140 years of UFO sightings

Is it this old one?
Its very interesting
www.disclose.tv...

reply to post by karl 12

---

HI karl:
Nope, it's not that one, but that's very interesting though, thank for sharing:

Here is it, it starts at 43:00

Google Video Link

i think that it summarizes the story very well: i'd suggest to watch this especially to those who are interested but don't have time enough to read all the documentation regarding the Belgian UFO flap.


[edit on 2/12/2008 by internos]

Old saucer/cylinder/UFO photographs never die/ go away and
neither do the ships.
Where are they stored.
On the Moon.
We know nothing has been there.
Foos looked like VW bugs cause of the flat windshield.
Perhaps joy stick controlled where the stick shift was
and powered by the same air cooled engine.
Lyne saw a saucer described as two Woks put together.
But as indicated from my coil analysis on youtube, the
oval or globe lightning shape can be generated.
New Mexico or Texas were those sightnings.

reply to post by internos

---

The Unsolved Mysteries series is on Youtube and I have the
DVD set with the Belgian Triangle modeled after witness reports
and the Upstate New York Flying Wing seem the most interesting.

Some one is set out to make a flat top and sided craft as the
Triangle and might expect some edge lightning.

Apparently you do not need a million cps or million volts to
levitate a craft as supposed the electrical wizard Tesla may
have attempted by his external World Power Tower.

Interesting is the only evidence of an internally powered
craft around 1944 was the Phoo/Foo with perhaps a VW
air cooled engine.

reply to post by karl 12

---

The central light is the only physical evidence of coil pumping out the
electrostatic forces of levitation.

A 'wind' can be noticed from high voltage equipment and known
to rattle the can holders of capacitors.

The ring of waves of molecules from the center coil caused the
'ripples' in the edge or apex lights of the nearby molecules.

All the lights are from electrically disturbed air.

reply to post by lightchild

---

This is great stuff, the older images of ufos are a bit harder to debunk since the airpsace wasnt that polluted back then. S&F for you for posting the link, thanks.

reply to post by TeslaandLyne

---

TAL,Thanks for the reply - don't know about the technology involved but theres some interesting descriptions of other strange objects over Russia the same time as the Belgium sightings:


www.ufologie.net...
Cheers.

[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

reply to post by karl 12

---

I can't tell you too much about Russia but if they caught on to what
Tesla was doing, without the CIA and Illuminati banning all such
experiments of Tesla in Russia, they might have come up with something.

The UFOs are not a weapon and not too reliable or stealthy at times,
its just an annoying mechanism the Tesla discovered that would disrupt
control over travel and energy.

If Russia's raw material is in control of a few families, they have an
Illuminati all their own.

All the efforts of Tesla since Niagara Falls seemed to be wasted on
high voltage and high frequency electrostatics. From powering the
air to accommodate an aircraft of his design which did impossible
things like master the elements of nature as we know them.
The Tesla craft would master the forces of nature as Tesla discovered.

When the tower of power went down Tesla went to power
inside of a craft with the same patented turbines shown in his so
called VTOL patent.

The only show of such a vehicle was 1943-44 as the Phoo/Foo
which may have been a conical coil at the back seat of a
VW Bug powered by its air cooled engine and sent in directions
by the stick shift. Not much of an opening act. But enough of
a prize to get some scientist sent to New Mexico.



[edit on 5/14/2009 by TeslaandLyne]

That's a reasonable theory, but here are a few observations to tweak the theory:

It is actually the earth that is rotating so while your observation about perceived motion of other objects is valid in other cases, it's not really very applicable here. The stars are moving way faster than the moon, but the moon would appear to move relative to the stars because it's closer as you said, but only if the camera is mounted on an equatorial mount that zeroes out the effect of the earth's rotation. Both the moon and the stars appear relatively motionless compared to the motion of the earth's rotation if the camera is not on an equatorial mount.

A regular time exposure wouldn't produce the banding effect of light and dark bands on the moon, but multiple exposures superimposed would (or at least could) produce such a banding effect, especially if the exposure time wasn't identical for each exposure. Also a simple time exposure would show the stars as streaks instead of points.

So to make this photo in 1950, you could superimpose two shots, a multiple exposure of the moon with a single exposure of the stars, and voila, you would have something that looks pretty much like this, if not using an equatorial mount. This picture could also be made using multiple exposures on an equatorial mount as it takes about 28 days for the moon to move 360 degrees, so the moon only moves 12.8 degrees in 24 hours, or about half of 1 degree per hour. To get this length to width ratio would take about 4 hours, and judging from the size of the bands, I would estimate maybe one exposure every 10 minutes would do it. The only problem with the equatorial mount possibility is they were not as readly available in 1950 as they are today, but not impossible to get I suspect.

Anyway, either method would give the same result so an equatorial mount wasn't needed.

duplicate post deleted

[edit on 23-6-2009 by Arbitrageur]