If you been reading lately twitter , you must seen the Researcher Beatriz Villarroel findings, the balls or spheres, a network or surveillance grid or what ever is the right term.


I think being skeptical, critical is needed . This feels like too much to deliver an idea / concept to public .

I tryed to look litle their " facts " , but i am not so convinced....

Any thoughts about this ?  is it another scam ? 

I do believe there is something , other than us here in this planet. But the way Villarroel present it...nah ? 

Interestenly , Beatriz Villarroel is linked to people who i would think having history with CIA ....look up The Sol Foundation . Seems like it`s allmost allways either CIA or Pentagon who have great need to push narratives , and it feels like now 2025 even more ?  2025-2027 might be really super disinformation push season ?

Attached Files

Thumbnail(s)
   

ETMN posted a link in Shoutbox to a subject called Dyson Spheres, and "Dyson Swarms" in particular.  There's some really good subject matter here to discuss, so I thought I'd create a thread about the same (hopefully this is okay with you, ETMN).

I'll first post the link which ETMN posted in Shoutbox, and also another related link.

The link which ETMN posted...
Lifespan of a Dyson Swarm

Here's another link giving some background on what a Dyson Sphere is...
Dyson Sphere

For those unfamiliar, and/or those who don't wish to go to a link, here's a brief summary of what a Dyson Sphere even is...
A 'Dyson Sphere' is a bizarre concept but one which is pretty easy to describe (actually creating one is a whole other matter!)
A Dyson Sphere is basically a 'shell' constructed around a star whose purpose it is to capture solar and radiant energy from said star to power a civilization (in a nutshell).  A Dyson Sphere would be constructed by an advanced civilization presumably living on a planet which orbits this same star.  In practice, the civilization would have to wait until the star goes through a couple phases in the evolution of a star.  The star is first just your usual star.  Then, as the star nears the end of its life, it metamorphoses into a 'Red Giant'.  When this phase is complete, the star then collapses into a 'White Dwarf'.  A White Dwarf is what you build your Dyson Sphere around.  It should be noted that a star can collapse into several things, and a White Dwarf is only one of these.  If it has enough mass, for example, it can also collapse into a Black Hole.  And, there are other variations beyond even these two.  The point here being, the civilization would need to know enough about their star ahead of time to know what it was going to collapse into.  AND, this is kind of important too; the planet which houses the civilization would also need to be at a radius far enough away to survive the Red Giant phase (which is not easy, BTW).  Life on that planet would be mighty cold existing that far away from it's own Sun.  It would be akin to our Pluto, but at a distance to 2x - 3x that of Pluto's.  But I digress.

Obviously, this whole subject is nothing more than an "out there" theory.  No such structure like a Dyson Sphere has ever been observed (not from lacking effort trying mind you), but there is emerging technology (funded by your tax dollars) to build just such a infra-red telescope.  And it would be a BIG puppy indeed!  Very big, to observe something this far away!  Anyway...

Much conjecture surrounds the whole Dyson Sphere concept, even to the point of physicists and astronomers developing theories around how to go about constructing one around our Sun (for example).  The technical challenges of building such a structure are mind bending to say the least.  One simple example of these challenges is, the gravitational forces created by the mass of a star would collapse any rigid structure which was built around it constructed of any materials known to mankind.  This is but one hurdle.  BUT, there is a point here, this challenge also gives way to another concept known as a "Dyson Swarm".

Instead of building a rigid structure, an alternative approach would be to create a constellation of satellites orbiting this star and performing the same function.  (We'll ignore the technical challenges of transporting the captured energy here for the moment).  However, there's a challenge with this approach as well, and that challenge is...how long will this swarm (or constellation) of satellites live/exist before these same satellites start colliding with each other in what is known as a Kessler Storm (also known as a "cascade" where one satellite collides with another, blasting both to bits.  The tiny bits collide with (10) (or 50) other satellites, destroying them too.  And this process continues, exponentially, until they ALL destroy each other.  (Bad ju-ju, right?)

Well, these same astronomers and physicists have already thought of this, and even done calculations about how long it will take for this event to occur (a "Dyson Swarm Lifespan").  Turns out this number is about 41,000 years.  Not very long when you consider it could easily take that long (possibly longer) to construct it in the first place!

This whole discussion begs the question of...How realistic is any of this???  At a very fundamental level, the answer to this question is contained in some basic philosophical discussions.  Things like...is this really the best way to solve our energy crisis, or are there other methods (like maybe nuclear power) which would possibly render this whole concept a non-starter??  In other words, at a far simpler level, should the civilization of the future depend exclusively on solving all their energy needs with solar power?

I won't answer that question with my opinion here (now).  First, I wanted to get the discussion started, and then depending on the responses, I can weigh in with my own opinions on the matter.  There are a lot of really 'bright' (pun intended) people here, so I figured this might be an interesting discussion to get some of the other technical minds here buzzing along.

I'll look forward to your replies.

Cappy remembers the night he was part of an airstrike when the US was pivoting from Iraq to Afghanistan. The poster categories of "policy" as seen from the field after passing down many layers.

Cappy: "This is a personal story of mine from my deployment to Iraq. I pulled from official army field reports, interviews with former teammates and actual gun cam footage to piece this together."




You start with a seemingly simple proposition. We're going to airlift supplies to Gaza while there's a war going on, just like Joe Biden tried with his ill-fated pier. Pretty soon the simple becomes complex.

Cappy: "The problem with AI is someone needs to be in the loop. Someone needs to make the call. Someone needs to be accountable."

With AI you hide the complexity. No one makes the call. No one is responsible.

Isn't it nice gesture to show us little bit some things that the galacic empire stormtrooper see everyday    . Who didn`t want a sightseeing in Death Star ...




 

Well with luck I may live to see some of this stuff ! The air traffic control system sucks in many ways and does need to be fixed IMO.

The no BS Colonel. Your views may vary.

“Washington is hurtling toward a sovereign debt crisis, escalating foreign wars, and potential domestic unrest without a clear path forward. While President Trump did not create these challenges alone, he now bears responsibility for addressing them”.





The article mentioned is: Versailles on the Potomac

Eureka! They found it! The world's biggest of all mother loads! GOLD!

But why is it in China? Why can't that be hereabouts, in my neck of the woods?

Quote:Confirmed – Scientists locate the largest gold deposit on the planet and surprise international markets

. . . Chinese geologists have identified roughly 1,000 metric tons of metal locked under Hunan.
That gold deposit translates to about 32 million ounces, a haul worth north of $80 billion at recent prices.
The grade splashed across social feeds —138 grams per ton— is eye‑popping. For comparison, many modern bulk mines make money at 1–4 g/t. But grades that high usually refer to selected veins within a system, not the average ore you can mine economically at scale.

Disclaimer: These are just my opinions. They are informed by nearly 60 years of firearms experience, being shot at and occasionally shooting back, and making a living at it for a good chunk of that time. With that said, they are still ONLY my opinions, neither infallible nor holy writ. Take them as you will. I bear no grudges against folks who think otherwise. Whenever you strap on a side arm, you are betting your life on that choice, so it is a highly personal choice, not subject to the vagaries of the whims of other folks - they are not betting THEIR lives on what YOU choose to carry, so they, and I, can just bugger right off if their opinion differs. You do you, and carry what you want.

Recently, and for the past few years, Sig has been getting flak for their P320 sidearms, because said side arms appear to have a habit of going off all on their own, with no user input. Folks have been injured in those incidents, folks have died in them. My question is: who in the hell thought it was a good idea to carry a gun with no external hammer, and no external manually operated safety? For my carry options, those two things are mandatory. I will not carry a weapon without them, because I consider all striker-fired pistols, including your beloved Glock, to be inherently unsafe... not to mention the horrendous ungainly "ergonomics" engineered into Glocks. They fit me like trying to shoot a 2x4 one-handed would fit me.

That can be a problem in this day and age, since more and more striker-fired pistols are flooding the market. It's getting to be where that is all one can find, and that presents a problem for folks like me, who prioritize safety in a firearm. I'll tell you true: I would carry a club for self defense before I would carry one of those unsafe monstrosities. That's not hyperbole - I have a couple of ASP extendable batons for just such occasions.

Luckily, I already have all the firearms I'm ever going to need or use already, even though some of them would be considered dinosaurs by "modern" standards. Like you, I will carry what I damned well please, because it's my life I'm betting on it, not yours.

To be fair, the military version of the P320, the M-17 and M-18, both are supposed to have external manual safeties... but they are still damnable striker-fires, so a no-go at this station. The most recent incident involves a USAF Security Airman being killed by a holstered P320, so to my way of thinking, that external safety may be just as poorly designed and engineered as the entire striker-fired concept in pistols.

Bottom line, there is no such thing as a "safe" pistol without 1) an external hammer, 2) a manual safety lever that blocks ignition train operation, and 3) an ability to be safely de-cocked. If the pistol you are looking to purchase does not have all 3 of those things, my considered recommendation is to just keep looking, and carry a club instead until you find a pistol that does have all 3.

Better safe than sorry. You don't usually get do-overs or respawns in real world shootings.

.

Quote:There’s been plenty of criticism and consternation about reports Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon official running the Trump Administration’s AUKUS review, had asked for some kind of commitment about Australian involvement if there were a conflict with China over Taiwan.

Colby is no fool. He’s probably got two very rational reasons for the raising the issue. One is about the planning necessary to make collective deterrence real.  And the other is about some big political and military risks for America that are baked into the AUKUS nuclear submarine plan.

While the actual request isn’t clear, Colby is an experienced professional who knows that U.S. policy towards Taiwan is one of ‘strategic ambiguity’ so he knows he won’t get an iron clad position from the Australian government about a potential future conflict.

What’s going on?  U.S. officials may be sensibly frustrated about an Australian reluctance to do serious collective planning around a conflict over Taiwan because this might ‘lock Australia in’ if something real happened.  That anxiety waxes and wanes over time. It almost certainly doesn’t stop with senior civilian or military officials but is shared by our political leaders.

The problem with a fearful approach to sensitive collective planning is that Australia gets left not knowing what partners and allies might do in a time of crisis – and not knowing what assumptions are being made about Australian actions.  That means we aren’t able to shape plans and expectations. Worse, when real world events happen – like Xi Jinping directing an invasion of Taiwan – Australian decision makers will be knowledge poor and badly prepared to make critical decisions, right when the press of events mean thinking and planning time isn’t available.

So, if our American allies in the Pentagon are making potential operational plans to deter China over Taiwan and to defeat the Chinese military if deterrence fails, it’s very sensible for Australia to participate in that collective planning work.  Then we avoid false assumptions being made and we put our decision makers in a position of knowledge and strength should a crisis occur. Maybe Colby gets this and is bemused his Australian partners don’t.

The other reason Australian officials might be dealing with Colby’s awkward questions goes right to the heart of the AUKUS program’s design.

It’s not the question everyone is spending so much time on – whether Australia would or wouldn’t send the first few Australian-flagged Viriginia submarines into a war sometime from the mid-2030s.  Sure, that is an issue for the Pentagon, because those submarines will have come from the U.S. Navy’s fleet at a time they don’t have enough to meet their own needs. 

But the bigger more immediate risk to American freedom of action with submarines comes from the fact that, under the AUKUS ‘Optimal Pathway’ plan agreed by the Biden Administration, Australian personnel will be critical parts of the crews of the American Navy’s own submarines for the rest of this decade and into the mid-2030s. Whether Joe Biden understood this aspect of the deal is a question Donald Trump is likely to ask.

Dan Packer, the U.S. director of naval submarine forces for AUKUS, set this out very clearly back in May 2024, saying the U.S. Navy will have 440 Australians on 25 attack submarines.  12 per cent of the crew of each of 25 U.S. subs will be Australian.  And the U.S. Navy is unlikely to have more than 25 deployable nuclear attack subs at any time because the rest will be in maintenance.

Those Australian personnel won’t be in training billets. As Dan Packer put it, “This is something that has never happened before,” “We are completely, 100% integrating them into our crew, from a complete and utter perspective”.

For project planners, this makes absolute sense as the only way to solve the problem of getting around 3000 Australians trained up to operate nuclear powered submarines between now and 2035.  It also brings some advantages – as Vice Admiral Gaucher, commander of U.S. of naval submarine forces said, “We get the opportunity to leverage an ally who can help us with manning and operating.”

But it also brings a very practical and big political and policy problem into play right now – a problem that will last until – and if – Australia manages to build a separate training program for submarine crews. Without these Australian crew members, the U.S. Navy’s own fleet of Virginia submarines will be disabled. And if an Australian government decision on whether Australians can serve on U.S. submarines in particular operations, crises or conflicts can only be made in the moment of crisis, then America’s security is at risk in a much bigger way than if 2 or 3 Australian-flagged submarines do or don’t join an operation.


Both our American and UK AUKUS partners know how Australia has handled decisions on Australians in line positions within each of their militaries.  That won’t be reassuring anyone involved in the Pentagon’s AUKUS review. There’s an elaborate bureaucratic process for handling requests from our partners to have these Australians deploy with their U.S. or UK units when something real happens. These Third Country Deployment decisions can go up to very senior decision-makers and potentially include ministers. No is a frequent answer.

To any informed American, like Elbridge Colby, this looks like a huge button labelled “Extreme Risk”.

And as he absorbs the implications of the AUKUS training plan, he’s also reading our prime minister’s speeches about making our own decisions and saying no in previous conflicts.

Given this, if a senior U.S. official reviewing AUKUS like Elbridge Colby wasn’t enquiring about what an Australian government and military might or might not do should a conflict with China over Taiwan begin, he wouldn’t be doing his job. 

For the Australian Government led by Mr Albanese, there’s the serious question about what to do about Australian sailors being critical parts of the U.S. Navy’s use of its own submarines between now and the mid-2030s.

We saw the problem on display in a simpler fashion with the prime minister working hard to avoid saying whether the joint Australian-U.S. facility at Pine Gap played any role in the recent U.S. B-2 bomber strikes against Iran. Mr Albanese told us that ‘this was a unilateral action by the United States’.  Whether that would withstand scrutiny of classified activities isn’t clear—but it will be impossible for an Australian government to claim that a U.S. Navy Virginia class submarine with a mixed American-Australian crew sinking a Chinese aircraft carrier during a war over Taiwan is a ‘unilateral’ U.S. action.

Maybe our political leaders here in Canberra and the senior defence civilian and military bureaucrats need to think through a better answer than ‘How very dare you!’ to Colby’s question. AUKUS may depend upon it.

****
Michael is Director of Strategic Analysis Australia. From 2018 until September 2022, he was the Director of the Defence, Strategy and National Security Program at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) in Canberra.

This design has been around for many many years but now it looks like the real thing will finally get off the ground supposedly by 2027.