Here's a quick one for you.

UFO crashes just outside Roswell New Mexico 1947. US Army move in to clear the wreckage and bodies etc, and hand it over to scientists at Area 51 for study.

That was 62 years ago, do you think that maybe some of the technology we take for granted today may have been a result of research into whatever crashed at Roswell?

__________________

Quick answer to a quick question: not so much.

__________________
The dog, the dog, he's at it again!

Probably best if you begin by looking at the Philip.J.Corso thread that on the forum. This idea has been debated before.

__________________
Talkie Toaster: The question is this: given that God is infinite and that the universe is also infinite, would you like a toasted tea-cake?

I thought someone would have at least mentioned 'velcro'

__________________

None of the technologies that Corso said came from Roswell actually did. They all were developed right here on Earth as a result of research and development that goes back well before the Roswell incident, which itself has also been debated here, and had nothing to do with extraterrestrials (neither were there any bodies).

So I guess the answer is no, then.

__________________
New Orion's Arm Site . The Starlark . Against a Diamond Sky (OA Novella Collection) . OA Flickr set

Since Velcro was conceived in 1941 by a Swiss engineer, no. His inspiration was a natural phenomenon, the burr of the burrdock plant. It took 10 years to completely mechanize the process for making the stuff.

Or is that only what They want us to believe?

Fred

__________________
"For shame, gentlemen, pack your evidence a little better against another time."
-- John Dryden, "The Vindication of The Duke of Guise" 1684

Nah, some bitz just fell backwards in time to 1941. Tends to happen when superluminal UFOs crashland

__________________
The dog, the dog, he's at it again!

What I never could understand is how really advanced technology could be possibly be understood much less reverse-engineered.

To come to earth from some distant star, tremendously advanced technology would be needed, and it would have been developed by some form of life most likely totally different from us.

Makes fun reading but not much sense to believe in the Roswell crash...

__________________
______________________________________________
“He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever”
Chinese proverb
"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence - and then success is sure." - Mark Twain.

Note that Corso didn't explain how we reverse-engineered the infrastructure needed to provide the materials that we used to recreate the alien technology.

Gullible people tend to ignore such problems, however.

__________________
Friendly Rabid Atheists (mostly)

And saying that all those technologies were just copied and not actually developed is a big slap in the face to the many people who spent all the time and effort, some probably their career lives, working on them.

Well, you seem to be mixing fact and fantasy. It is a fact that such things as the transistor exist today. And it is a fact that the historical record shows an appropriate lead-up to the invention of the gadget. These things are relatively undisputed. But Roswell and saucer crashes are folklore. They don't rise to level of credibility as the established record. Hence to try to cite reverse-engineered alien technology as an explanation for how we got stuff, when more clearly documented, more straightforward explanations exist is pure wishful thinking.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Slightly off topic and a bit "nitpicky", but....


There is absolutely no mention of alien "bodies" in any 1947 report(s). Astrophotographer can correct me, but I think it wasn't until the 80's that alien bodies turned up in the Roswell folklore.

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

I can confirm that.

__________________
Friendly Rabid Atheists (mostly)

Didn't the vulcans bring that over to us? I remember seeing a documentary about it on the Sci-Fi channel........Wait a minute....that was an episode of "Enterprise". Sorry....my mistake.

Yes. All these people were scared into silence for over thirty years but Jesse Marcel Sr. was blabbing his head off and eventually told Stanton Friedman his tale. I commented on it in the last issue of SUNlite. I would comment about the Nitinol nonsense recently announced on the web by Anthony Bragalia but the release date for SUNlite number 2 is only a week away and I would not want to spoil the surprise. Anyone with a web browser could have done the work Bragalia did and discovered he is wrong.

This desire to attribute great achievements by individuals as getting help from aliens is just nonsense. I call it Corsoism, which I define as:

"The process by which Roswell crashed spaceship proponents claim the established scientific, academic, or engineering achievement of others is not due to their own abilities but because of assistance from alien technology and/or information".

It is a desire to steal the accomplishments of others in order to elevate one's status in the UFO community. IMO, those that practice it without having rock solid evidence to prove their case (and they haven't yet) are dishonorable individuals.

Trying to recall the show, but believe it was World's Strangest UFO Stories. They did a fair treatment of this claim, I think, although they do tend to leave questions like this open.

__________________
I can't WAIT for January 1, 2013 to arrive! Then again, I'm still waiting for October 1, 1993 ...

You'd better BET there's a spoon, Neo! THWACK!!!!

UFO crashes just outside Roswell New Mexico 1947. US Army move in to clear the wreckage and bodies etc, and hand it over to scientists at Area 51 for study.That was 62 years ago, do you think that maybe some of the technology we take for granted today may have been a result of research into whatever crashed at Roswell?

Definitely,
Look, we are still driving a basic Combustion Engine which was invented 110 yrs ago, same engine, no matter it is in latest Corvette or Bonnie & Clyde's Ford V8.
OTOH look at meteoric rise of computer technology, do I need to say more?
We are inventing stuff with exponential speed. Where does the know-how come from when it is in baby steps in other areas?

Yes, you do. Please explain why computers are in every respect like automotive engines.

I'm sorry, I forgot where you obtained your degree in engineering and worked in the field of commercial engineering for long enough to justify the expectation that all sectors of commercial technology should progress at a uniform pace.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Computers are still a young developing technology. Internal Combustion Engines are an old mature technology. Look at the pace of development of the car in the first half of the 20th Century. Similarly with steam power. New techynologies tend to develope rather quickly.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Electronics have advanced so quickly due to the invention of transistors and even more importantly, the integrated circuit in 1960. For almost 50 years now, the number of transistors that can be put on a single piece of substrate has doubled every 18 months or so (Moore's Law). This allows putting millions of transistors into a single integrated circuit. There simply isn't any way to get that kind and rate of improvement out of car engines or other technologies.

Perhaps the most dramatic non-electronic technology advances were in aviation. From the Wright Brother's first brief controlled flights in ground effect (Dec 17, 1903) to airlines carrying millions of passengers around the world each day today (actually, this has been going on for quite some time) is a remarkable rate of development.

The basic principles of internal combustion engines haven't changed in 100 years. The basic principles of thermodynamic engines haven't changed in 250 years. However, anyone who thinks that modern internal combustion engines are much like those of 100 years ago in terms of their engineering finesse doesn't really know much about them. I read a couple of papers recently about capturing unused fluid-dynamics cycles to make exhaust systems more efficient. This is stuff Ford never knew. My expertise has been used on high-end automotive engines, plus I have hands-on experience with a 1917 Ford engine. Dismissing the former as nothing more that 100-year-old technology is pretty naive.

But the real answer is that what comes out as a product is determined only slightly by technological advancement and more importantly instead by commercial viability, which includes very many more factors and variables. Hence I ask where Solomarineris practiced engineering.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Railways developed with a similar speed in the VIctorian era. from the first experimental colliery engines in the 1820s to 600 ton express trains traveling at more than 100 MPH and thousands of miles of track in fifty years.Most of all there were huge increases in reliablility and efficiency. In the UK a lot of engines built in the 1890s were still in regular use in the 1950s. North Eastern Railway class E1 a small 060 tank engine was first built in the 1890s, When the railway companies were 'Grouped' by amalgamation in the 1920s the LNER built another batch as their standard tank engine and then in the 1940s when the railways were nationalised BR built another batch as their standard 060 tank. It's design couldn't economicaly be improved.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Earlier, in fact. The addition of power to the Wright Flyer is an afterthought to the more important breakthroughs of three-axis flight control, which was where the important Wright patents placed the emphasis. These important glider test flights occurred during the summer and fall of 1903, and were the principal reason the Wrights worked largely in secret: they knew they were onto something the rest of the competitors had not yet realized.

But we still allude to Wright patents every time we climb into an airliner. When you see the ailerons wiggling up and down a fraction of an inch to impose ever-so-subtle roll moments according to the direction of the sophisti-ma-cated flight-control system, you're seeing 100-year-old technology at work.

When people go to the National Air and Space Museum and look at the Flyer enshrined in glory, I tend to look up at the smallish glider hanging from the ceiling, where the real breakthrough occurred.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Definitely? That suggests a level of evidence that so far, hasn't been presented.

As for the internal combustion engine, that's a very poor analogy. Although still of the same basic design, IC engines have been refined remarkably since their early days. While the market has demanded cheaper, lighter, or more powerful engines, there are also demands that the engines be supportable by the current infrastructure set up to maintain and operate the engines. We're heavily invested in that infrastructure and it would be difficult and expensive to change. It's not at all surprising, Roswell or not, that we're still using the IC engine.

Computer technology on the other hand has a well documented history of development and advancement. The market forces for faster, more powerful computers are massive and far outstrip the demand for a technological status quo. Besides, as is the case with the internal combustion engine, CPUs are still based on the transistor. True, we make them smaller, faster, more power efficient, and more tightly packed into the given space, and we user different techniques to move information through them; but they're still pretty much a bunch of transistors on a chip. Argumentum ad Roswell isn't necessary to explain our advances.

__________________
Brett
Peters Creek, Alaska
─────────────────────────────────────────────
My moderation comments will appear in this color.
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄ Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄ Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Babbage, anyone?

Until the infrastructure was in place to support the development of these ideas, they were just ideas. They didn't spring from the forehead of Zeus, or the dashboard of an alien spaceship.

__________________
Friendly Rabid Atheists (mostly)

Yes;

You need to balance the technology gain with the physic limits to that gain.
The internal combustion engine seems to be nearing it's physical limit with metalurgy, manufacturing techniques, and energy capture. Therefore, any gain will be very small. And; even though technology has vastly improved past the point of building an engine, it doesn't matter, because only the earlier technology is required to build one.

Electronics are nowhere near the limits of materials and physics concepts down to the level of manipulating single electrons or photons. We can theororize the molecular computer, but we don't have the technology to create one. We didn't have the technology to create what we are now. In this case, its the development technology rather than the physical limits of the product.

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

I am so weary of the "I don't understand how (whatever) was accomplished, so it must have been alien intervention", argument.

A perfect example of lazy thinking.

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

Actually, it is a well known fact^tm that one of the main reasons for alien visitation is so that they can steal our spork technology...

I think it's much more serious than that. Proof.

__________________
Friendly Rabid Atheists (mostly)

What is so great about our current computer technology. Moore's law will soon hit the wall around 2020, then we need new technology.

The current computer technology has shown itself to be insufficient for artificial intelligence and other once highly tauted applications.

I highly doubt an advanced alien civilization would use such primitive technology to build a computer.

We are already investigating and looking for better technology (optical computers, quantum computers) than the silicon-based computing.

Aliens would have something more potent.

__________________
______________________________________________
“He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever”
Chinese proverb
"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence - and then success is sure." - Mark Twain.