You don't even know if the "tictac" was real, let alone who might have made it. The history is that what comes out of Skunkworks was never anticipated, and what was most speculated to be from Skunkworks never materialized.
The compartmentalized activities are budgeted by Congress, a few members of which are read into the activities for oversight purposes. They are not funded by embezzlement from other programs. That would be a disclosure vulnerability. Ever heard of the big cross-charging scandal between the B-1 and Space Shuttle program back in the 1980s? That gave rise to onerous accounting reporting requirements.
You can imagine all you want, but I've been there. You haven't.
Vladimir Zelenko. He had arrived at the hydroxychloroquine / zinc / antibiotic cocktail that cured about 8000 patients of the Covid. In parallel with Didier Raoult. Maybe you should re-examine your "feelings" in the light of what he did. He was a foe of the mRNA shot and got occasional time on Fox News.
The Constitution does not permit the Legislature to allocate government functions to created non-government entities. Any entity that performs a function must fall under the Executive, and be subordinate thereto. The only purpose of the Federal Reserve is to contrive a means for creating a fourth branch of government in violation of the Constitution. I think Trump could rightly take the position that Congress had no authority to create the Fed, that the Fed was inherently part of the Executive, and therefore he would banish it and rely on the Dept. of the Treasury.
The space program funding was all out in the open. The budgets were debated in Congress. Major programs have been terminated, to the contractor's distress. The SST (Boeing) was canceled. The F-22 (Lockheed/Boeing) was canceled. The Space Shuttle (Boeing/Rockwell) was retired. The X-33 (Lockheed) was canceled before completion. The YAL-1A (Boeing/Lockheed) was canceled. I could go on, but my point is that you are wrong in saying "funding has never been a problem for government programs." The Blackbird was public knowledge before 1970; what "new project"? Then along came the F-117, disclosed around the time of the Gulf War. Clever, but not alien technology.
Where did you read that the "tictac" UFO was a project, going back to 1967? Nobody knows what the "tictac" is, or even if it was real. You can't explain the inexplicable by inventing a pipe dream. And it amuses me to see how people can expound in such a lofty way about compartmentalized activities---that they haven't been part of. I have been part of them. There is no alien technology, only clever work. So, don't bother to look down. All you will see is my bald spot.
I'm not sure what you are referring to. The SR-71 came out of the Skunkworks. None of the space programs that I mentioned had Lockheed as a prime contractor.
Not exactly on topic, but I am finding now that X has supplanted Twitter, if I click on the above X post, it opens two tabs leading to the source. Happens as reliable as clockwork. Has anyone else experienced this? Just curious.
You are not looking at the circumstances of history. Early aviation was simple technology and progress was straightforward. World War I provided a big push in airplane development. Then the shadow of the impending World War II started another big push that continued through the war, and was also pushed by the Cold War. World War II also pushed rocketry, and especially also in the Cold War. As part of the Cold War, NASA was formed along with the manned space program, and we went to the Moon as a major national political goal. Once attained, the public lost interest in being on the Moon and Congress saw no further point. The funding dropped and NASA begged for money with which to develop the Space Shuttle, which was still a major propulsion push. Lots of Shuttle missions. Then the Soviet Union collapsed and there was no major political reason to develop anything better than the Shuttle. We diverted interest into the international Space Station. Then the Shuttle killed a second crew and was retired. No more money for propulsion. On the side, Elon Musk came along with his aggressive approach to commercial space launch---and indigenous rocket engine production, and propulsion development resumed under his hands.
Promising technology using nuclear energy was dabbled in, but deemed politically unattractive, so no funding. You can't build what you don't pay to develop. Plenty of sophisticated work on ion engines for satellite orbit adjustment, but they don't make for dramatic videos.
So, you are mistaken in your assessment, by simply omitting everything that has happened since Apollo. it all hinges on whether it is being paid for. And whether there is any expertise left out there after the funding droughts. It is commonplace to "lose" technology if the people who create and produce it are not replenished, generation after generation. People get impatient and leave for greener pastures because they have a family to feed. People retire, and die. Business executives think you grow technology like wheat, just plow and harvest. No big deal. They don't understand that there is a wealth of detailed knowledge that must be maintained, or you lose your grip. Like Boeing. It used to be an actual leader in the field, and now it is struggling through Space Capsule 101.
Special Access Programs? Nobody knows shit about them, and there is no legitimacy in speculating that they are magic. I've been in them. They are technical as hell, just on things they don't want the public to know about for the sake of operational security. No new physics. Pontificating? On the basis of what? Wishful thinking? A very worthless distraction from reality.
I can't say at the moment. You think it would be clear from the driver's manuals, but it isn't. There are descriptors for vehicle options, but it is not obvious which vehicle you are driving. They seem to have adequate power for modest displacement so I suspect they are turbocharged. These days it's not possible to see much under the hood. I tend to be hypersensitive to off-nominal notices and will get my vehicle into the dealership right quickly. The guys there seem to be on the spot. I'm a big believer in maintenance. My Dad pretty much drilled into me that the only difference between men and beasts is that men maintain their machines.
Not sure that's true for AC induction motors. But the point is that you need to input the energy from an exterior source.
I'm saddened. I had a 2001 Jag XK8 and a 2009 Range Rover Sport Supercharged. Wonderful vehicles. The Jag was great with the top down on a country road in summertime. With 510 hp on tap, the RR Sport was a tank handling like a sports car. Unavoidable circumstances forced me to replace them and we got a 2017 Land Rover Discovery Sport and a 2019 Jaguar F-Pace, both very satisfactory. I had a long ago Volvo XC 70 and it was a very solid car. I don't sneer at Volvo owners (a bad conservative prejudice against assumed liberal owners). There is a Jaguar/Land Rover dealership in Lusaka, the capital of Zambia, but with an electricity availability of 2-3 hours/day, I don't see how EVs would make the remotest sense in that market.
You said the Discovery was their top seller. Are you sure you didn't mean the Defender (which seems to be very popular)? You can ford streams with those things, equipped with snorkels. I don't see how that could ever be practical as an EV. African terrain may not be the worst in the world, but it is certainly unforgiving.
The Earth's rotational energy is "waiting to be harvested," but there is no known way to do it, and a whole lot of questions regarding the wisdom of even trying.
Unless somebody who says such a thing has a clear method for extracting the energy, they are just mouthing off. And electric motors consume energy, not produce it.
To quote Robert A. Heinlein: "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch."
By the way, I did a little research and it seems the thrust behind the new Jaguar advert is that Jaguar plans to go full-electric in their future models. Curiously, that was one of the reasons they scuttled the XJ follow-on. I let my dealer know that they will not be seeing me buy one of them. (I have to wonder at this. Jaguar likes to sell all over the world and there are some places where an all-electric car would never be able to get on the road, for want of reliable electric service.)
I'm sorry, but my response in that sort of situation would be to burgeon them verbally. Feeble screams. How loud can a man shout? Pound them down to whimpering jello. Choose to lack a spine; live like a jellyfish.
3 years old, going on 4? She was so unintelligible, I couldn't understand a word (or shriek).
Well, the DS is not worried about being messy. They just want to dodge the bullet themselves and sustain their evil habits. Not concerned about saving lives. In my own view, they worship death (of others) as being the sacrament of unholy power.
That is called a pre-emptive attack. But we did jokingly refer to that as "engagement in the pre-launch phase."
Not a problem. This illustrates the difficulty with assessing history, in that much of history in modern times is partitioned among specialty communities. The reader of Popular Science might have known. The reader of Redbook almost certainly would not have known. And now that there is a proliferation of internet topic channels and podcasts, awareness is even more fragmented.
Just trundle out the old bat-signal and I will arrive to save the day!
It depends on what is meant. The Patriot system is incapable; it wasn't meant to tackle that kind of threat. The THAAD system may be able to; it was designed to tackle that kind of threat---but we haven't given THAAD to Ukraine, so tough luck for them.
This is slightly incoherent. It looks like a succession of video loops, where the dialogue is repeated. I like what Hawley says. He is a stellar debater / interrogator. But I don't like the impression of "I've seen this billboard before." This should have been edited to remove the duplications.
More to the point, no one was there to witness a Venusian handoff of a baby to the Tesla family. That is strictly a fairy story. Not all history has been falsified. To say so is to fall into an epistemological inability to know ANY history. How do you know these historical "revelations" are not also falsified? Radical skepticism leads nowhere. There is plenty of authentic history to read, but one must find it and read it.
If anything, we are learning that some history that was formerly in question is being confirmed or elucidated. Examples are the history of the Bible and the existence of the city of Troy. Geology and paleontology are also a history of sorts. The history of science is verified by countless observations of phenomena. There have long been political versions of history, but they are an attempt to hide history as such, and are not always successful.
Explain to me, then why I was able to read about it in the 1960s in Popular Science magazine, and was able to identify it in flight in 1970. It was common knowledge among those who followed aerospace matters. Not much among those who trained horses. Apparently, it was not common knowledge for you.
Well, fairy tales are a dime a dozen. Know anything about the surface conditions of Venus? Mrs. Tesla had a total of 5 children, and no one in a mountain village remarked on a birth without a pregnancy? That would be even more remarkable than a virgin birth. Don't be so credulous.
By the way, Elon may have been perfectly serious about "alien" being his psychological relationship with society. Imagine if you were the only normal person in a world where everyone else had an average I.Q. of 45. How would you feel? This gives rise to "alienation" as used in psychology.
What FBI files? Tesla was from Croatia, born the fourth of five children.
Elon is also joking, but that is a mental outlook that the very high-I.Q. persons may have in their interaction with normal people. Significant problems "fitting in" and not raising undue attention. It has been thought that his I.Q. is between 150 and 160, which is about 3.7 standard deviations from the norm. To give some idea, this corresponds to a rarity of 1 in 2,330 on the low end to 1 in 31,560 on the high end.
There would be a "double meaning" only if the other meaning were true. Elon is an oddball, but very human indeed.
No, who cares about what Jewish lore he believes in? What is there "suspicious" about something that is clearly Old Testament and consistent with the Ten Commandments? He also wears a beard. Is that suspicious, too? It could be you are just filled with unfounded suspicions.