It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


A working Prototype , this will be hard for Skeptics to explain!

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on May, 18 2005 @ 12:44 AM
If your a Skeptic this might hurt .... , but go on and take a look.

It seems to me this will be hard to blow off the fact that the working model is a "Flying Saucer".

"The 1G unmanned prototype is the first ship developed. The shape of the vessel, just like all other vehicles in GCT's lineup, emerges from the propulsion systems characteristics.The field geometry of the system, and the hardware needed to generate the field, require field spin-symmetric "stuctures", for witch a saucer shape was found to be the most optimal."

May sound like its just a coincidence at first , but read that again.
If the shape of the vehicle is a product of the characteristics of the propulsion system, that would mean anyone Human or otherwise ,would need to imploy this particular shape(s) with this type of propulsion(Gravitic).

posted on May, 18 2005 @ 01:00 AM
Looks like a bunch of CGI images to me.

Didnt they get turned down for the xprize application?

Asked to comment on the GCT situation, Gregg Maryniak, Executive Director of the X Prize Foundation told

"Our policy is that we do not discuss pending applications. We only discuss them when they are approved," Maryniak said. "We have not accepted their [GCT's] application…and we haven't foreclosed the possibility of accepting their application," he said.


Ill listen when we see a manned flight

posted on May, 18 2005 @ 01:10 AM
Maybe they(GCT) won't win the X-Prize , but if the "Saucer" shape is defined by the characteristics of the propulsion system , then that means anyone using that system will need that shape.

How do all the people who claim to see "Saucers" know that the "Saucer" shape is the optimal shape for "Gravitic" propulsion systems?

posted on May, 18 2005 @ 01:13 AM
The site's question and answer section tells a lot about what that web site is about. I also read that it is their intention to build the first unmanned craft as soon as funds permit. That statement makes it sound like the prototype was drawn (developed) but not physically built and tested. The web site looks very interesting and I wish the guy and his company luck in his research and development towards starting a new large commercial space tourism business. However I did wonder if the military has already covertly developed these technologies and this guy and company would be subject to a big buyout if he proves successful. A buyout would enable all his work to disappear. It's interesting. Good find.

posted on May, 18 2005 @ 01:42 AM
Let me just clarify by working prototype , I should have made clear that it is only working in Theory.

I don't mean to imply that this prototype acually works , but to point out that for this system to work properly it must have a "Saucer " shape.
Anyone using a "Gravitic " propulsion system , that generates spining fields is going to need this shape.

My point being that no one would have known this fact until recently.

How many Joe Blows would have known that in the '40s ? The '50s?
When you see "Saucers " in old 17th century paintings , do you think they would have known anything about the Physics behind spining fields ,magnetic ,or gravitic ?

posted on May, 18 2005 @ 01:24 PM
Physics dictates the shape of a wing, it dictates the shape of celestial bodies, and now physics dictates "saucer" shapes for gravitic propulsion.

Am I the only one that finds this fact interesting?

If you think ETV's are real , but you have no proof , the fact that the "Saucer" shape is defined by the characteristics of the propulsion system , is good evedence that people have been describing real craft for centuries .

If you think everyone that see's UFO's is loony or just making things up, your going to have a hard time dealing with the fact that Science isn't on your side!

posted on May, 18 2005 @ 01:30 PM

1) Develop suitable flight control hardware
2) Develop workable power source
3) Develop communications system
4) Test gravity control engine
5) etc, etc, etc...

And here:
"Develop a reliable power plant..."

I think they explain to the skeptics themselves. This is an idea/wish/dream/hope...not a reality.


[edit on 18-5-2005 by ZeddicusZulZorander]

posted on May, 18 2005 @ 01:49 PM
I do find it an interesting concept for a craft, but I would think if they had developed the propulsion (gravity drive) by itself would be a remarkable discovery. If they have they should announce it, and that would help with the funding they are apparently having trouble with. If not, you can't design a craft on a theoretical propulsion drive until it is invented.

posted on May, 18 2005 @ 02:07 PM
it seems to me it took 3 posts to explain.


posted on May, 18 2005 @ 02:11 PM
Its , agian, a working theory.

It doesn't matter if GCT can make it work or not, what does matter ,to me anyway, is that for it to work at all it has to be "saucer" shaped , do to the generation of spinning fields!

Any propulsion system that generates spinning fields will be forced , by physical laws of nature , to utilize field spin-symmetric shapes!

Think about that , because thats the point of this thread!

I could care less about GCT ( I hope the can make it work).

If they can or not thats for another thread . However , The physics behind any such propulsion system, that gernerates spinning fields will be dictated by science , just like Aerodynamics dictates the shape for wings.

posted on May, 18 2005 @ 02:26 PM
People, this is such a red herring.

Thery mention that they will work on communication and flight control but hey, how about a demonstration (without any "craft" at all) that the flight principle they propose (gravity control) will work? I don't care if the demo is small scale. Show me a floating grain of rice and I'll write you a $10,000 check.

Thats one of those BS space flight sites. I saw it a few months ago and I think they used a model made of a portable CD player) circular shaped.

Or maybe it's a scam. In any event, this is the last time I visited their site. Adios.

PS. I think their "communication R&D" really gives it away. Crap science.

[edit on 18-5-2005 by Aelita]

posted on May, 18 2005 @ 02:48 PM

Originally posted by Aelita

PS. I think their "communication R&D" really gives it away. Crap science.

I have to give you the benifit of doubt here , maybe you just forgot that everytime the Space Shuttle re-enters the atmoshpere , we lose communication with it , due to the fields generated by plasma that engulfs the shuttle.

So the " communication R&D" is legit. We do have a need for it .

posted on May, 18 2005 @ 02:54 PM

Originally posted by lost_shaman

Originally posted by Aelita

PS. I think their "communication R&D" really gives it away. Crap science.

I have to give you the benifit of doubt here , maybe you just forgot that everytime the Space Shuttle re-enters the atmoshpere , we lose communication with it , due to the fields generated by plasma that engulfs the shuttle.

So the " communication R&D" is legit. We do have a need for it .

I know full well there could be communication problems. In this contex, however, this R&D makes as much sense as being busy picking the grain of the leather upholstery for the car you are going to build, without knowing if you will be able to machine the cylinders and transmission parts in your garage shop, because you never tried, and you have no experice with machining. Or working on the radio for that hypothetical car.

posted on May, 18 2005 @ 03:00 PM
To start with, go to David Adairs names site and read a few things. Then, as I have, go Earthfiles pay and register then read Buricsh's stuff along with Bob Ulsler's thoughts. And Stringfields research too. As this stuff is of the real variety and after that read Government Files - Peter Brooksmith.

The whole idea is I feel it will give a lot more insight to craft and events post /47 than looking at a couple of diagrams of propulsion systems alone.

Just a thought mind you..


posted on May, 18 2005 @ 03:38 PM
This topic is pretty well covered in another thread, which can be found here:

Essentially, the vast majority of the research is still theoretical, without physical experiments to back it up. Anyone who has researched string theory will tell you that anti-gravity propulsion is possible, yet the means to an implementation are still unknown. The most often cited roadblock is power sources. The only difference between the people at Gravity Control Technologies and your average Star-Trek fan armchair physicist is that they have a website full of pretty CG images.

I have a theory to create power through atmospheric hydrogen extraction, but until I build and test a device, it's just theory, and therefore not worth much more than words.

GCT is one of many companies and independent researchers working on this same technology. Besides a few parlor tricks using diamagnetic levitation (a means of levitating objects with magnetic fields), there has really been no publicly known solid results for any sort of antigravity device as yet.

It will happen one day. It's just not happening today.

posted on May, 18 2005 @ 04:17 PM
Dang! I was prepared to give in and say, OK...

But, as stated earlier, this is a red herring. It is, to all intent and purpose, a waste of web space.

I fall back on my original thread elsewhere in that I used to believe in the aliens, etc. but people out to make a fast buck, or have some other political/egotistical agenda fulfilled have pretty much ruined it for me, and perhaps, many like me.

It will, in all likelihood, take a saucer landing on the White House lawn or its equivalent to get my attention.

Unfortunately, this isn't an equivalent.

Not a working model!!!!!

posted on May, 18 2005 @ 04:39 PM
I think the skeptic's would enjoy this one. There's nothing on the site more than some CGI depictions. If you read the news on the site, you see that all their news revolves around what they posted on the website. I don't see anything more than a dream with no science or technology to go with it. Unfortunate, but all form and no function.

posted on May, 18 2005 @ 05:52 PM
Listen... they haven't gone past the proof-of-concept phase yet and that was proof-of-concept was in regards to gravity manipulation. They have seen a slight variation in the inertial properties of material they were experimenting with and that was enough to convince them that they should research the idea more. Victor(the president) has stated numerous times that nothing may come of this research, but if there is even a slight possibility of this working, then it is well worth the trouble.

I have heard many people claim that is might be a scam, however Victor has spent a large sum of his own money attempting to fund this project, up to the mortage of his home. If he was a conman, I would believe him to be one of the worst in history. IMO he is a honest man with a dream, a dream that could change everything.

posted on May, 18 2005 @ 10:31 PM

Originally posted by lost_shaman
If your a Skeptic this might hurt .... , but go on and take a look.

Afraid not the concept reads more like a Star Trek script rather then any attempted at space flight. I woud be quite happy to be proven wrong. I think they need to intergrate existing tech to see if the flying disc will travel.
If the disc donst fly or is diffcult to controll that is the first set of problems they need to overcome little alone worrying about some form of advanced propusion.

posted on May, 18 2005 @ 11:39 PM
Nice find! At least it is a step toward something other than the IC (Internal Combustion) engine. Nothing wrong with having vision. I like people who can think outside the box. I put it on my favorites.


[edit on 18-5-2005 by cybertroy]

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in