It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Full Bob Lazar/George Knapp UFO Congress Session video is up!

page: 10
52
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 06:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: RoScoLaz4

originally posted by: Uggielicious Now, Meier has been proved a hoaxer


not as far as i am concerned.


Me either. I think he didn't follow the rules set for him. They split.

Then he tried to prove it with fake stuff.




posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 06:59 PM
link   
Also worthy of note, not all of the 8 other craft looked like the Sport Model. He said one looked like a jello mold, one looked like a top hat, one of em was turned on its side. There are photos on the web of UFO's looking like jello molds & top hats. Is that a coincidence as well? There's just so much we don't know, that we can't just discount it all as fake. As far deep as the rabbit hole goes, we have only scratched the surface.

I'm dying to know what those other craft looked like. It's too bad Lazar didn't give them "names" as well, although I chalk that up to the fact that he probably just can't remember what they exactly looked like. It's been over 20 years.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 07:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: RoScoLaz4

originally posted by: Uggielicious Now, Meier has been proved a hoaxer


not as far as i am concerned.


Perhaps you accept Meier as a non-hoaxer, I used to and I still have my doubts. But if I was a gambler I would not put my money on Meier, as the 2 photos below show. I've done threads here pointing out how some images and film footage pass muster for non-hoaxing. I'll let others do the research I did back in the early '80s and, perhaps, they'll reach the same conclusions.

There's this:


And this:



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 07:05 PM
link   
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Ok metamaterials. Last post then we better U2U or make a thread to not derail this one if you like to do it in public.

Let´s refocus on what I originally adressed. Downsizing them blablabla, I will not repeat myself.
Take Lazars scale model dimensions and downscale them to the point you said it´s possible (again millions on space the size of IC, while the size of ICs vary greatly, just take 1cm². Do the math. Let´s fix on 1 million reactors on 1cm² non stacked. How big would that chunk of 115 be at the end?
The square root of 1.000.000 is 1.000.
Let´s pretend Lazars model is 30cmx30cm (it´s larger). And we just take the dome and not everything else into consideration. Plays into your cards again.
We need to fit them into one centimeter. So size of reactor count is:

1cm/1000 = 10 micrometers per reactor without spacing between them.
this means we have to downscale this thing by a factor of 3 million.
The size of an atom is estimated up to 0.5nanometers.
The size of the 115 chunk is estimated half a dollar coint (30mm)
Downsized by 3million gives us 1micrometer.
Since it´s triangular and does not fill the space of the whole square, we cut that in half.
0.5 micrometer or 500nanometers or 1000 atoms squared. This time we can calc in 3 dimensions we have to layer it up a few times but you get the drift.

I calculated with one million, you said millions.
I stacked atom on atom in my calculation and is far away from reality.
I took 30cm for lazars model and but estimate its bigger.

Stacking not allowed because it makes no sense when the gravity wave extends on the z axis (or any axis of the 3 so you have two left -> 2D array, not 3D. I did this in my head by floating point operation without a calculator. I hope I did not mess up, it´s up to you to verify if you doubt it.
edit on 30-8-2015 by verschickter because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 07:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Uggielicious

all good. however, i still don't think Meier's case was a hoax. vive la difference etc

edit on R2015th2015-08-30T19:06:25-05:0020150pm2414 by RoScoLaz4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 07:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: RoScoLaz4
a reply to: Uggielicious

all good. however, i still don't think Meier's case was a hoax. vive la difference etc


Well, I picked an example that stands on its own. But if you were to go to Google Images and look at Meier's photos of the "birthday" or "wedding cake" UFO model sitting on a table, or the many awful photos of model cars with UFO models above them - out of focus!, or saw the man holding a garbage can lid identical to the "birthday/wedding cake" UFO and saw the similarities in the details, you might want to rethink your opinion.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 07:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: verschickter
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Ok metamaterials. Last post then we better U2U or make a thread to not derail this one if you like to do it in public.

Let´s refocus on what I originally adressed. Downsizing them blablabla, I will not repeat myself.
Take Lazars scale model dimensions and downscale them to the point you said it´s possible (again millions on space the size of IC, while the size of ICs vary greatly, just take 1cm². Do the math. Let´s fix on 1 million reactors on 1cm² non stacked. How big would that chunk of 115 be at the end?
The square root of 1.000.000 is 1.000.
Let´s pretend Lazars model is 30cmx30cm (it´s larger). And we just take the dome and not everything else into consideration. Plays into your cards again.
We need to fit them into one centimeter. So size of reactor count is:

1cm/1000 = 10 micrometers per reactor without spacing between them.
this means we have to downscale this thing by a factor of 3 million.
The size of an atom is estimated up to 0.5nanometers.
The size of the 115 chunk is estimated half a dollar coint (30mm)
Downsized by 3million gives us 1micrometer.
Since it´s triangular and does not fill the space of the whole square, we cut that in half.
0.5 micrometer or 500nanometers or 1000 atoms squared. This time we can calc in 3 dimensions we have to layer it up a few times but you get the drift.

I calculated with one million, you said millions.
I took 30cm for lazars model and estimate it bigger.

Stacking not allowed because it makes no sense when the gravity wave extends on the z axis.
it would not be a stack of 115 because we do not have any. it would be a bismuth atom or a cluster of bismuth atoms or a metamaterial cluster either as a cold solid or a plasma rotating in a nano sized cavity actuated by components that create electrical, magnetic or optical spin. Dies for current CPUS are easily in the sub 30 namometer range and have millions or even billions of logic element transistors and so forth in them. likely my motors would have slightly bigger element sizes but the same general principle of humongous numbers of tiny structures applies.

stacking makes sense because other real scientists said it will work that way.

further the sports model gravity amplifier barrels are oriented in z only in a planetary gravity field. even then one of them is pointed along X and the articulating arms mean they can be pointed anywhere in the lower hemispheric directional sector of the ship.
edit on 30-8-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-8-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-8-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 07:35 PM
link   
here is an example of a nanoscale motor:

en.wikipedia.org...

it is one nanometer across. my hypothetical motor would probably be slightly bigger if it used a ring of bismuth atoms but smaller if it used a single atom.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 07:36 PM
link   
a reply to: stormbringer1701
I agree to disagree with you.

1) die size of current cpu and how many transistors they can host has nothing to do with my calculation. They are stacked many times.
2)Are you serious? Name me one real scientist that said stacking the reactors we are talking about is possible.
3) Better, name me one real scientiest that even promoted one theory on what we are talking about.
4) You hung up on the z axis. I said z axis because if you used x and y z is the next in 3D model. I mean z axis of the whole assembly and not those gravity amplifiers alone. I even let them out of my calculation completely.
5) All you do is just speculating on something that´s not proofen.

I wish you a nice evening. I suppose you make a thread about your theory and let´s see what others might say about that. We are way offtopic right now.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 07:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Uggielicious you might want to rethink your opinion.


i'd already seen everything you reference. i remain unswayed. my belief is as strong as your doubt. if not stronger. i feel no need to try and sway the opinions of others.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 07:44 PM
link   
there are several reason's Lazar's reactor and gravity amplfication system is larger. first it carries a 50 (maybe it was 25?) year supply of element 115 which is gradually used up.

presumably Bismuth is stable (for all intents and purposes) and will not be used up by transmutation to unstable element 116. that is to say his reactor is a power source as well as gravity source. my hypothetical engine isn't a power source and does not use up its source of gravity except for by wear and tear. i expect individual motors in the array to wear out but that will not render an ic inoperative if it is wired right. plus they can be plug and play.

secondly it uses three elements so perhaps they are of the size they are in order to produce a threshold of gravitic curvature. with more elements you can produce the same curvature using less power per element and each element is therefore allowed to be smaller because each is individually producing only a tiny amount of curvature.
edit on 30-8-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 08:00 PM
link   
a reply to: RoScoLaz4
From memory the locals initially saw something also, that is where I believe the story stops regarding contact in the Swiss community. Meier was a liar already in his past Lawrence of Arabia like exploits and just grabbed a new attention seeking story.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 08:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: verschickter
a reply to: stormbringer1701
I agree to disagree with you.

1) die size of current cpu and how many transistors they can host has nothing to do with my calculation. They are stacked many times.
2)Are you serious? Name me one real scientist that said stacking the reactors we are talking about is possible.
3) Better, name me one real scientiest that even promoted one theory on what we are talking about.
4) You hung up on the z axis. I said z axis because if you used x and y z is the next in 3D model. I mean z axis of the whole assembly and not those gravity amplifiers alone. I even let them out of my calculation completely.
5) All you do is just speculating on something that´s not proofen.

I wish you a nice evening. I suppose you make a thread about your theory and let´s see what others might say about that. We are way offtopic right now.


I Already did you know. Dr Martin Tajmar for one. Eugene Podkletnov for another. Both were working with indirectly manipulating gravity through it's GRT connection to magnetic fields and spin.


www.sciencedaily.com...




Scientists funded by the European Space Agency have measured the gravitational equivalent of a magnetic field for the first time in a laboratory. Under certain special conditions the effect is much larger than expected from general relativity and could help physicists to make a significant step towards the long-sought-after quantum theory of gravity.


that bit in green there is important. It is expected/predicted etc by General Relativity that the gravity and magnetic fields and spin are related and theoretically partially exchangeable.

therefore in broad strokes they are related to any gravity like effect to be found in the strong force interaction. which means what they have to say about gravity being additive by stacking their own elements is germaine to this topic. likewise if they say spin increases the effect it does and should certainly pertain to the velocities that atoms and molecules can spin at.
edit on 30-8-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-8-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 08:20 PM
link   
speaking of power... the gravity amplifiers cannot be using that much energy because with some sort of energy field transmuting to an unstable element at a steady rate it takes 25 years to atrite to the point it need to be replaced. Even antimatter requires mass to convert to make energy. meaning a few particles of it or a mol. or fraction of a nanogram or whatever will barely light a light bulb for a second. Soooooooo if the gravity amp takes tremendous energy then the fuel would go faster AND more importantly there is no way in hades that that little dome could contain it. so the conclusion is it does not take a lot of energy or the whole thing is phony. if it doesn't take a lot of energy then that is one less problem to deal with if we were to engineer our own.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 08:26 PM
link   
a reply to: stormbringer1701

I have a question on element 115. They knew there were higher elements on the table, in this interview it sounds like Lazar said they "assumed" it was 115 but there was no confirmation from a lab test thats what is was. Did I get right his story?



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 08:35 PM
link   
a reply to: stormbringer1701


2)Are you serious? Name me one real scientist that said stacking the reactors we are talking about is possible.


As the reactor we are talking about is not existent as far as we can proof, this was my last comment on this.
Because we are talking about the reactor in Lazars sport model, and therefor all your points are mood either.
All you do is speculating on something that is not proofen to be existent in the first place. Wake up.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 08:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: zazzafrazz
a reply to: stormbringer1701

I have a question on element 115. They knew there were higher elements on the table, in this interview it sounds like Lazar said they "assumed" it was 115 but there was no confirmation from a lab test thats what is was. Did I get right his story?
you are correct. it sure seemed like it was a assumption and that they really did not know. however i could have swore it was Lazar that said it was before. i could be wrong because there is a lot of similar sources that are not Lazar out there.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 08:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: verschickter
a reply to: stormbringer1701


2)Are you serious? Name me one real scientist that said stacking the reactors we are talking about is possible.


As the reactor we are talking about is not existent as far as we can proof, this was my last comment on this.
Because we are talking about the reactor in Lazars sport model, and therefor all your points are mood either.
All you do is speculating on something that is not proofen to be existent in the first place. Wake up.
we are not talking about that reactor. i was talking about an engine that uses the gravity manipulation portion of that reactor. not shrinking that reactor down but using a evolved design.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 08:43 PM
link   
a reply to: stormbringer1701

I found that interesting as before I hadn't heard him say it was an assumption, (well he ambiguously says that) rather he was clear in saying it was 115 and he even had a sample of stable 115. The successful 115 decayed immediately. Not huge news but a small change in the story I noticed.
edit on 30-8-2015 by zazzafrazz because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 08:47 PM
link   
if it took the entire wedge of 115 to produce a functional gravity field suitable for interstellar travel it would stop working far before 25 or 50 years were up. So obviously; to produce a functional gravity field requires far less 115 than the total slug.like maybe less than 1/25 or 1/50th of the total mass of the wedge of 115.



new topics

top topics



 
52
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join