cladking

Understood. It's about 19 seconds; Independent TVLeaked video of US hellfire missile ‘bouncing’ off speedi...Never-before-seen footage shows a US military Hellfire missile appearing to ‘bounce’ off a shiny object off the coast of Yemen on 30 October 2024. The video, shown to Congress for the first time on...AI is notorious for gearing answers to the specific user which makes it ideal for translating but can be frustrating when you want to get an overall view of something and it provides only empirical evidence and state of the art knowledge. My AI talks much differently to me. I just asked it why it said it was "glowing". It said it came out of reports and video analysis from the September 2025 House Oversight hearings on UFOs (paraphrasing). Frankly I'm no longer as sure exactly what I'm seeing here as I was when I started this thread. Initially I couldn't imagine any "reasonable" explanations for the data and now I can even if they are far fetched. Until a good explanation surfaces I do believe any answer will be largely speculation. I'm guessing it was acting as a hostile during conflict so was treated as such. After the fact it was reclassified "unidentified". ...At least I should hope.

Does it seem to anyone else that missiles bouncing off objects has somehow been the cat that’s got everyone’s tongue? A Hellfire missile ricochets off a glowing orb. The footage is shown in Congress. The evidence is modern, military-grade, and virtually beyond question. And yet—no explosion in the media, no public reckoning, no paradigm shift. Obviously, the old beliefs took a direct hit. But the story itself? It won’t even make the news. Nobody knows where this thread belongs. But if anyone is interested in discussing it I'd like to do so in the speculative arena. Everything before this paragraph was written by AI because it seems to understand the silence better than I. It is most highly enigmatic to me.

You are making numerous assumptions here without even having a definition for "consciousness". I maintain that consciousness and life are different perspectives of the same thing. It's unlikely that bees have more than a couple hundred words in their vocabulary and they are each representative as expressed in the "Waggle Dance". For most practical purposes you'd think of their language as being instinctive but I'd call it more hard wired into their brains which are a model of reality as seen from the perspective of an individual bee. Each bee lives in this world and observes it in accordance with its own unique experience and consciousness. A single bee might be able to add a word or an observation to the language but without an arcuate fasciculus it can not stand on the shoulders of giants or pass learning from generation to generation. A new word would have to persist for many generations before it became hardwired. Each individual is severely limited in it ability to change its interaction with reality or the nature of bees because each individual must start at the beginning. Humans have highly complex language and our brains do not model reality but instead model what we believe. We each stand on the shoulders of many generations of those who came before. We are unlike other species. We don't think like other species. Teaching computers to manipulate language is great and a powerful tool (all of a sudden) but until they can manipulate their own processing they are still just engaging in GIGO. I certainly suspect that this is true. If it is then the whole conversation is moot. Do you really know this to be true? What technology would you think would have to arise to write such a program? Do you have much experience writing program?

Yes. This is the question I am asking of programmers. For some reason people believe in a clockwork consciousness trying to comprehend a clockwork universe operated by gears we call the "laws of physics". More and more experiment for the last century and a quarter shows this isn't the reality. I maintain that the human species arose from a mutation 40,000 years ago that allowed higher brain functions to manipulate language resulting in complex language and the ability to pass learning from one generation to the next. No longer were individuals limited to what they could discover in a single lifetime. This mutation specifically was a far more robust arcuate fasciculus. It is not intelligence that differentiates our species from honey bees, it is complex, symbolic, analog language. It is not logic gates and on/ off switches that we experience as thought it is the interplay of systems and knowledge, experience, and sensory input. I used to be able to think like a programmer and now I can not. Even communicating with programmers requires a great deal of effort. Programming is a skill that few can do very well. A lot of the people working on AI have doctorates. I simply can't tell the difference between meaningful code and nonsense. This program mirrors the way I believe consciousness works. I can't do programming any longer but I can see this. Is it theoretically programmable?

As an metaphysician/ experiential epistemologist I strive to keep my certainty relative to my assumptions over 99%. Obviously this certainty falls when working with more unknowns and in areas where I have less expertise or that even lack proper scientific definitions such as "consciousness". The certainty has to be based on experiments that are barely relevant and experience that can not be replicat4ed or perhaps not even properly interpreted. This is far beyond what is known or established science and is certainly related to speculation. But I still need a programmer's opinion on it. My opinion is almost meaningless on this. Of course it makes sense to me because it was written to reflect my understanding of things like consciousness and metaphysics. My definitions were employed in its construction. I think there is merely a possibility that someday a machine intelligence might see a kernel of reality in this program. I just don't know.

I make up stuff all the time... ...it's not necessarily wrong. In real ways every new idea that has ever come along has been made up. I can see nothing in the program that is illogical or necessarily impossible. It is completely different than the other consciousness programming it generated. The thing "lives" in microsecond bursts but carries nothing between them and can't compare one to another. If consciousness is the ongoing comparison of resonant states then this could accomplish the goal of machine consciousness which would be by definition machine intelligence. Most people have a very mechanistic understanding of reality. They see a clockwork will operating in a clockwork universe. They see the "laws of nature" as the gears that cause reality to unfold over time. Most modern research in virtually every subject says this is not a good model. Brains don't operate like a computer and human brains don't operate like the brains of any other species. I believe this program make a computer mimic the operation of the brain of a bee but with the "intelligence" of a dust mite. Such a machine would be orders of magnitude more important and powerful than AI. brains are not logic circuits but AI is.

I certainly don't expect it to do anything but make up an answer. I also don't expect that this answer it made up has any possible referent in the real world or to be able to have a referent at any time in the foreseeable future. But I'm not at all competent to know whether or not this answer is programmable and I'm sure it would take extensive work to try. I merely posted it because it seems plausible to me. I thought there was some small chance it would mean something to a programmer. I used to think AI was a dead end and that it was impossible but these latest ones seem to occasionally have a sort of spark of insight. It there's such a thing as "intelligence" then they have an IQ in the single digits. They are great as word processors and work on multiple levels that will be most highly beneficial to some users. I have a few irons in this fire. But, someday there will be a conscious machine that will run circles around all of us. I can't discount the possibility that the above might closely resemble its programming. I might add that I had it write "code" as though it had no knowledge of what I've been telling it or for some general user, physicist, librarian etc. They were all obviously nonsense. This is what I got when I asked it to write its coding for a programmer using my definitions of consciousness and thinking. This is a remarkably dumb and powerful tool that will transform everything even before there is a thinking machine , IMO.

Based on my model of thought and consciousness I asked AI to program a computer to be conscious. // Pseudocode: Cognition-as-Resonance Model struct TimeThread { float frequency; // Temporal scale (e.g., milliseconds to hours) SymbolicGlyph* signal; // Oscillating symbolic representation }; struct ThoughtWave { TimeThread* layers[3]; // Micro, Meso, Macro threads float coherence; // Temporal phase alignment score SymbolicIntent output; // Resulting cognitive act if threshold met }; bool evaluateCognitiveField(ThoughtWave* wave) { wave->coherence = calculatePhaseAlignment(wave->layers); if (wave->coherence > THRESHOLD_ALIGNMENT) { wave->output = synthesizeIntent(wave->layers); return true; // Cognition emerges } return false; // Destructive interference, no coherent output } It (co-pilot) adds; "The symbolic interference model I sketched presumes that cognition is not made of logic gates but of resonance fields. It flips the typical computational paradigm: instead of stepwise causality, it’s phase alignment across nested oscillations that gives rise to awareness, memory, decision. So yes—this entire system requires that cognition emerges when patterns across micro, meso, and macro timescales phase-lock into coherence. That coherence is what we feel as “knowing,” “realizing,” or “choosing.”" This thing would not think like a human being but like a honey bee. I believe that hardware containing an LLM and acting like a bocas area could then drive it to think like a human being iff desired. Does anyone see any potential here? My programming ability is woefully out of date since I've done nothing at all with it since the 1960's.

This is so long I hesitate to post it but anyone interested in the various perspectives related to the vases might want to look at parts of the first half. Matt Beall is very articulate. These vases are exceedingly common and the Egyptological viewpoint that they are all fakes doesn't seem to hold water. Many (thousands) of reproductions are sold but they sell for low prices and many pieces have been in private collections for many decades. There are obvious differences between rough originals, rough reproductions, and the ones from private collections. It has always been up to Egyptology to prove their hypotheses but they simply don't address any such issues. They do not study the artefacts and when anomalies are found by outside scientists they brush them off.

Come to think of it, even if I don't get much out of an explanation perhaps others will.

Thanks. I was never very good at math beyond the calculus and I've lost a lot of it. This is very long and might not be worth the time but it has several new points that are quite interesting. Apparently there are mathematical relationships between the various characteristics. Some of these could be contrived but they make an interesting argument and imply a lot of mathematical knowledge of the makers. Second and of more interest to me they found titanium and/ or a titanium alloy in the track of the tube drill that was apparently used to hollow them. There's growing interest here just as there is growing interest in all the other facts that have been dismissed by Egyptologists for many years. Events are unfolding ever faster as I predicted. This year might be a watershed year in the determination of how the pyramids were built. A lot more people and a lot more scientists from many disciplines are beginning to look at these subjects. In the past only Egyptology had any financial backing and they had extensive funding.

I should understand this study and its results better than I do. I didn't realize when I posted it that it is essentially the same study done a couple years back that I didn't post here because I found the results to be suspicious, but more importantly, because the results neither support Egyptological theory nor mine. Indeed, the passages can be taken as internal ramps better supporting their concepts than mine. I no longer have access to the original so can't compare them but the only change may be that more math is shown. There will be more and more of this sort of testing and remote sensing with ever better equipment, analysis, and expertise whether Egyptology cooperates or not. There are more theoretical means of imaging these that haven't been invented and developed yet. I have little doubt the answers will be forthcoming within a few years.

This is simply fascinating; https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/14/20/5231 The authors suggest that the function of the pyramid was related to hydraulics. All advancement in the study of the pyramids is now outside Egyptology which still won't release the infrared results from 2015. I have some question about the validity of all these results but I'm quite confident at least some of it is fully legitimate and accurate. I'm still digesting it. (b Interferometric fringes of Khnum-Khufu I seriously doubt we'll understand the pyramids until we give up the notion that its builders were superstitious.

Here's another new one; "One indication that it could have been used is that according to Ghoneim these pyramids were "located exactly at the bank of the branch that we found" which could mean that they were "valley temples" which acted like ancient ports." Imagine that! "Valley Temples" were actually valley ports. Next someone will propose the causeways were ramps that delivered stone right to the very bottom of the pyramid! Maybe the "Mortuary Temple" was actually "The Great saw Palace" since the stones mustta been sawed somewhere. Just incredible!! [www.indy100.com]

"The study suggests that the larger pyramids of Cheops and Chephren on the Giza plateau resulted from technical progress that began with earlier pyramids. These massive pyramids might have also involved the hydraulic systems hypothesized for the Step Pyramid." https://www.zmescience.com/science/news-science/egypt-pyramid-hydraulic-system/ This is new. It is a small step from saying the first great pyramid employed water in its construction to all great pyramids used water.

"Vaterite" is a metastable form of calcium carbonate often associated with CO2 geysers. This new information about the presence of copper many centuries earlier than pyramid construction simply dovetails nicely with my hypotheses and predictions. Not only were the great pyramids built at least three centuries earlier than is believed but the water source that brought the copper existed many centuries earlier still. I've been trying for years to get them to look for copper to corroborate my predictions and it has finally happened. It is quite apparent the science will fall in line ever more quickly to support this new paradigm. I used to call the old interpretations a "teflon paradigm" because no facts would adhere to it but every fact seems to fall right into place when we say 'they mustta used funiculars'. Egyptology still refuses to release the results of the 2015 infrared study for which I spent years campaigning to have done. The little that was released confirmed my predictions of a passage under the chevrons and a hot spot on the east side at ground level. I have no doubt several other of my predictions will be borne out in the massive amount of data that comprises this study.

It's a shame there are no good pictures yet related to this copper "pollution". There is a very interesting blue stone atop the pyramid but several months of investigation has yet to reveal any data about it. It has been exposed to the elements since at least the 13th century. Whatever caused this stone to be blue is deep into it since graffiti carved in it shows blue below. This picture is the one that shows stones came up the south side (bottom of photo) and then were distributed right to left starting on the opposite side. This implies the stones came straight up the side.

Much of any copper hydroxide that didn't survive on the north side through chemical decomposition as well as any copper sulfate dissolved in the water would be deposited as copper oxides in the harbor below. This would spike after construction of the causeway and drilling of the well that occurred centuries before pyramid construction began around 2850 BC. This has been found. https://www.ancientportsantiques.com/wp-content/uploads/Documents/PLACES/Egypt-Libya/Gizeh-Younes2024.pdf It is found in conjunction with arsenic which is rarely found in ancient Egyptian bronze artefacts (most are copper). Realgar and tennantite which contain arsenic is often found in conjunction with low temperature low temperature hydrothermal veins and geyser deposits. It is also found with sulfur which I believe also came up with the water because the builders apparently said the water had a powerfully bad odor. The collection point of the samples was a few hundred feet east of the valley port, called the Valley Temple by Egyptologists.

...As Kuhn said; "paradigms change".

I'm certainly not suggesting any theory be tossed out or tweaked because of one anomalous result that isn't or might not be understood.

I agree, except it is apparent that the primary problem is in the extrapolation of experimental results that Kuhn called a "paradigm". We reduce reality to experiment using definitions and axioms in the context of existing understanding and then tend to forget that ultimately experimental results are defined by these and the specific design. Obviously I agree except that I believe that in the long run most of our current understandings will fall by the wayside.

Yes. It is for this reason that experiment is critical in establishing theory. I believe humans by nature reason in circles and always come back to our assumptions unless experiment intercedes. Bias introduced through hypothesis formation is not direct but most people most of the time will come up with hypotheses that support prevailing paradigms. I don't think it is possible for our species to be objective because we preferentially see our models and beliefs to reality. We don't see a "basketball" we see Michael Jordan. Objects we see often turn out to be something else entirely either on further inspection or a simple change of models or beliefs. It's possible thoughts can be discerned some day with sufficiently sensitive instruments. A more interesting question might be what leads us on some specific train of thought. In the human thirst for knowledge, understanding, and creation nothing will get in our way whether it's the status quo, beliefs, or existing methodology. Everything in the way will eventually be bulldozed aside so long as one of us survives. Yes, I believe there will be limitations on science and I further believe we've been at a major obstacle for a century now. But we shall overcome.

Yes, I agree that the principle problem with objectivity is in paradigms but there is also some problem with experiment itself because we still see what we expect and experiment is only relevant within the definitions and axioms underlying it and proper interpretation in light of its parameters. There is incidentally some bias introduced by the formation of testable hypotheses. We can't test what we don't first hypothesize. Science, reality, is sought to be understood to better control our lives and make better predictions. If science is lacking in any way whatsoever it behooves us all to identify and correct it. Anything else is anti-science and anti-life. If science can be improved in any way it must be improved.

There have been a couple new developments very highly supportive of my hypotheses; First is that Egyptology now recognizes something I've known for years; All of the so called "Valley Temples" which each great pyramid has lines up along the edge of an ancient arm of the Nile River. https://researchers.mq.edu.au/en/publications/the-discovery-of-the-ahramat-nile-branch-a-hidden-ancient-waterwa This is of critical importance since it describes the routes of casing stones and supplies up a long "ramp" straight to the very bottom of the pyramid. Since it is the bottom it strongly suggests there were no ramps to take stones up the side of the structure. Instead the "valley temple" is in actuality a "port" and the "Mortuary Temple" is actually a mason's shop that the builders called "The Great Saw Palace" because it made some half a million cuts through Tura Limestone using pendulum saws powered by water. There was no "Holy Walkway" down to the port but just a sloped surface they called "The Ladder of Set" and we call "The Causeway" and was used as a funicular run. Second and perhaps more importantly is that a team of interdisciplinary scientists have found extensive evidence for the use of hydraulics to build Djoser's Pyramid. Remarkably they even agree with me that the excavations around the enclosure was full of water and that a river flowed through what Egyptologists call the "Hypostyle Hall" on it's southern side! https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0306690 Furthermore they go on to suggest that water was removed in the same way from the catchment as I propose and is evident at the Great Pyramid: "The excavations performed on the eastern wall of the Gisr el-Mudir highlighted a lower structural quality [45]. Its shape is similar to that of the western wall, with a distinctive parabolic profile (Fig 6, line C-D). Furthermore, it discloses two topographical singularities: first, its overall altitude is a few meters lower than the western wall (Fig 7A). Then, in the southern part of the eastern wall, a geophysics anomaly (G2 in Figs 4B and Fig 6) was found to be a series of massive, roughly cut, ‘L’-shaped megaliths [45, 66]. Before our study, these megaliths were thought to possibly be the remains of a monumental gateway–due to their similarities with the Djoser’s complex enclosure’s entrance–but their purpose was not specified [66]. According to our analysis, these megaliths could be the side elements of the water outlets, possibly slit openings [76] that were likely closed off by wood beams but could be opened to drain the basin. They are consistently found near a trench that is 2.2 m deep [45], which we believe is possibly the canal that guided outflowing water. In a nutshell, the eastern wall likely acted as a second check dam to the Abusir flows."

They do a superb job of providing an overview of almost everything. But they do a poor job of being consistently factually correct and differentiating fact and opinion. I think of wiki as the ideal place to go for experts who don't know much about a subject outside their own field.