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.

 

Was "Bob Lazar's" Area 51 technology related to Fravor's 2004 UAP sighting?

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 17 2019 @ 10:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Case solved!... maybe.

Clandestine reflectors could be used to facilitate OTH coverage as they feature in a couple of "real" SDI proposals and would explain long loitering radar tracks.

I'm a bit TTSA'd out so havent revisited but seem to recall any alleged radar tracked movements were made by inferring Position A at start time and Position B at end time- not actual radar tracking of the transition between.

This would be entirely doable (as I think you've already pointed out in this/another thread ) by having 2 or more manifestations.




posted on Oct, 17 2019 @ 01:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jukiodone
I'm a bit TTSA'd out so havent revisited but seem to recall any alleged radar tracked movements were made by inferring Position A at start time and Position B at end time- not actual radar tracking of the transition between.

This would be entirely doable (as I think you've already pointed out in this/another thread ) by having 2 or more manifestations.
Correct, at the end of Fravor's sighting in 2004 he asked the other pilot who was observing from above what happened to the Tic Tac, and the other pilot said it disappeared, and there was no radar tracking between there and where another radar signal appeared. So logically there's no reason to conclude it traveled between point A and Point B at a high speed when there's no visual or radar trace of anything between A and B.

I'm not even sure you need a reflector for that because either a second source could be used in another location, or possibly the same source just turns off the beam at point A, re-aims the beam at point B and presto, it could match the visual and radar data that way. The written report doesn't give the distance to the CAP point, it says this:

thenimitzencounters.com...

CDR Fravor commanded the radar through the Short Range radar set and asked for a picture from Poison. Poison initially reported that the “picture was clean” (no contact) but then stated “you’re not going to believe this, its at your CAP” meaning that the AAV had flown to their training CAP, which was located in the southern end of the training area and had climbed to approximately 24,000 feet.
So I don't know what the distance was exactly and how possible it is to make the plasma re-appear at the CAP point from a single source by just turning off the beam and re-aiming it somewhere else.

You might even get a result like that without turning off the beam if the plasma was so dispersed while being re-directed, it wasn't concentrated enough to make a radar reflection. But obviously when they report “picture was clean” that's not a good basis for assuming an object flew from point A to point B as they seem to want to assume. I don't assume that because neither radar nor visual reports support such an assumption.



posted on Oct, 18 2019 @ 03:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I wouldn't say Fouche was writing fiction, per se. If you believe what folks like B****m have posted here, someone obviously told him something. I'll readily admit that Lazar's story sounds especially ridiculous, but some things do seem to fit.

In regards to particle beams, I personally don't think this is that. There would have to be a coordinated effort between multiple platforms for the multiple beams needed to create the plasma bloom. Unless we're going into the far out realm of things like using exotic optical mediums, phase conjugation, and photon time-reversal for instantaneous beam correction, it would have to be rather powerful and very close to avoid atmospheric distortion/dispersion. Also, what point would this serve if it really were a LIPC plasma ball? Radar decoy, maybe, but you would want it to show up on radar if that were the case. Then there's the timeframe. 2004 seems to have been a happening year for all things military technology. The Navy has stated that these objects were detected using "classified upgrades to the AEGIS radar system".
Folks like Ronald Meyers have been hard at work with LPI/ZPI quantum radar for a long time. Maybe this is a surprise field test of a new capability? There is also the significant speculation in other threads about other particle beam-related happenings in 2004. Seems like a proton beam would be a waste of time when a better alternative was already operational.



posted on Oct, 18 2019 @ 10:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: DirtyBizzler
If you believe what folks like B****m have posted here, someone obviously told him something.
Even if that's true, I think there has been research along those lines where "promising" results have been obtained but it doesn't mean it actually works. Those experiments can deal with things near absolute zero which can cause experimental errors with things as trivial as air currents related to thermal flows because of the extreme temperature gradients that can be misinterpreted as positive results, so even if someone told Fouche something I don't accept that means anything more than another false positive test due to experimental error. Even NASA seems to have fallen into the experimental error trap when claiming positive results for their tests of the "impossible" EM drive, so if that was classified someone could tell Fouche something about the EM drive, but that doesn't mean the EM drive works!


In regards to particle beams, I personally don't think this is that. There would have to be a coordinated effort between multiple platforms for the multiple beams needed to create the plasma bloom. Unless we're going into the far out realm of things like using exotic optical mediums, phase conjugation, and photon time-reversal for instantaneous beam correction, it would have to be rather powerful and very close to avoid atmospheric distortion/dispersion.
Somehow we are not communicating.

Someone else brought up the multiple laser beam theory which as I said can be discussed here but is not the topic of this thread and wasn't even mentioned in the OP. Personally I do not refer to laser beams as particle beams, I call them laser beams. The OP of this thread has links to Tom Mahood's posts which refer to a single particle beam made of protons, in the area 51 test. (He didn't comment on the 2004 incident that I know of, so he's only talking about Area 51. The 2004 question was mine given the similar observations that witnesses provided like "jittery motion" and motions which which seem to defy inertia for a physical craft but not for a particle beam generated plasma at the point where the Bragg curve kicks in).

I too am skeptical of the multiple laser theory, not saying it's impossible but only saying that I don't have a model handy to calculate the laser power/frequency/luminosity required to generate plasma bloom at the intersection of lasers. If you or anybody else does have some technical details on that, I'd be interested in them.

But there is no intersection of multiple beams required with the single proton beam, since the plasma tic tac is the result of the Bragg curve. Look up the technical details linked in the OP if you're interested, since you seem to have some tech knowledge but don't seem to understand at all what Mahood is talking about in his description of the area 51 test of a proton beam since you're still talking about problems coordinating multiple beams, and he's talking about a single beam, no coordination with other beams required.


There is also the significant speculation in other threads about other particle beam-related happenings in 2004. Seems like a proton beam would be a waste of time when a better alternative was already operational.
Any kind of particle beam would make more sense than a solid, physical craft, so I'm open to other types of particle beams besides protons. What kind of particles do you think are possibilities if not protons?

By the way, the same software linked at Tom Mahood's links in the OP can also model other types of particles besides protons, so the physics behind the interaction of particle beams with the atmosphere doesn't have to be so speculative when Tom has given us a link to some free software which models the interaction.



posted on Oct, 21 2019 @ 06:31 AM
link   
a reply to: DirtyBizzler

Some interesting points....and connections.
So... you suspect physical craft?




top topics
 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join