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: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on May, 18 2005 @ 11:40 PM
Is that it ?
Please people no one to address my q's?
Everyone is willing to attack GCT , haven't any of you read my posts here?

The reason the skiptics will have a hard time explaining anything ,agian, is the fact that according to field theory a "SAUCER" shape is the optimal shape for a gravitic propulsion system!!!

The ONLY reason I "waisted " a MB of cyber space was to address the FACT that we know all about fields in modern science and this is just one place on the web I used to show that this is a recurring theme over time , and it is totally in line with "our" theories of " Fields".

The "Saucer" shape has been depicted many times thoughout the last few centuries!

posted on May, 18 2005 @ 11:50 PM

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'd they determine the shape of the vehicle then if they haven't created a gravity drive then???

posted on May, 19 2005 @ 12:00 AM
Hey man, I know you got a lot of attacks. I wasn't one of them. I was happy to see the site. It's good to see folks who think outside the box.


posted on May, 19 2005 @ 12:07 AM
Do you need a "gravity drive " to understand that objects fall in the presence of gravity?

We know gravity is a wave . We know gravity acts like a diapole magnet . We predict the motion of celestial bodies everyday because we understand the gravitational field!

To think we don't understand that a "Saucer" shape is the optimal shape in a field spin-symmetric geometry, as required for stable flight is IMO ill-informed , or worse!

posted on May, 19 2005 @ 12:22 AM

Originally posted by lost_shaman
To think we don't understand that a "Saucer" shape is the optimal shape in a field spin-symmetric geometry, as required for stable flight is IMO ill-informed , or worse!

How can it be known to be optimal if we can't create gravity waves nor detect them, and can't apply them to a device to make it move?

posted on May, 19 2005 @ 12:28 AM
We can't detect gravity waves?

When was the last time you fell on your head? LOL J/K!!!

Really we understand the field do I need to explain it ?
I may not be able to do that as well as others?
I really didn't think it would come to that , I guess I was wrong!

posted on May, 19 2005 @ 01:18 AM
obsidian 468 ,

No , this topic is not what this thread is about !

This thread is about the evidence that poeple have been seeing UFO's , were in fact seeing real ETV's , and the evidence that I am asking people to look at is the science of fields , and that only certain shapes are stable in spinning fields!!!

The point of this thread is that NO-ONE could have known this , lets say in the 40's , much less earlier in 17 th and 18th century art works!

And over the years the "Saucer" has been a recurring theme!
Over the years we may have seen slight vairiations on that theme , but none the less!
If we assume that the laws of physics still apply to everyone , even if those laws are not completely understood by us(humans), then it is reasonable to say that , we can use theory to make some assertions about fields and other natural phenomena in nature . This is after all the reason we have Science in the first place!

posted on May, 19 2005 @ 06:35 AM
Speaking as someone who is acutelly interested in the subject of propulsion I have a couple of things to say.

First we have known for a long time that the saucer is the ideal shape for this type of propulsion. I would explain more but, yeah you either know or you don't know that. Not your fault most people who do casual research really have no reason to study fluid dynamics.

Second and I feel most importantly, please don't title your thread something which is pretty close to deliberatelly misleading. It is extraordinarilly vexxing to those of us who would like nothing more than to see an actual working prototype. It also does a great deal of damage to those who are pursuing research in this field, as you stated they had a working proto when in reality they have slick CG and state themselves that they don't have a proof of concept device built.

That makes anyone pursuing this type of propulsion looks bad and continues to add justification to the average persons thoughts that anyone who studies anti-gravity is a bit off.

Sorry to be harsh, and in all fairness your post was pretty good aside from the title and misstatement about the prototype. I share some of your enthusiasm for antigravity propulsion and to a lesser extent aliens... Just remember premature declarations and fraud are what blackened the reputation of research like this.

posted on May, 19 2005 @ 04:01 PM

Here , lifters defy gravity .

They work . Although the way in which they do it is different , than the GCT system would preform.

I believe all this is back-engineering!
I have watched an apperent ETV Defy gravity for over 20 mins !

Anyone that thinks the average person is not qualified to disinguish the difference between natural phenomena and powered inteligent flight, let me ask you this?
If you looked up in your yard and watched a new late model car drive down the street, you have never seen a car like it before , you still understand its a Car!
The same thing happens when you see any other technology, we as humans , being inteligent ourselves , are capable of distiguishing between natural phenomena , and un-natural phenomena (Technology).

If I wanted to debate theoretical aspects of the viability or un-viability of the theory(s) in question , that could be done on the Science and Technology board.

I need not waist my time doing this , however , as I have seen with my own eyes , an object defy gravity and exhibit inteligent control over its movement.
Therefore I know that Gravitic propulsion does exist it does work , and we too can master the technology for ourselves.

With that being said, the point of this thread was ,and still is ,about people seeing ,and discribing craft in our skies , and the fact that science is now adding credibilty to those sightings throughout history .

Now GCT was the first place on-line that I had seen to state this fact ," the "Saucer" shape was found to be the optimal shape."
So I sighted it at first in my post to backup my own thoughts !
There is no question that those images on their sight are CGI !

Don't you think that if GCT could get away from the "saucer" shape ,they would! It is costing them $$$ ,because their design looks like a "Flying Saucer" , and this is the basis for this thread, the physics of feilds dictate the shape of any craft using fields for propulsion.

[edit on 19-5-2005 by lost_shaman]

posted on May, 19 2005 @ 04:43 PM
OK, I have to don my lab coat again and chime in:

a) The title of the thread is grossly misleading. Where is the freaking prototype hovering all over the place? What is so hard for skeptics to explain?

b) The "science" section of their web-site is actually very poor scientifically. There are patently wrong statements. The spontaneous nuclear fission was discovered in the 30s, not in the 60s. It was never proposed that such fission would require large amounts of energy, as the site suggests. And no, superconductivity is not the same as energy transfer between nuclei. It's not a nuclear effect at all. Part of the description of the superconductivity is just dead wrong.

c) they claim to have obtained energy from the zero point field. If this were true, the intrepid chairman of this doomed "corporation" would not have to second mortgage his house in order to survive. I would speculate that a patent to generate energy out of empty space would be worth some money, actually, or royalties, or what not. There'd be plenty of money to pay for R&D and to buy yourself and your girlfriend a couple of Bentleys and a villa in the Bahamas. Heck, I'm willing to pay $100k for the design of this one single element (can't scrap up more dough).

d) I find the CGI pics of the "craft" disingenious. The only purpose of those is create an illusion that they are onto something.

I met this type of people before. Educated at the level of popular science, they pursue some cool named project. It just makes them feel special. Using math at the level of calculus is typically a problem for them.

I never felt pity for this brand of losers.

[edit on 19-5-2005 by Aelita]

posted on May, 19 2005 @ 04:56 PM
Here's what the info about their company is -- from their own site.

To date, over US $1.2 million has been invested in our research. We have been able to establish a comprehensive theoretical framework to illustrate how and why the control of gravity for flight can be accomplished. Some convincing experimental results have also been achieved.

I don't know about those experimental results, so I can't say how 'convincing' they are or whom exactly they convinced. Where can I get some data on these experiments? From any of the physics journals?

Bolstered by these early research results we are now slowly moving unto Phase 2 - laboratory scale demonstration of possible interaction with gravitational fields.

So they don't even have a laboratory demonstration yet -- just thought that such an interaction is 'possible'.

This website showcases our vision of what we hope to be real craft based on gravity control principle(s).


Within the next five to eight years, we are seeking to build an unmanned test craft. We also aim to build prototype energy generation equipment, non-RF based communications devices, and introduce revolutionary temperature-independent superconductors.

Good. Call me back within the five to eight years.

[edit on 19-5-2005 by Off_The_Street]

posted on May, 19 2005 @ 10:43 PM
I really think that the UFO is the inspiration for many anti-gravity seekers. It's apparently a model that works, so why not try to devise a system based on that shape.

posted on May, 19 2005 @ 10:43 PM
I really think that the UFO is the inspiration for many anti-gravity seekers. It's apparently a model that works, so why not try to devise a system based on that shape.

posted on May, 20 2005 @ 07:04 PM
That is the title I shoud have used for this thread!
And I'd change it to that if I knew how to edit the title ! Anyone, Beuler, Beuler,...

I agree the title of this thread was a terrible choice of words on my part!

First , the Prototype or lack there of , has absolutly nothing to do with my intended topic!

Also , the GCT website has nothing to do with Aliens & UFO's unless you put it into a context relating to Aliens & UFO's , as I had intended to do.

I had originally intended to give a link to GCT, to quote their reason why their prototype is "Saucer " shaped .
I should have known right then and there that GCT website was a very poor choice , on my part to quote them(GCT) when there are many other places for me to have done the homework , and made a better point!
I thought , Hey look at this ! A Private Company working towards Gravitic propulsion. A neat looking site with cool CGi images , and I had not before seen anyone explaining the reason for "Saucer shapes " being an optimal shape for a craft in the presence of Spining Fields. So I linked and quoted them. I didn't realize then that I'd still be here talking about GCT, instead of the "Fact"(IMO) that science lends credibility to UFO(ETV) sightings by the scientific affermation that the "Saucer" shape , is not only logical , but likely the Optimal shape for a craft.

I think we have determined that there is no prototype, only theory! For that I am truly sorry, for the error on my part.

Also, what was I thinking when I said Skeptics will have a hard time explaining anything!!!! My God what was I smoking!!!

Anyhow ,I will change the title of this thread.

All I can say is that I am sorry for the confusion.

I still believe that there is a valid point here to be made , albeit with a new title !

As for GCT I couldn't care less if they invented Pixy dust! I only wanted to quote their website , and I am not waisting anymore of my time defending, or promoting them(GCT). I just had read thier explaination for their " Flying Saucer" and thought then , as I have thought many times before, and still think it is good evidence for the reallity of ETV's . If ETV"s are not real and people are just seeing other things , or making their stories up, then you wouldn't expect so many of them to be the same , or to be coincidently backed up by Science as being stable in the presence of Electromagnetic , and Gravitic fields. ( IMO most people don't know that , and if asked to guess what shapes would be stable in those fields , I doubt many would say Saucers)

As for Gravitic propulsion , we will have it, it is only a matter of time!
AS for ETV's they are real, they use Gravitic propulsion!
I have no fear that those two statements will ever be proven wrong , only be proven to be correct.

When you see an object defy gravity up close ( for me up close was about 50 yards or so) you will know it is defying Gravity!

My appologies for my poor choice of words !

[edit on 20-5-2005 by lost_shaman]

[edit on 20-5-2005 by lost_shaman]

[edit on 20-5-2005 by lost_shaman]

posted on May, 20 2005 @ 11:03 PM
Here is a new thread with my intended topic , and a better title.

Sorry for the confusion!

The Stabilty of "Saucers" is strong evidence , for the reality of ETV's!

posted on May, 21 2005 @ 06:33 PM
Just a little something about the Xprize.

There rules said that crafts utilizing any kind of gravitic propulsion were not allowed.

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in