That's a C-17. I've seen them up close and flying low overhead. The bulbous appearance is by design for good aerodynamics.

And it may not even be what he thinks it is.

But it is really rather simple. Space Force combines space-based communications, surveillance, and reconnaissance and cyber warfare as a separate arm of the Armed Forces. No spacemen (yet). No space weapons (yet). They stare at computer screens and manipulate keyboards. We don't even have physical film recovery from our spy satellites. It's all electronic.

The "alien thing" is boring old news, for those of us who grew up in the 1960s and followed it since then. I am mainly astounded that so many people seem to react as though recent disclosures are "news." Videos of optical glitches? Back then, airline pilots were clamoring for guidance from the Air Force on what to do when they encountered a UFO, because it had been happening too frequently for comfort. The reason this "alien thing" seems sudden is that the media and their sponsors need a distraction. Nothing new has happened. We are still fed only narratives and no evidence.

Why would we need aliens to explain the manifestations of ordinary greed and callous indifference? If there were no aliens, there would be only sweetness and light? Read history.

I thought it was Putin who gave the ball to Trump. There was all kinds of fizzy speculation that some kind of secret data was concealed in the ball.

One such tank managed to surrender to the Russians without getting destroyed. The Russians could see it was behaving oddly, suggestive of surrender. (I think it may have been approaching Russian lines with the cannon raised and the turret turned aft.) Indeed, the crew were spot-welded inside the tank.

What is the other country? The Russians are certainly not "retards." As Colonel MacGregor has pointed out repeatedly, they have perfected the integration of ISR (intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance) into a theater-level battle management system, knocking out major Ukrainian assets before they can even arrive at the front. The Ukrainians are sitting ducks, with no place to hide. Go slow, you get attacked from the air. Go fast, and you get punched out by a mine. There is no "smart" way to survive (except not to be there).

Very ironic. On the one hand, we must "declare war" against "climate change." But on the other hand we are supposed to burn / detonate countless thousands of tons of high explosives and propellants in order to punish Vladimir Putin. It would truly be an interesting calculation to determine how much CO2 is being produced by all this mayhem (if only to shame Greta Thunberg) and lay it at the feet of the EU and NATO. I am willing to suppose it far exceeds the reduction targets. The hypocrisy is epochal.

Hey, they always have been. Only now, it is apparent. Just like how NATO-trained and -equipped Ukrainians have been totally whupped by the Russians. NATO training and equipment is the best, right?---except when it isn't. When psychopaths are in charge, they are blinded by their own delusions (of grandeur and omnipotence).

The scenario might change radically if members of the mainstream media are among the first taken into custody for complicity in major crimes. If the executive suite at (say) NBC is marched off in handcuffs and the remaining supervisors are given a briefing as to why this has happened, they will be faced with the possible implications of continuing "business as usual."

If the media are crucial to the strategy, why do we assume they will be untouched at the beginning?

What "inflatable plane"? Not shown in referenced article. Another imaginary bit of "evidence"?

I will reiterate a speculation I had on the military conduct of elections: There will be no mail ballots, only ballots in person. And for President, they will be write-in only, with manual counting and tabulation. No artfully-placed marker dots or hanging chads to exploit.

I'm not saying it will happen this way, but I think it would be very interesting if it happened this way.

I don't know much about Ozempic, but a similar fad and market push has been in place for Lipitor. I was shocked to learn that, at the time I read about it, Lipitor was the most heavily purchased drug. Not just the most heavily-purchased heart-related drug, but the most heavily-purchased DRUG, period. With all kinds of adverse side effects, and no particular improvement over pre-existing cholesterol-lowering drugs. There is a book out that details this whole backstory ("The Great Cholesterol Myth" by Jonny Bowden and Dr. Stephen Sinatra). I got off Lipitor and off statins. It is possible to lower cholesterol by other means, and it is more important to lower blood vessel inflammation that causes cholesterol to be a problem with plaque. Cholesterol is produced by the body (not ingested from food) and is the stuff necessary for healthy nerve growth.

What is worse than a doctor not knowing shit? When a doctor knows only shit. For me, I guess that was an early red pill (ironically speaking).

Don't disparage the Red Pill. (By the way, I don't really know what your beliefs are. I was only expounding my own observation of reality.)

Nothing I said is out of date, and referring to the GPS corrections means nothing to this argument, since I did not reject special relativity as a predictive theory. My "science background" came with 3 degrees in astronautics, including such things as fusion physics, orbital mechanics, fluid physics, and laser physics (truly quantum technology). Where are your credentials that you can imagine I am out of date?

String theory is a grand head trip, but increasingly seen as irrelevant because it cannot be experimentally investigated. As I am literate, I have little use (or patience) for YouTube expositions. You might profit to read the work of Halton Arp, regarding the major assumptions of modern cosmology, or the work of Frederick Kantor regarding the unification of quantum and relativistic physics. For many years, I took the Journal of Galilean Electrodynamics, which was nothing but exploration of alternative physical hypotheses. Before you attempt to clear the speck from my eye, go and remove the plank from yours. Put your attitude where your mouth is and look into more modern approaches.

No book? Somehow the LEM and the retroreflectors got to the Moon on brooms? Not scary at all. Pathetic, however.

Don't kid me. It is an appeal to authority when the only thing Q can add to the discussion is an opinion on the subject.

De facto embargo due to adblocker notice if you click on the post title. But no problem if you click on the embedded URL in the post preface.

And where Q, a human being, will always have a tendency to speak loosely to make a point. Maybe if restricted to the realm of politics, the idea becomes more real. That is a possibility. But to take it as a global truth...not even remotely close. I find the validity of Q to be found in the explanations, not the metaphysics.

I notice you did not address the hard, empirical, fact- and logic-based disproof of "there are no coincidences" and instead substituted an appeal to authority, the first of all argumentative fallacies. You have to watch your moves in the mirror to see when you are awkward.

You don't "know" there is "no such thing as coincidence." That would mean the impossibility of random events, but they are all around us. The motion of gas molecules is random, according to the kinetic theory of gases, which predicts the gas laws to an accuracy that is unmatched. If the motions were not random, there would be an error between the theory and measurement. So, the existence of randomness in nature (i.e., coincidence) is proven by falsification of the opposite theory.

But that says nothing about the present event, which mainly is mysterious. (I go to the link, but the embedded videos don't run for me.)

You know, the west doubted the existence of the okapi, until they got a specimen. Here, in the Land of Question Everything, why do people WANT to believe in something without evidence? (Heresay is not evidence.)

I'll pass. I have no time to waste on "check out this (47-minute) video" unless the recommender can state in a few sentences what the key points are. All I have ever seen on this point are doubts inspired by sheer ignorance, not any evidence that it didn't happen. Contrariwise, there is profuse evidence that it happened: eyewitnesses, participants, testimony, video and audio and phtographic records, material samples, etc. In order to establish that it didn't happen, absolutely ALL the confirmatory evidence would need to be refuted by presentation of contrary true facts...not just ignorant questions or presumptions.

I had colleagues who worked on the Apollo program. It was totally real. The lunar landers and laser retroreflectors on the Moon can be seen there today.

The theory of relativity only assumes there is a physical continuum of time. No facts to support it. Just because you can graph (e.g.) kinematics as a function of time does not mean that time is a physical dimension. I happen to be trained in science and engineering, so I am not impressed by people jumping to nonsensical conclusions. I am familiar with relativity. And I am also familiar with the fact that the correspondence principle (of frame acceleration vs. gravity), which is the foundation of general relativity, is a false presumption.

Actual quantum physics is not magical, BUT assuming there are things lurking there with magical potential is indeed magical thinking. All physical laws smoothly transition from one scale to another...or they are poorly posed. Einstein was famously dubious about quantum physics altogether. The only person I have known to unify physics from the quantum to the relativistic level was Frederick Kantor, in his "information mechanics." Not a crank. He was a respected X-ray astronomer.

It makes more sense than you trusting those who sell a false tale. It is not a matter of "trusting" anyone. (Bad reliance on argument from authority.) It is a matter of facts and evidence beyond dispute. If you are going to accuse "NASA" (a rather large organization) of being a monolithic liar, you need to document the specific lies and lay out the evidence for the truth. Not just argument for such alternatives, but evidence that they could only be the truth. Everything I have seen that some people purport to be "evidence" is only an instance of being ignorant of what is seen. With very little deviation from the rule, the doubters are those who are ignorant of the basic facts and principles. And unreasonably credulous to think that our then-arch-enemy, the Soviet Union, would stand by and give credit to a faked accomplishment that they were also striving toward. On matters of space science, NASA is still a good source. On matters of "climate science" (a whole different department), it is a pack of liars. If you can't tell the difference, you should not be in the business of making judgment.

Oh, it could all be true. But not on account of any logical arguments. If we were divinely created, everything and everyone is also divinely created. So the Drake equation does not even remotely apply, as the facts are not a matter of probability.

Christ, of course, was talking to human beings as individual persons (many mansions). It is a huge stretch to SUPPOSE he was speaking with any other referent. Let the future prove the past, and be patient.

The infinite vastness of what amounts to the most deadly and desolate desert imaginable, argues against any successful travel to other stars. Appeal to quantum mechanics and "space-time" is simply magical invocation, as though reference to things one does not fully understand permits them to have miraculous powers. You are indulging in wishful thinking. ("Spacetime," for example, is nonsense. There is only one time---the present. The past is no more and the future is yet to be.)

Let there be aliens. It might explain some things---and un-explain other things! Knowledge is a two-edged sword. But let's not kid ourselves with fuzzy mythology and great expectations.