Moontanman

https://www.newsweek.com/best-ufo-picture-calvine-photo-found-30-years-missing-1733673 https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/howaboutthat/3447508/UFO-sightings-140-years-of-UFO-pictures.html My personal fav. http://www.noufors.com/Rex_Heflin_ufo_photographs.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMinnville_UFO_photographs Not in the way you seem to be suggesting, I am saying that Alien technology would be so advanced that they could limit our knowledge of them by not allowing themselves to be detected unless they wanted to be detected. I would say the prospect of the Gov being in cahoots with aliens is quite small but not non zero.

Good pictures have been taken but they suffer from the old "too blurry" or "too good to be real", as I have said the supposed "aliens" control the info we get and to think good photos will be that perfect photo of a alien spacecraft landing on the White House lawn in plain view of military civilian, civilians, or the media just ain't gonna happen. The entire distance problem, IMHO, is a red herring, Aliens, if they are here, are unlikely to be weekenders dropping by to see the humans on a lark. Even without FTL it is quite possible to explore and even colonise the entire galaxy in a few million years. I think they would avoid planets altogether if colonization is part of their plan and build space habitats in places like the Kuiper Belt. There are plenty of resources in that area, of volatiles, of rocks and even small amounts of metals. The ones that visit us are most likely to be specialists who want to study planets with life and maybe even observe emerging civilizations. Our Kuiper Belt could be lousy with alien habitats and we would be completely unaware of them other then a fleeting glimpses of probes dipping occasionally into our atmosphere to obtain close up pics or samples. Of course the idea of them being in our Kuiper Belt is highly speculative but still close enough for us to find out if we wanted to badly enough. Another possibility is Von neumann probes or Bracewell probes which could lurk in a planetary system waiting for sentience to evolve and to report back to their creators. Such probes could print out smaller probes to gather information possibly even build biological beings/robots to help in their exploration. I am sure there are other possibilites that do not require magical technology for aliens to be here.

OK.. good call, I was out of hand in that reply. I apologise. I mostly agree but what would constitute evidence? The only thing I can think of that wouldn't dismissed is a landing on the White House lawn or the equivalent. IMHO this is not what we should be waiting on. There are reports that are truly inexplicable and not from lack of data, waiting on "hard" evidence is likely a fool's errand. All we will ever be able to collect on our own is data that can be interpreted to mean anything. One picture I have posted before was immediately dismissed by this forum as a hub cap being thrown by someone and photographing it... even though the witness who took the photo was someone to be trusted and the photo contained elements that were counter to the idea of a thrown hubcap. I don't know what to think really, any photo is subject to doubt, radar tracings are subject to doubt, eyewitnesses are subject to doubt, physical traces are subject to doubt... how do we remove the doubt? A landing on the white House lawn? If only it were that easy, I wish I had an answer. What would you call "a good picture"?

You know that drawer in your house where you out odds and ends? The things you can't or won't throw away but still don't know what to do with them? That is what the "other" category is. A place where things go to be forgotten and or ignored, maybe years later when the drawer gets full you might throw the stuff away without much care. The "other" should not be a place where everything goes that has no immediate use to be forgotten. Yes it's the uncategorized reports that have unusual flight characteristics but it's also the place where the silly stuff goes, unknown lights in the sky, something some guy just claimed, anal probes... the possible foreign adversary goes there as well, or unknown industry programs. You can't say something is a foreign adversary if you don't know what it is, you can't say it's a unknown industrial program if you don't know what it is. The "other" category is useless and only serves to hide things you cannot explain regardless of how much data is available. Other is not useful as an explanation unless it is kept out in the light of day where you have to deal with it, hiding it away is worse than debunking it amounts to dismissing the data out of hand. If it displays unusual flight characteristics, then it should go in a classification of "unusual flight characteristics not what is nothing less than a trash file. You couldn't be further from the truth, if anything the camera phone has resulted in a flurry of photos all over the world but since the vast majority are posted as you tube videos or some other place that is not held in high esteem they are ignored. Many photos are quite good and more often than not touted as too good to be true.

I think this paper by James E. McDonald, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences The University of Arizona is extremely interesting coming as it is from 1969 and describing several UFO sightings. http://kirkmcd.princeton.edu/JEMcDonald/mcdonald_aaas_69.pdf When discussing the "other" category in these papers it would be odd for the idea of ET not to come up. ETs are part of our culture and while not provable many sightings do suggest something extraordinary is going on and the idea of a catch all bin called other is not a sufficient or honest and is often used as an excuse to dismiss these unusual sightings out of hand. You have taught me that it's not proper to claim ETs as the source of these sightings so I refrain from doing so but that doesn't make the sightings go away.

Loeb and Kirkpatric do seem to over step in their paper, thank you for pointing that out. As for claims of aliens, the "other" category is about as close to such a claim as would be justified. To actually claim any of these sightings were caused by ET would be premature and inflammatory. How ever the papers admitted that some of the objects did demonstrate unusual flight characteristics that could not be explained and needed further investigation. I never suggested these objects were ETs, I did in fact suggest the most likely explanation was drones from adversary nations. I did also suggest that some of them had no current explanation and that this "danced around" the issue of ETs. I would not expect any scientific paper to flat out suggest ETs and neither should anyone else until one lands on the Whitehouse lawn. Barring that unlikely revelation these papers come closest to suggesting something is going on that cannot be explained with current technology. Whether this represents adversarial technology or unknown civilian technology the fact remains that objects exhibiting unknown technology exist and the government is acknowledging this and doing their due diligence to find out what is going on. Instead of simply poo pooing the entire thing as hoaxes or mistaken identity. I would suggest reading the entire papers and try to identify the trees inside the forest. The more I read scientific research on this subject the closer i get to something extraordinary going on. What this is cannot as of yet be determined but I think we can discuss the data we have without our brains falling out. Sorry about the video, the author is one of my favs and I wanted to give him credit for his work. He has interviewed many scientists on a great many topics relating to space and does a great job of listing his sources. It pains me to say this but the Post seems to be unnecessarily inflating this story, The original paper does say this is a possibility but not a probability.

I guess you didn't read the papers? The little green men were just a thumb nail to attract attention.

I recently reread "The Deep Hot Biosphere" by Gold... not sure it holds up very well to modern theories.

The US Government appears to be taking UAPs/UFOs seriously, these papers suggest that the US government is taking Unidentified Objects seriously and even suggesting they exhibit technology beyond our own. There papers dance around UAPs being extraterrestrial but do suggest they might be extraordinary events at the very least. The video is short but explains the premise. I still have to come down on the side of these objects being most likely drones from adversary nations but this is almost as disturbing as the extraterrestrial hypothesis. https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Prelimary-Assessment-UAP-20210625.pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Unclassified-2022-Annual-Report-UAP.pdf https://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/highly-classified-nro-system-captures-possible-tic-tac-object-in-2021/ https://lweb.cfa.harvard.edu/~loeb/LK1.pdf http://kirkmcd.princeton.edu/JEMcDonald/mcdonald_aaas_69.pdf

How about the three sisters?

Sargassum can also be used as fertilizer and when dried it makes a good insulator.

One thing that contributes to the elderly losing their housing is that when your spouse dies your income is basically cut in half.

I know that homelessness has always been one of my own personal fears to the extent I have nightmares about it even today.

Has the number of homeless who are addicts been established? Are we assuming most are? Or is addiction relatively rare among the homeless? I think it would help if we had some idea of what portion of homeless are addicts or mentally ill, or just people who are down and out financially.

I am thinking of building a cathedral bee hive from plans on the net. Has anyone looked into this?

The cephalopods are world champions of camouflage some of them being able to instantly disappear in almost any environment.

If you get a free ride there, how do you get back to the place where you can get a job and get out of the camp? Or is this camp a permanent place? Life imprisonment? Do you only send homeless addicts to this place or all the homeless? I'm betting that the vast majority of the homeless are not drug addicts in the manner you are suggesting or are you counting alcoholics as drug addicts? In Ca., I've ben told by people who live there, the vast majority of the homeless are hard working people who cannot afford housing because the jobs they can get are so low paying. I was out there a couple years ago and the number of homeless was appalling, but a great many of them lived in high end tents, entire families, and even drove cars. My sons who do live there say the homeless are an artifact of the extreme restrictions of building new housing that keeps rent prices artificially high and once you become homeless recovering from it is almost impossible.

So you are sarcasm impaired? On the cheap legal drugs... we control alcohol by making it legally available, makes it harder for under age people to obtain it, drugs on the other hand that are illegal and have an actual war waged on them and anyone of nearly any age that has the money can get them.

All drugs should be legal and sold in designated drug stores along with alcohol and tobacco. Prices should be low enough that people can maintain their habit with the low paying jobs that are available to the general public. Housing should be cheap for those with very low incomes who have to work the low paying jobs. If this was implemented the ultra rich could get even richer and the homeless drug addicts wouldn't be a problem.

Damn, you guys just reminded me I have to make a partial water change on my tank. https://youtu.be/QBYuaEOliY4