Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz
What would you say would be a sudden advancement that doesn't flow from previous developments or implementing past ideas as technology allows for it?
|
The integrated circuit and fiber optics both made astounding leaps forward in very short periods of time. Fiber optics have a very different development arch and went from an illumination technology to a data transmission technology in a very short period of time. Both innovations a result of contracts with the government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz
I guess I don't understand your argument. We aren't seeing this tech in use because it doesn't exist, or we aren't seeing it because government sits on tech with near infinite value because it's not their job?
|
If it were our tech it would have seen the light of day, or at least components of it would have. You would see huge innovations in classified projects result in smaller but significant developments in consumer products. Skunk Works does a lot of development that remains classified, but a lot of their innovation ends up in Lockeed products. If it were solely our invention and innovation we should see some of these massive leaps spilling over into other products. We aren't seeing it because it isn't our tech.
Another issue is the desire to remain the king of the hill and maintain secrets. We aren't seeing indications of the tech because the government has classified it. You want to make an issue disappear overnight? Put a classification label on it and compartmentalize access. If it were up to those who developed the tech beyond the reach of the government you would see the technology popping up everywhere.
Quote:
|
Your second point is just being silly. There are 10's of thousands of flights a day, if we crashed at the rate aliens do, we'd not have an aviation industry, unless they are sending multiple times more craft than that, because surly they can travel light-distance scale distances, but can't quiet work out flight in our atmosphere? Are they incredible, or incompetent? I also love your assumptions about their flight systems as if it is fact.
|
It's silly is it? I think the only silly thing around here is you. You bring up an issue like crashed UAPs and suggest it shows incompetence. I bring up the fact that the FAA reports 5 crashes of the 3,750 flights they track on a given day to show how stupid, and I mean intergalactically stupid, that comment is, and you suggest it is silly? How many crashed UAPs have there been? You make it sound like they are crashing daily, which they clearly are not, yet being observed and reported daily. Those gosh darn incompetent aliens sure could take some pointers from aviation pilots who fall out of the sky daily!
You'll notice I lead with "an" explanation, not "the" answer to the question.
The assumption on the flight systems is directly from testimony who have witnessed them, those who have leaked information, and those who have proposed how such craft could do what they do.