Extra-Dimensional Intelligence EDI
1Like · · Share
  • Uwe Langer likes this.
  • Jack Sarfatti On May 17, 2013, at 10:59 AM, Adam Crowl wrote:

    Hi Jack

    Your last statement is a goal I agree with, if not share.

    Additional comments below...

    On 17/05/2013 6:42 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:
    On May 17, 2013, at 9:00 AM, qraal01 wrote:

    "I am wary of claiming hard evidence when there is precisely zero evidence of FTL being achieved by UFOs. Tight-turns and flickering images is evidence? Sherlock Holmes' advised eliminating the possible before concluding the impossible. Don't mistake the light-show for the reality."

    Jack: You miss the obvious point, which is that if UFOs are real alien ET craft, the only way they can get here is with low-power warp/wormhole technology. The evidence is much better than a Roschach inkblot. Many informed people on the list think you grossly under-value the UFO evidence for real machines of extraordinary technology - including weapons. It's ultimately a Bayesean gamble. I am betting that real low power UFO alien ET technology is out there. You can continue on your path, but I doubt you will ever get serious funding for it. I hope I am wrong in that prediction.

    AC: And the possibilities I mentioned in another email don't bear thinking about?

    Jack: Maybe I missed it?

    AC: That "They" have been here a very long-time,

    Jack: Yes, most likely.

    AC: that They live for immense spans of time,

    Jack: Perhaps.

    AC: and so most of the issues people raise against conventional star-flight as the means by which They got here are totally irrelevant? "The only way..." is very restrictive on the possible - and the data isn't yet good enough to say either way.

    Jack: My estimation of the relative Bayesean probabilities differ from yours. Also I had an actual contact experience as a child that is evidence for back from the future time travel technology. So have others including Uri Geller.

    AC: As for "extraordinary technology" what makes you think we're not 50-100 years off emulating "Them"

    Jack: I'm hoping 5 to 10.

    AC: and that's why there's the "smoke-and-mirrors" show to bedazzle us?

    Jack: Because, I know the physicists in power and I know what their limits are. Such a secret is impossible to keep at those levels. Pure military types simply don't have the expertise for the job and the DARPA people are completely clueless here.

    AC: I maintain methodological scepticism - as much as I might want to believe in FTL Ufo technology, I can't assume it.

    Jack: And that's why you will never get the funding. You and the others are banging your heads against a stone wall on this.

    AC: But, as already noted, Eric's (Davis) experiences is suggestive. Not sure about the rest of the observed maneuvering. I maintain we have no proof that the high-gee maneuvers imply anything more than robotic control and/or acceleration mitigation. The lack of any visible exhaust implies either external reaction mass is used in the atmosphere - i.e. ionic wind thrusters - or the ability to make neutrino beams with high-efficiency. It doesn't equate to "anti-gravity" - we need more real data to rule out reaction drives of some sort.

    Jack: I think you are wrong, but this is an issue on which we can agree to disagree

    AC: As for funding proposals, it's far too early to propose to build starship. A sad fact that every starry-eyed dreamer presently lives with. My final question wasn't a rhetorical device - what sighting makes a solid case for FTL in UFOs?

    Jack: Ask the experts like Eric Davis, Bruce Maccabee, Stanton Friedmann, Hal Puthoff. My own focus is NOT the observational UFO evidence. My job is simply, ASSUME as a thought experiment, that alien ET UFO machines are here (possibly time machines from our future descendants here on Earth in a Novikov loop in time - Destiny Matrix) then how can we copy/reverse engineer their technology.

    AC: My friend .... suggests something like your Destiny Matrix in his own musings on what he calls "Morphians". His UFO encounters lie to the other end of the spectrum, away from hardware, more towards "living beings", intelligent plasmas, and/or higher dimensional life-forms.

    Jack: I am not against that at all. It's a big universe with many different kinds of life forms at different levels of technology.

    AC: His prehistoric research work on the significance of Cygnus X-3 in human mental/cultural evolution is suggestive of very high-energy life-forms able to fire "cygnons" our way - possibly John Cramer's high gamma-factor wormhole mouths - as well as modulating the cosmic-ray flux we encounter.

    Jack: "cygnon"?

    AC: The Universe's own goals might come into the picture as well. The recent preprint on Universal reproduction in the Multiverse, suggests that the evolutionary lineage that led to our current Universe has evolved "evolvability" - possibly the ability to make black-holes, which spawn new Universes in some theories. If life-forms evolve towards manipulating black-holes technologically, then there's clearly an "incentive" for the Universe to push us in that direction. There have been several papers which suggest means for turning black-holes into worm-holes technologically, thus an incentive for Life to shepherd the creation of black-holes. If the Kerr metric describes the conditions under the event horizon at all, then we might gain the means to explore the Multiverse.