Why the Flying Saucer Was Probably Not Any Earthly Military Vehicle

Ill make this quick. We saw some saucers in the 70s, they are real, apparently the" CLASSIC" saucer sightings aren't as frequent as they were back then. Lets say it was military, any country. Then why aren't we using them for surveillance ? We are using drones and satellite and other stuff. The crafts can really move and outmaneuver our stuff so what gives, I could only think of one or two reasons we don't use them if they were ours and maybe we do use them I just don't know about it which is with 100% of their secret stuff so.... I realize that we have planes that go into space with a saucer front. Im more interested in the saucer.

I read and hear even from my friend whos brother works at Boeing sayd we have highly secretive flying tech. So they have had all of this top secret highly advanced stuff for years and years but we don't use it ? All of that and ISIS is in over 30 countries now. All of that and Iran captures our soldiers. All that and our soldiers get killed in Mosul and everywhere else. Why even have jets and missiles when a bad ass saucer craft can do what those things can do way better and it could deploy weapons, damn what more of a perfect delivery means and surveillance device could you get ?

Any thoughts

a reply to: beeeyotch

We don't need to expose the tech to be stolen or countered when conventional weapons and plenty of bodies to throw at conflicts has been successful.
I guess they would fall under "LAST USE"

Nazis created flying saucers it's in the FBI files I think

a reply to: beeeyotch

If you ask some researchers, they'll tell you that about 90% of sightings are of Earth-human origin and part of a long standing secret space program.

NASA and ISS etc are all we are permitted to know about here. Meanwhile there are millions living and working at bases on Mars, the Moon, and many of the larger moons in or solar system.

A "breakaway civilization".

originally posted by: beeeyotch
Any thoughts.

Flying saucers have very bad stability problems, particularly at high speeds. (A Frisbee is relatively stable because it rotates quickly, is hollow in the bottom and has ridges on the top, regulating the laminar air flow.) Flying saucers also require a lot of power to overcome that stability problem, making them very inefficient when it comes to a driver / payload ratio. I suppose they could have been used for surveillance, maybe in the early 60s, but we developed satellites instead.

Flying saucers just became obsolete, even before they were completely deployed.

originally posted by: Urantia1111
Meanwhile there are millions living and working at bases on Mars, the Moon, and many of the larger moons in or solar system. A "breakaway civilization".

And none of those millions ever spilled the beans? Or the millions working to supply them? Or their families? They must be highly motivated.

originally posted by: beeeyotch
Ill

Any thoughts

First of all , any thread not on the subject of cartoonish politicians gets an auto star and flag from me !

Having said that , I will share an hypothesis . Hydrogen bombs ( maybe ) were developed sooner than they were publicized ... maybe 1947 , instead of 1954 ?
And , just maybe someone's recon aircraft got too close to the unexpectedly powerful blast . Too bad for them .

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: Urantia1111
Meanwhile there are millions living and working at bases on Mars, the Moon, and many of the larger moons in or solar system. A "breakaway civilization".

And none of those millions ever spilled the beans? Or the millions working to supply them? Or their families? They must be highly motivated.

Theyre not supplied from Earth anymore and do not return here with rare exceptions.

They have no knowledge about or access to our lives here.

Allegedly.

originally posted by: beeeyotch
Ill make this quick. We saw some saucers in the 70s, they are real...

I'm not sure we did see saucers ever, though there are photos floating around like the Helfin hoax of a toy train wheel and the McMinnville hoax of a canning pot lid that were alleged to be "flying saucers". The Avrocar was a saucer-shaped experimental craft using ground effect and it never got far off the ground and it was a failure as were all the saucer designs due to instability. Similarly this flying saucer got sketched in a classified project but it never got built:



The very term "flying saucer" is a misnomer. The media invented the term when Kenneth Arnold described the movement of the UFOs he saw, but he never described them as appearing like flying saucers, he just mentioned the skipping movement was like would happen with a saucer. A lot of so-called "saucer" sightings were balloons etc. That's what Gordon Cooper's "flying saucer" was, a balloon:

Found? Gordon Cooper's 1957 UFO film "sent...to...Washington...never to be seen again"

Just look at de-classified tech like the F117A to look at the life cycle of secret tech. It's developed and tested in secret, but eventually it's brought into use. Now they apparently have miniature space-shuttle like craft that can deliver a payload anywhere on Earth in a short time without having to use an ICBM for delivery, but apparently it's not without technical and cost problems.

By the way the F117A could have been reported as a flying saucer before it was known what it really was because it had somewhat of a saucer appearance from certain angles, but obviously it wasn't really a saucer, and other craft have been mistaken for saucers:

6 Top-Secret Aircraft that are Mistaken for UFOs

Spy and stealth planes--some with bizarre, bat-shaped wings, others with triangular silhouettes that imply otherworldly designs--have long generated UFO sightings and lore. And official denials feed rumors that the government isn't telling us about alien ships. The CIA estimates that over half of the UFOs reported from the '50s through the '60s were U-2 and SR-71 spy planes. At the time, the Air Force misled the public and the media to protect these Cold War programs; it's possible the government's responses to current sightings of classified craft--whether manned or remotely operated--are equally evasive. The result is an ongoing source of UFO reports and conspiracy theories. Here are the Earth-built craft that likely have lit up 911 switchboards over the years.

Bottom line is stop thinking "saucer", that design doesn't work well in an atmosphere because it's aerodynamically unstable. Might be OK for an outer space vehicle but we have no incentive to build those in saucer shapes as far as I can tell. We would use either a rocket or the mini-space-shuttle like craft to get to space.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

There are quite a few reasons why the claims made by the CIA about spyplanes shouldn't be taken too seriously (link) and, considering they're not meant to exist, flying disc shaped objects do seem to pop up in government documentation quite a bit.

Silver rotating UFO over US Atomic facility


Flying discs over Hanford Nuclear plant


Flying disc over Topcliffe


Circular objects over Langley AFB


Rotating saucer shaped object over Georgia


Maxwell AFB Emergency Report - Flying Saucer


Disc shaped object over Minot AFB - 1966


Flying disc over Chicago's O Hare airport - 1952

"It's not limited to lift is irrelevant since the flying saucer type of UFO presumably has anti-gravity and a reactionless drive."

Air is non-polar and is therefore not affected by magnetic fields.

"Saucer geometry is low radar cross-section, and a disc shape would cut the air better."

"Sloped armor is a massive advantage against high speed projectiles --- such as a disc-shaped --- especially if you want small asteroids to bounce off your spaceship, or possible enemy lasers --- So why not design it as a disc...since they don't want lift, but stability."

On long interstellar voyages...a living creature needs gravity to avoid muscle and bone loss --- So a disc-shape would make it easier to make centrifugal gravity by inducing a spin to the craft. A saucer-shaped craft can move at any direction.

the older disc shaped ufos were replaced by more stable triangle ufos.

The disc shape ufos opersted using a specifically tuned dielectric field to make it do its thing. The dielectric field is especially srnsitive back then (because we dudnt have super computers to react and adjust to changes in the field ) to powerful EM stimulation. Things like radar would detune the fields and make the effect fail and down goes saucer.

Therefore although awesome they werent then suitable for operating in cobtested airspace that had nets of powerful radar

Nowadays you dont see the UFO cause youre not physically capable of seeing them. The old is the photon a particle or a wave question. If your brain dont recognize the pgotons emitted from the craft you literslly are not capable of seeing the craft

We don't have the technology to build an interstellar craft, because, mainly...we don't have the ability to build a micro-mini black hole propulsion unit onboard a interstellar capable starship --- But [according to my own hypothesis and my own UFO eyewitness account] --- they [otherworlders] do.

Yes...a micro-mini black hole propulsion unit onboard a saucer-shaped craft --- with anti-gravitational, sub-light and even superluminal realm capabilities not out of the question --- Since they do [foo fighter starships] look like they come from another star system...which would mean that they have broken the speed of light barrier [Assuming they don't have a mothership cruising around our solar system, and I don't believe in warp travel and interdimensional realms] in order to travel to our Earth star system.

The starship has a photon receptor/receptors? on the surface of the vessel, which funnels starlight [from a nearby star or galaxy] photons to an encased micro-mini black hole [the size of an atom] where it is gravitated to the accretion disk of the mighty spinner, and expels the photons at it's two magnetic poles at near the speed of light; that is funneled to a number of one or more constrictive thruster tubes.

The thruster outlet ports, expels the photons out into outer space with tremendous thrust --- increasing speed...exponentially squared --- easily up to the speed of light and beyond into the superluminal realm. The disc has a number of possible spinning thruster outlet ports on the outer hull...when mated to thruster tubes, determines the direction of the disc. One stationary top and bottom thruster outlet ports...determine vertical and descent directions and the rest for horizontal speed angles --- Including instant stops an starts, right angle 90 and 180 degree turns; during hyper velocity's of possible 17,500 mph in our own atmosphere and over 200 knots submerged in water.

The micro-mini black hole...creates a number of magnetic fields --- protecting the starship from the speed of light barrier and space debris --- that can be harnessed by the starship crew with computers, to form one or two magnetic shields surrounding the starship itself with could contain some deuterium atoms from seawater --- compress the two magnetic shields together --- thusly creating a fusion plasma reaction --- for use as fuel for the BH propulsion unit --- in places that lack starlight photons. The seawater is a a finite fuel for the starship, but it needs it to protect the ship and crew from deadly neutron radiation by the fusion reaction; by being made as a radiation shield from the outer hull to the inner magnetic shield. The magnetically contained plasma shield serves as a protective barrier from high speed projectiles, nuclear tipped missiles, laser weapons, debris on landing zones and as use for a weapon of mass destruction.

The plasma shield simply absorbs hyper sonic air and radar waves.
.

a reply to: Erno86

How do you account for special relativity.

Your ship may be sheilded from space debris at superluminal speeds but it wont protect it from inertial mass increasing nor time dialation. You still wont go super luminal.

How are you going to get the ship to travel faster than a photon if your using photons at C to propel it. Theres no way it will accellerate beyond its own exhaust.

How does your ships black hole create anti gravity.



How does the magnetic field protrct the ship from light speed its self?

Hows it negating inertial mass to make your 90 degree turns or defeat special relativity.

Im not so sure youve thought this out correctly.

Id look into non linear optics and metric engineering instead.

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: Erno86

How do you account for special relativity.

Your ship may be sheilded from space debris at superluminal speeds but it wont protect it from inertial mass increasing nor time dialation. You still wont go super luminal.

How are you going to get the ship to travel faster than a photon if your using photons at C to propel it. Theres no way it will accellerate beyond its own exhaust.

How does your ships black hole create anti gravity.



How does the magnetic field protrct the ship from light speed its self?

Hows it negating inertial mass to make your 90 degree turns or defeat special relativity.

Im not so sure youve thought this out correctly.

Id look into non linear optics and metric engineering instead.

"Interstellar travel - Over interstellar distances a spaceship using significant constant acceleration will approach the speed of light."

So I hypothesize that the starship --- under constant acceleration --- will break the speed of light barrier and propel itself into the superluminal realm.

en.wikipedia.org...

The magnetic shield protects the starship from the negating effects of the speed of light barrier.

The starship is enveloped by the micro-mini black hole's magnetic field, thusly giving it anti-gravitic properties.

Since the starship is enveloped in the magnetic shield, the shield has no mass, thusly having the starship avoid the effects of inertial mass increasing at the speed of light barrier.

a reply to: Urantia1111

Not 90%...

a reply to: Arbitrageur


"Bottom line is stop thinking "saucer", that design doesn't work well in an atmosphere because it's aerodynamically unstable."



Any thoughts on this radar visual case mate - the reported objects look pretty saucer-ish to me.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: karl 12




Any thoughts on this radar visual case mate - the reported objects look pretty saucer-ish to me.

This one involving a daylight close range object description by two British pilots is a very freaky one as well.

See 4:30

originally posted by: karl 12
a reply to: Arbitrageur

There are quite a few reasons why the claims made by the CIA about spyplanes shouldn't be taken too seriously (link) and, considering they're not meant to exist, flying disc shaped objects do seem to pop up in government documentation quite a bit.

Sheesh dude the OP has been banned but you keep bumping the thread. Wouldn't it be better to bump a thread where the OP is still around?

You don't know how many of those are balloons and neither do I, but did you look at the image in the other thread I linked of the balloon? Here it is, I would also say it looks disk-like but that doesn't mean it's a flying disk, it's was reportedly a UFO which the Air Force was able to identify because its position matched that of a known balloon that was being tracked from a weather unit a few miles west.



Now the object with moon-like craters on it was interesting, I have no idea what that was and definitely not a balloon but what the heck has moon-like craters on it? That's just strange for an object flying through our atmosphere.

originally posted by: karl 12
Any thoughts on this radar visual case mate - the reported objects look pretty saucer-ish to me.

The story reported in some places of the radar controllers that they got separate blips as the objects flew alongside the plane which according to the pilot were only 0.2 meters above the wings is completely implausible, that's not enough separation to see separate blips, and in another article there is no mention made of any blips flying alongside the plane so there's a huge amount of inconsistency in the claims being made about radar. Here's the pilot saying the radar controllers saw three blips in addition to his plane:

inexplicata.blogspot.com...

"Two different air traffic controllers detected three unidentified echoes on their screens."

Anybody who thinks that report is consistent with this report by the pilot doesn't understand how much separation is needed to get separate blips:

www.ufoevidence.org...

When he looked from the left (he had been gazing through his left side window) to the front he became aware of something on his right and glanced in that direction and was shocked to see an object with the appearance of two plates joined together at the rim with a cupola which had what seemed to be a little window and an antenna on top. It was positioned 20 centimeters above the surface of the wing and about 1 1/2 meters from the Piper's cabin. (See drawing by Staff Artist Robert Gonzales.) A glance back to the left revealed another object of the same description in the same position above the left wing.

There's no way the radar operators saw three separate blips if that 20cm separation is true, and I can't find anywhere that they ever said they saw three blips, I don't think they did, so we know the pilot doesn't have the story straight, which is not too surprising for something that happened that long ago.

In spite of completely implausible inconsistencies like this in his report, I have no doubt he saw and was frightened by something, and another pilot of a Lear jet apparently confirmed the sighting but where is the Lear Jet pilot's description of the objects? I found this model which doesn't match the sketch you posted very closely, is this based on the Lear Jet pilots observation or what? It is conceivable two different witnesses could perceive the same object this much differently but if the model is more correct it's certainly a more aerodynamic shape than a plain saucer shape which isn't aerodynamically stable.

mysteriousuniverse.org...

A scale model of the objects that took over Carlos’ plane

The plane kept its original course, but it was gaining altitude, and Carlos Antonio feared that if it went any higher he would die because his cabin was not pressurized.

So maybe it wasn't flying high enough to kill him but if it was flying so high he was worried he would die if he went any higher, he probably wasn't getting a lot of oxygen, and maybe his sketch is a little off.

There was a report of Further in-depth investigation is being conducted by Fernando Telles, so where is his report? I can't find it.

www.ufoevidence.org...

Further in-depth investigation is being conducted by an aeronautical engineer with the help of Field Investigator Fernando Telles. We should note here that this is Mr. Telles' first important case and he has done an outstanding job of investigating and reporting.

I can't find his report so I don't have the whole story.

Anyway the model looks a lot more aerodynamically feasible than the drawing, and for whatever reason, they don't quite match, but it's not unusual for many witnesses seeing the same event to have different perceptions of it.

Fair enough mate -even though this is a recent thread- let's carry on discussion about opinions on the relevant threads.