Can Ultra-Advanced ET Craft Crash?

Could ET craft, that are possibly thousands of years more advanced, crash?

A better question might be, “Would Murphy’s law or principle (an adage or epigram that is typically stated as: ‘Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong.’) be a true axiom”? If it weren’t so blatantly apparent to engineers and experimentalists that things do go wrong or break practically all of the time, I doubt that the “Murphy’s Law” adage would actually exist. One cannot deny that no matter how hard the engineers try to prevent it, things still break, and still go wrong.

Is it possible that the ETs might have this in common with us? A fair question. Is it possible that this is a universal truth (an axiom)? Also a fair question. An additional way to ask that question is this: “Is engineering perfection ever truly achieved?” I believe that most engineers would answer that question with “there is always room for improvement”, meaning that perfection is, in reality, in the eye of the beholder and therefore unattainable. If that is true (and surely, this is debatable), then we could apply that logic to them (our ET visitors) and extrapolate that they too, could or would experience malfunctions and catastrophic failures based on the principle of “Murphy’s Law”.

But that alone, if true, may not be the only explanation for UFO crashes. It may be one of many possible reasons for UFOs to crash. Let’s create a list of possibilities and explore them, shall we?

Keeping in mind that for this exercise, we should accept the premise that these ET visitors are so advanced that nearly everything associated with them and their technology appears to us as if it were magic, or magical, or accept the possibly that they may be utilizing principals of physics that are completely unknown to us.

In addition, we should maintain this truth firmly in mind: We cannot make any assumptions or postulations about ETs because we literally have no frame of reference by which comparisons can be made (other than our human experiences), so from this point onward, all musings are speculation and conjecture and based on human reason and logic alone.

Looking at this from an engineering standpoint, let’s frame some questions we might ask:

Question 1: Is Murphy’s Law a true possibility? (see the speculation already covered in the first paragraph above)… Simply put, If Murphy’s Law is an axiom, it would apply to them as well.

Answer 1: This has been covered sufficiently already - refer to the beginning of the article.

Question 2: Is aging a factor?

Answer 2: As far as our human experience where the aging process is concerned, there is no known way to circumvent or bypass the problems associated with it. There is no known engineering process or material that is completely immune to the aging process. All things will eventually grow old and break down. e.g. this list of some problems associated with the aging process that, at the time of this writing, cannot yet be overcome…

• Nearly all metals oxidize (defined as a chemical breakdown)
• Electrical contacts carbonize and eventually burn away
• Two surfaces in motion and in contact with each other cause friction (wear and tear)
• Radio active isotopes decay
• Some plastics and other similar materials decay and become brittle over time becoming higher potential for a point of breakdown
• Heat in any form can cause rapid breakdown of nearly any given material

The aging process seems to be a universal law of nature at the time of this writing. So then, is it a possible factor in the problem of UFOs crashing? The answer is yes. Ageing cannot be disregarded as a possible factor for UFO crashes because our human experiences have taught us that aging is the natural state of material existence. BUT, assuming sufficient years to discover new physics that are currently unknown to us, could they have the ability to circumvent or bypass the list of problems associated with the aging process? The answer to that question is also yes. At this time though, the higher probability lies with aging being a law of nature, and being a universal law, based on our human experiences.

Question 3: In conjunction with the aging process, does traveling faster than light affect the rate of decay in materials during the aging process?

Answer 4: This question goes hand-in-hand with whether or not technology, from an engineering point of view, can be made foolproof and is explored further with that question. So I’ve combined those two questions (#4 & #5) and explored some possible answers below. I attempted to demonstrate that humans have a large capacity to do stupid things, especially where technology is concerned and because I have no frame of reference with which to compare, I make assumptions based on our collective human experience.

Question 5: Can any technology be made completely and utterly foolproof?

Answer 5: To be sure, this is a goal for all serious engineering projects today. Especially, where safety is concerned. In fact there are regulations that dictate extreme amounts of safety tests be conducted and results be published for nearly all industries that make nearly any type of product for use by average consumers.

This brings to mind a famous quote by a highly esteemed and renown scientist:

“Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.”. ~ Albert Einstein

Which seems to support the idea that our (the human species) ability to do stupid things in creative and novel ways is boundless. This cannot be ignored when considering the reasons why technology fails. Imagine owning technological devices that are perfect and no one, not a single individual, had any complaints about any aspect of a device. For an engineer, it would be paradise. Realistically speaking though, this is an unlikely scenario. Statistically speaking, a near impossibility.

Here I submit some evidence in form of real instruction labels that attest to the ability of humans to do stupid things: (Click to enlarge)

While those images may be comical to some, it makes plain that the labels were created in response to some event that probably ended in a lawsuit, which in turn lead to the creation of a label that seems comical to most people. The images make it apparent that we are indeed fallible. The capacity for the human race to do outlandishly stupid things isn’t going away for the foreseeable future either. This is not to denigrate the entire human population. We know that it is a percentage of the population that falls into this category. BUT, even highly intelligent people make mistakes as well. Maybe not as frequently as the general populace does, but no human is perfect and/or infallible. This is a simple to prove fact.

Even the extremely intelligent and renowned Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer American theoretical physicist who was professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley, and the wartime head of the Los Alamos Laboratory, and who is one credited with being the “father of the atomic bomb” for his role in the Manhattan Project. Oppenheimer was among those who observed the Trinity test in New Mexico, where the first atomic bomb was successfully detonated on July 16, 1945. He later remarked that it brought to mind words from the a Bhagavad Gita: “Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.” It is implied that he regretted creating such a destructive device.

At that time in history, not only did the Manhattan Project create the first atomic bomb, but they continued to perfect it, and then dropped two of them on Japan. The devastation wrought by this “technology” was practically incalculable. It should be obvious to anyone with half a brain that the human race as a whole regretted that incident because no atomic or nuclear weapon has been used on humans since that time. To be sure the weapons have been refined and made even more destructive, however, none as of yet, have been used again on people. So, in summation, human stupidity is a given and the question is, “Do they share this quality with us as well?” Do they make mistakes? Perhaps.

Our human experience tells us that making mistakes is probably another law of nature. We see it in ourselves and in most other living creatures too. It is quite plausible to speculate that they also share this flaw with us.

Question 6: In conjunction with the aging process, does traveling faster than light affect the rate of decay in materials during the aging process?

Answer 6: The answer is an absolute, yes! This happens all the time because no one can account for every scenario, or every result that is possible on an experiment. Weird and unexpected results are normal. We hear in the news all the time about, “Scientists unexpectedly discovered…”, or that “Scientists are baffled by…”, or that “scientists were perplexed by….

However, there is a belief by some in the human population that science, if performed correctly, is actually infallible. This couldn’t be further from the truth. Making mistakes is actually part of the human learning process and a large part of science in general. So the answer is that it is possible to come to false conclusions and build devices based on incorrect or incomplete data whereby the function of the devices may work for most situations, but not for all situations. No one can predict all future use situations related to each device, therefore it is easily possible to build new tech that seems to function perfectly until it is put under real world peculiar circumstances and it gives an odd and unexpected result. This is the very reason for many of the legal disclaimers pertaining to “use” on products. Generally, a use case(s) is/are defined for a given device, and nothing outside that or those use cases are warranted to work properly.

So our experience is, in this instance that mistakes can be made during creation of new technologies, which leads us to believe that this may also just be how things work in our universe and possibly be one more quality that we have in common with our ET visitors

Making science infallible (defined as: the removal of mistakes or errors) implies the removal of guessing (inference), and thereby removal of a large part of the scientific model. We know that, at least partially, mistakes are integral part of the process of learning. Also, guessing at a possible result, then confirming the guess correct, or proving the guess was in error, is a huge part of the scientific process. The image below is an example of the structure of the “Scientific Method”, which helps explain how it works.

As you can see from the chart above that removal of inference and formulation of hypothesis would break the flow of the scientific model. Which means that errors, mistakes, and guesswork are bound to the process as firmly as the process of observation or any other step in the model. Can this process be applied to every scenario? Not at all. There will be instances where this model won’t work. Meaning that this model is not perfect for application to all scientific problems. Ask yourself if Albert Einstein could have used this particular model for discovery of his famous theory of special relativity (e=mc2)?

The answer is no because he was using inference for nearly all of the process prior to the discovery of the, now famous theorem, along with bits and pieces of math that eventually lead to the beautifully simple equation. It is even possible that the equation works for most scenarios but may be incorrect for scenarios we have not thought of yet. There are some scientists that have stated that there may be an error with the equation because of certain assumptions.

One other indicator that science can be mistaken is that, once upon a time, we thought that the Earth was flat. It was literally common wisdom and was accepted by nearly all intellectuals. It was also stated as fact that humans would never be able to fly. We, of course, now have airplanes that fly humans all over the planet day and night. There are, of course, many other instances that display scientific mistakes throughout history. We are certain that if you think about it, you can come up with others yourself. So, we have demonstrated that science is fallible. Is this another universal law? Our human experience points to that being the case. Is it possible that they could have overcome this stumbling block as well? The answer is yes. It is a possibility. Who can say for sure?

Question 7: Can the utter complexity of design requirements be a factor in the process of creation of the craft they use?

Answer 7: Here I would guess that it is possible, however, I would qualify that line of thought with the idea that if their advancement is far enough ahead, they may have come to the realization that with greater complexity comes a greater possibility for error. If that is the case, then they may have figured out how to circumvent the problem with complexity of design altogether.

Question 8: Do they operate their manufacturing processes based on the idea of acceptable tolerance levels like we do for all of our engineering processes?

Answer 8: This is difficult to gauge but based on accounts of people like Bob Lazar, and the events and materials ostensibly retrieved from the Roswell Incident and other retrievals, we can form a basic guess.

Some of the materials reportedly retrieved from downed alien craft seem to be quite complex (at least to us) because of their ability to create layers of materials that are only a few atoms thick. We are just beginning to understand how to do this, but only in labs, and not nearly on an industrial scale yet. This however, is not proof that their design is overly complex. There is the possibility that what seems complex to us is mere child’s play for a civilization that could be many millions of years ahead of us in the technology arena. It does seem to be the case from the reports of the performance characteristics of the craft and some of the described design features.

Question 9: Is it possible to calculate and account for all possible outcomes of every step during the discovery processes, and then the creation processes of new technologies?

Answer 9: It seems to be our human experience that this is not possible. Is this a universal condition for all intelligent beings as well? It is difficult to say but our human experiences seem to be leaning in that direction.

Question 10: Can the process of conducting science and scientific experiments be performed without mistakes and errors?

Answer 10: This question is similar to #6 above. I firmly believe that errors are a natural consequence of our human thought processes. The very fact that we can make assumptions practically guarantees that errors are a natural part of our lives. We are prone to mistakes because of how our human brain functions. If our human experiences are similar their own, then it is possible that errors are inherent in all they do, just as it is with us. But the real question is whether or not their brain functions similar to ours. This is a question that cannot be answered without many years of study of their civilization or access to their historical records at the very least. If I had to guess, I would imagine that their thought processes are far different from our own. I cannot even imagine what processes created them, and how their life experiences have shaped their minds, or what they may have done to themselves via genetics or bio-engineering.

In summation, I believe I have thoroughly explored some possibilities concerning the possible causes of extremely advanced flying saucers or UFOs crashing on planet Earth. BUT certainly I have not covered all possibility here, one more for instance would be that there is a possibility that there are multiple forms of intelligent life visiting us which would increase the complexity of any calculations related to crashes by many factors. For instance if there are multiple sources for the manufacture of ET space craft, it would make calculating any probabilities related to crashes nearly impossible. Most scientists reading this will probably throw up their hands and say, “It’s all just speculation anyway!” But it seems that from our human perspective, and based on reason and logic, it is entirely probable, if they are truly visiting us, that there would be crashes on our planet of those craft. And if there are crashes happening, it would stand to reason that those in charge of UFO secrecy would do all within their power to retrieve every single crash they could. Not only for the possibility of reverse engineering the craft but also for the simple reason of interrogation of the pilots of those craft. It makes perfect sense that we would want to discover who they are and if they are a threat to us. Anyone with critical and logical thinking skills, would come to this conclusion, and I have little doubt that the Truman administration did so as well in response to the Roswell Crash Incident.