critical, the author could have made mistakes. Remember we did not have WORD or files of documents to the point that people published whatever they could get out of the typewriter.
Finally, the issue about alien communications. Appearently SETI does not work because aliens may not use electromagnetic communications moving at the speed of light. If they go supposedly faster than the speed of light, the messages would be months or years after the events. The only possibilities is a torsion field as predicted by the Russians or gravity waves considering recent findings from Podkletnov... Oh, I forgot, it was all disinformation. So is the Kosyrev star experiment or that jets leave a black hole where this is not particles from an accretion disk but from the black hole itself because of evaporation…
Gravity waves also move at c.
Now to go back to other more meaningful activities...
Morningstar Applied Physics, LLC
From: Ryan Wood <email@example.com>
To: 'Robert Addinall' <firstname.lastname@example.org>; 'JACK SARFATTI' <email@example.com>; 'IFPA GROUP-EUROPE' <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 3, 2015 9:45 PM
Subject: RE: Majestic-12 Group Special Operations Manual -- REAL
If you think it might be disinformation of some sort, see my 10 page paper on this entire issue on majesticdocuments.com http://www.majesticdocuments.com/pdf/psywar.pdf
Or excerpted under authentication at www.specialoperationsmanual.com
WHY disinformation? Who are we trying to deceive? For what purpose? Scare the Russians in ’54? If it were disinformation it is so good that the KGB would have decided to assign more assets to penetrate, Wright Patt, Area-51, Kirtland AFB, those people etc.
After all the KGB ripped off the bomb secrets with ease. Any logical military / political decision team would AVOID attracting attention to this matter. So the notion of disinformation utterly FAILS.
We know SOM1-01 was printed with a hot lead printing press of the era according to author of the 1958 US Government Printing Office Style Manual. My father (Dr. Bob Wood) and I interviewed him in his home in Virginia, more than a decade ago. His read was that SOM1-01 is authentic because of the raised Z in the typography. The use of “screw driver” as two words and the capitalization of “First Aid” which is now first aid. Even the arrogance of the phrase “Central Intelligence” rather than Central Intelligence Agency suggested to him that the CIA involved.
I can go on, but that’s not the point. Disinformation is not at all probable. Far more likely that it’s all real.
Ryan S. Wood
Majic Eyes Only – Earth’s Encounters With Extraterrestrial Technology
14004 Quail Ridge Drive
Broomfield, CO 80020
From: Robert Addinall [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Friday, January 02, 2015 8:33 PM
To: Ryan Wood; 'JACK SARFATTI'; 'IFPA GROUP-EUROPE'
Subject: Re: Majestic-12 Group Special Operations Manual - Website - BOGUS
I gave a couple of specific reactions, but as I said none of them positively confirm or deny on their own. Sometimes a manual will use superlatives repeatedly or spend a lot of time on vague generalities about the purpose of an organization which the people reading it should already know (for example, "very highest security" will not often appear since "highest security" already imparts the gravity of the situation in the context). Overall, Col. Alexander and others of us have a fair bit of experience with NATO nation military documents, so you get a sense of whether something smells off or not. Any determined disinformation attempt would do a decent job of forging a control page and initials/signatures of people who should have been there at the time, so again it's very difficult to confirm or reject based on that.
I actually just finished writing another message about why I suspect that a lot of disinformation is out there about UFOs and will send it momentarily.
Incidentally I don't have any problem with you selling reproductions of MJ 12 documents; there is a market for it, and it's also valuable to see what disinformation is out there and to see if there are common threads or bits of good info that can be teased out.
From: Ryan Wood
Sent: Friday, January 2, 2015 9:47 PM
To: 'JACK SARFATTI'; 'IFPA GROUP-EUROPE'
Subject: RE: Majestic-12 Group Special Operations Manual - Website - BOGUS?
If you think it’s a “fabrication and doesn’t ring true” then those comments are useless, it’s just speculation on your part.
This is 1954 Top secret stuff…Why do even think you have a perspective on what would be true or not.
So now, I’ll give you some investigated facts.
So the change control page has initials of JRT and EWL in it where those document control / MJ-12 control officers changed pages from ‘54 to ‘57.
We know the manual came from Kirtland AFB UNIT KB-88, so I checked the phone book exhaustively for the JRT’s and EWL’s in 1955 and sure enough lt. JR Totten (JRT) and Col Edward Levine (EWL) both lived on base on Perimeter road. Furthermore, our private detectives interviewed EWL’s family and they confirmed his “special” military service.
I could go on, but I think it’s just a waste of time. Please give me specific reasons why you think it’s a fake.
From: JACK SARFATTI [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Friday, January 02, 2015 3:41 PM
To: IFPA GROUP-EUROPE; email@example.com
Subject: Re: Majestic-12 Group Special Operations Manual - Website - BOGUS?
Right, but why is Ryan pushing this? Who really wrote it?
On Jan 2, 2015, at 1:30 PM, Robert Addinall wrote:
Yes it just doesn't ring true.
Of course it depends on the writers and editors, but military manuals from NATO countries usually avoid use of superlatives like "very." The writing doesn't ring true.
Also, a lot of the content is actually somewhat vague, dressed up a bit to appear specific. Again, this can be a problem with real manuals, but it's a warning sign.
We also know, generally, that the MJ-12 conspiracy stuff is smack in the middle of all the disinformation that floats around on this topic.
Taking all the clues together it just smells like a fabrication.
Certain accurate details may have been inserted in it, which is common with disinformation, but overall it's still misdirection.
On Jan 2, 2015, at 1:12 PM, IFPA GROUP-EUROPE <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Yes Jack, I concur ......
This is BS for mass UFO distraction from the real things.
On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 9:44 PM, JACK SARFATTI <email@example.com> wrote:
Colonel John Alexander thinks the manual is bogus.
On Jan 2, 2015, at 10:08 AM, IFPA GROUP-EUROPE <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Jack et al ..
Here are links to PDF of the "Manual"
On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 6:59 PM, JACK SARFATTI <email@example.com> wrote:
comments on this?