Alex_Krycek

We're discussing computer / paper records. Those would have been easy to erase. Last time I checked Los Alamos is run by the Department of Energy, i.e., the government, so erasing any records there would be a non issue. As to MIT and Cal-Tech, it would have been pretty easy for someone to break / hack in and remove what they wanted.

Jump into a river in Africa and try to explain yourself to a crocodile. If we're discussing a super intelligent life form, then human beings (driven primarily by fear, malice, and greed) would probably be regarded as dangerous and reckless life forms. Intelligent to a degree, yes, but to a significantly lesser degree than they are. So ultimately it's possible that we have nothing of value for them, and represent only an unknown risk. In that case, the optimal strategy would be to just observe.

Spend some time researching DARPA and the NRO. Click here to see some of the programs that have been / are declassified. https://www.darpa.mil/our-research Just the tip of the iceberg. And yet we're arguing over whether they could erase someone's academic or work history in the 1980s. They didn't. Those people remembered Lazar, according to Knapp. They didn't - we're not talking about Bob Lazar's high school days.

Sheer curiosity. A characteristic of all intelligent species is an impulse to discover and investigate the universe around them. To some (myself excluded) insects aren't that interesting, and yet there are thousands of people who devote their entire careers to entomology. Also, misanthropic tendencies aside, human beings are fascinating creatures, not to mention dangerous. We've also developed the capacity to explore space, albeit in an extremely limited way.

We're talking about the 1980s. A person's digital footprint was practically nonexistent back then. Expunge / destroy somone's paper records and locate any possible computer records and that would have been that. As far as people's memories - according to George Knapp, the journalist who has investigated Lazar's case thoroughly, when they went to Los Alamos many former colleagues recognized and interacted with Lazar. Your perception of the the capabilities of the US government is incorrect, in that case.

Lazar's "credibility" is debatable and subjective. As to the events which supposedly occurred, (i.e. extraterrestrials visiting Earth and making contact with human beings) I find this hypothesis plausible. Over billions upon billions of years, with trillions of star systems and trillions of inhabitable planets, at some point a species will arise that could reach Earth. It's inevitable, in my view, due to the sheer number of inhabitable planets out there.

Next step: just lie: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/23/life-after-lockdown-has-china-really-beaten-coronavirus It was only a matter of time before China reopened to save the economy; more countries will follow. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. The US is so far behind at this point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bCMhG-523g

If indeed Lazar did work at a top secret military facility such as S-4, it would have been incredibly easy for the government to erase his academic / employment history had they wanted to. It's ridiculous to suggest that the US government wouldn't be able to accomplish such a trivial feat within days.

Suddenly Universal Basic Income doesn't seem like such a bad idea to most people. I guess it's not socialism anymore now that they're affected.

Obviously not. The point about intergenerational contact is interesting. It's ironic that consistent intergenerational contact was cited as one of the causes for longevity in a population. I have suspected this from the very beginning. COVID-19 has probably been around for much longer than originally though, going unnoticed.

So, can someone please elucidate the end-game regarding COVID-19? First, there' an attempt to flatten the curve so hospitals aren't overwhelmed, I understand that. But then what? I've heard no clear estimates from any government as far as how long this will last. Some say 3 months, some 6 months, some a year or more. What is the most likely scenario for how this pandemic plays out?

Lazar's book is interesting. He details some of his supposed time at S-4 and interacting with the anti-gravity propulsion system. Interesting, especially in the context of the recent Nimitz encounters: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6i-se5IU8hRbPov5-ON1tw

Agreed. This whole debacle is turning out to be a shameful episode in human history. Countries expelling / preventing the entrance of foreigners. Increased division and xenophobia like never before. Really shows how little we've progressed as a society.

Asleep at the wheel.

Note: I'm not sure if this thread belongs in Politics or as part of another existing thread It might be interesting to discuss the success stories vs the failures so far in the COVID-19 pandemic. My definition of "success" is based on the number of deaths compared to the number of confirmed cases. Success Stories: Japan Singapore Taiwan Hong Kong South Korea Not so Successful: Pretty much every other country. Factors of Success: 1. Widespread and systematic testing - testing is readily available on demand and the throughput for testing (amount of tests that can be completed per day) is significantly higher than unsuccessful countries) South Korea reportedly can test 10,000 people per day. Everyone is encouraged to be tested, symptomatic or not, which is crucial when dealing with this kind of covert virus. https://www.propublica.org/article/how-south-korea-scaled-coronavirus-testing-while-the-us-fell-dangerously-behind 2. Sufficient medical supplies / stockpiles for a pandemic. Countries like Japan already stockpiled a medicine to be used against the first SARS, which was ready to deploy when this pandemic emerged. 3. Innovative use of technology to alert, inform, and track the general public with regards to testing stations, active COVID-19 cases, and protocol for those who might be infected. In South Korea they send out alerts to all mobile phones about active cases within a 100 metre radius. 4. A compliant general public. The public in these countries is taking the outbreak seriously and following government protocol. 5. They actually had a plan. Because of past experience with MERS, SARS-1, Avian Flu, and Swine Flu, these countries have already developed a serious action plan to confront an epidemic.

I hope they're considering these questions, and keeping the workers in mind. Wal-Mart is notoriously anti-labor. Their workers already live close to or below the poverty line, and so extended unpaid leave is going to break most of them. Wal-Mart isn't concerned about that, of course. Starbucks is offering paid leave to all employees, displaying a shred of decency for once.

There have been some promising developments regarding Chloroquine (a generic anti-malarial) as a potential treatment for COVID-19. South Korea has apparently begun incorporating it into their treatment regimens, with positive results. Chloroquine (chloroquine diphosphate) allows Zinc to permeate the cell membrane and inhibit the replication of the virus. Here is the full breakdown with citations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7F1cnWup9M

Cyberwarfare is infinitely more efficient, which is why it is their preferred course of action. COVID-19 is pure chaos for all countries involved. Ok, but if that's the objective why unleash the virus in your own country, and risk decimating your own economy? Seems very far-fetched. There's already a conspiracy theory in China that the virus was planted by America.

There are some Super Spreaders like that in my neighborhood. One guy the other day sneezed so fervently without covering his mouth that I was forced to cross to the other side of the street to avoid the invisible cloud of microorganisms that had been emitted. Just ignorance and lack of consideration.

Only a means to an end, in my view. Robert Noyce and Gordon Moore, the pioneers of micro-processors, had pretty cushy jobs at Fairchild Semiconductor before they left to found Intel. Fairchild was doing quite well financially, but the problem, according to Moore and Noyce, was that there was little to no R+D money. Because of this they weren't allowed to innovate or experiment like they wanted to, so they left and founded Intel, which has dominated the market ever since. It's an interesting example of two brilliant people caring more about the capacity to innovate and push technology forward rather than receiving a comfortable salary.

I'll have to try that line the next time I want to stay in The Plaza in NYC. 😅

My view is it's just human nature. If there is a choice between starving or committing a crime to make money, and there are no other viable opportunities, then it's only logical to choose the latter. Many economic systems are apathetic if you're poor: society couldn't care less if you go hungry or die. Poor people feel they have no choice and are justified in their actions. Yet it's the difference between having a hot meal and a roof over your head, or being hungry, cold, and homeless.

There's different kinds of motivation tied to money. There's the will to survive, which leads many poor people to commit crime. Their back is against the wall and they feel they must steal or commit crime just to live. This mindset of scarcity breeds a lust for money and sees material gain as the solution to all life's problems, allowing the criminal to function without any code of ethics. He sees little beyond just the material excesses of life. Then there's a person who is in a situation of material stability. They have the resources for survival: food, shelter, clothing, and have been educated to an extent where they gain the most enjoyment from being creative and using their mind. For this type of person, money is merely a tool, and not the end goal. Their true calling is something immaterial: discovering / decoding the universe, building something valuable, helping other people, engaging in a skill that resonates with them, etc. For these people the finite trappings of money are actually an insignificant impediment to the infinite possibilities of mental exploration. On a side note, understanding this difference in how money motivates people is the key to implementing UBI effectively. The space race did lead to some remarkable technological breakthroughs. That was a fascinating time in American history. Although at the end of the day it was still a "Race against the Ruskies", driven by fear and competition against a perceived existential threat. If humanity can see that climate change is an existential threat, or that being limited to one planet is inherently dangerous, perhaps we won't need a fear of another country to mobilize the resources required to change our trajectory of self annihilation.

Ideally, yes, but the Military Industrial Complex isn't a free market. There is little to no competition. Those who award the contracts either worked in the defense industry before taking office, or they will work there again once they leave (or both). The few players that dominate the market (Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Boeing) all have their niche and don't step on each other's toes. The Pentagon is never audited. This is what "capitalism" looks like in the military: https://newstarget.com/2017-07-03-f-35-fighter-jet-project-a-total-bust-planes-dont-work-nearly-a-trillion-dollars-flushed-down-a-dark-hole.html The F-35 fighter jet project is the most expensive weapons system ever designed, but apparently no one is sure that it works or that it will meet expectations. About 10 years behind schedule and as yet not living up to all of its design requirements, American taxpayers will have to cough up about $1.5 trillion to pay the tab before all is said and done. Approximately $100 billion-plus has already been spent on the program in sunk costs for planes that have a price tag of about $100 million each, apparently double what was originally promised. Why do we even need all of these things? We're stuck in a vicious circle. The Military Industrial Complex demands hundred of billions per year to essentially line the pockets of shareholders. Politicians give it to them and then get cushy jobs once they leave office, or they take "campaign contributions". Meanwhile demand has to be created for all this advanced weaponry. In this case DEMAND = CONFLICT. So the defense industry is always looking for the next conflict that the US can get involved in (or start) to maintain their raison d'etre in the eyes of the taxpayers. Or they sell off last year's technology to some developing country, so now they're armed to the teeth. Imagine if there was an industry of similar magnitude devoted to fighting climate change and protecting the environment? And every year taxpayers spent 600 billion dollars on it....

History seems to indicate that it isn't. The United States tried "pure capitalism". The result was robber barons, child labor, indentured servitude, shanty towns, and for centuries, outright slavery. The only part of the country not ruled by mafias was the anarchic wild west. The Soviet Union tried "pure socialism". The result was 100 years of an oppressive totalitarian regime that condemned tens of millions of innocent people to die in gulags, inflicted the intentional starvation on entire nations, and otherwise suffocated the human potential of its citizens without a shred of remorse. History seems to show that the more we move to one extreme or another, the more wretched society will be. Thus, the alternative seems to be that the more finely balanced these two systems are in practice, i.e. the more they work in unison, protecting both the individuals rights and also guaranteeing a robust public sector that protects everyone, then the more functional society will be. The problem is that calibrating these two systems in a way that actually works takes careful reflection on the part of politicians, a system that is fair and uncorrupted from special interests, and a populace with some semblance of sociological imagination (to see beyond their own meagre lot). So in other words, the United States is going to have some trouble.