Definitive Back Engineered Alien Technology Research thread

Originally posted by Learhoag
When I saw the title of the thread I knew this was going to be a joke thread. Sure enough, I wasn't disappointed as I scrolled down and saw this:
["Lets begin with a brief history.

We have all heard the stories of the Roswell UFO Incident and we all know that through out history we have read stories of weird things glowing or floating in the sky and in ancient times they were considered by some to be gods. examples like Ezekiel's wheel or Mesoamerican stories of quetzalcoatl Even ancient Mesopotamia had stories of some flying gods like Anu ! Most of the modern world will say they are nothing more than the product of an active imagination. So be it, but I ask how else would primitive man describe something that they are completely unaware of? They would put things into their own words with descriptions that they are familiar with.

So we have a long history of such things being seen lets assume they were Aliens and Lets assume Roswell really happened.]

When you start with myth, chances are the whole thread is going to be mythical. Roswell is a myth, only the gullible believe in other than prosaic explanations. Ezekiel's wheel? You mean like in the jewish bible? Ha! Mesoamerican stories of Quetzacoatl? Better read your history again, and check the b.s. at the door. Yuck!

It amazes me that posters who think a thread is BS spend so much of thier valuable time telling us about it than rather going off and reading something they enjoy?

Oh well! its good that we are all different.

Thanks for the reply.

Just to add a quick theory!

Nick Pope claims that the UK Military had a UFO shoot down policy, and the pentegon is on his back over his comments.

Now it could be taken into two contexts why the UK would do this?

1. To protect the airspace from foreign Black Ops craft.

2. To obtain extraterrestrial tech.


I asked a question related to this subject awhile back to Cliffford Stone and as far as the US is concerned is they do not shoot at UFOS anymore only with static and vid cams.

Anyones thoughts on this?

current.com...

www.ufoblogger.blogspot.com...

You ought to look at why you are easily amazed. My time is not valuable so I can hang around here as long as I want.

You ought to reconsider your apparent support of BS.

And you obviously do not support freedom of speech except from those you agree with.

Originally posted by Bob Down Under

Originally posted by Learhoag snip

It amazes me that posters who think a thread is BS spend so much of thier valuable time telling us about it than rather going off and reading something they enjoy?

Oh well! its good that we are all different.

Thanks for the reply.

[edit on 10-2-2009 by Learhoag]

Originally posted by Learhoag
You ought to look at why you are easily amazed. My time is not valuable so I can hang around here as long as I want.

You ought to reconsider your apparent support of BS.

And you obviously do not support freedom of speech except from those you agree with.

Originally posted by Bob Down Under

Originally posted by Learhoag snip

It amazes me that posters who think a thread is BS spend so much of thier valuable time telling us about it than rather going off and reading something they enjoy?

Oh well! its good that we are all different.

Thanks for the reply.

[edit on 10-2-2009 by Learhoag]

I support freedom of speech and go for it!

I support a theory and until proven otherwise and also support what I have witnessed to make a theory relate to that event on a personel level.

So its your turn to prove all related topics posted as BS, and if you had read all resoures Myself And Slayer posted then if its still all BS to you thats fine by me

If you had any out of the box, out of the norm, daily life experence? not I doubt it!.

We all have a question to ask and its bloody hard if you can not find or searching for proof of that answer.

We try and reply to any post that has respect and politeness be it skeptical input or not and we return the same, but if your arrogant and rude I will reply in the same manner and some?

My time is valuable and yours is not as you qouted, Lucky for you!!

You can sit on here all day and have fun my friend or go find a hobby.

Its family time now.

End of story.






[edit on 11-2-2009 by Bob Down Under]

Originally posted by Bob Down Under

Originally posted by Logarock
reply to post by Bob Down Under

 

Agree!

I think what Corso wrote or claimed was a disinfomation of types that not all was fact but twisted and exaggerated as not to appear to hurtful in the Militarys eyes or to keep them off his back.

I spent some time comparing some things Corso said about laser development and it fits the historical development time line well.

For example the two teams working in laser, one at Columbia University with Towns, Schalow and Gould and the other at Hughes Research lab Maiman were both funded by the defense department.

As it was Maiman at Hughes was the first to develop a beam of pulsating laser. The other team then at Bell Labs Towns and Schalow then developed the continuous beam laser.

Gould ended up years later successfully litigating patents that he said he never got the credit for. Gould worked on the Manhattan Project. Gould may have been denied becouse he was a communist sympathizer and was fired from Manhattan and let go at Columbia becouse of his political leanings.

None of the above info can be found in Corso but in official histories. This makes it more valuable becouse you have a separate source that lines up with some area Corso talked about. This means Corso would have had to do his homework whatever he was doing.

A convergence point is found when Corso claims the laser device found at Roswell was about the size of a flash light. What Corso doesn't mention and maybe intentionally is that Maimans first laser, the very first laser devise manufactured, was a small hand held device.

Another important note is that the official pictures seen on line if the first laser are actually larger reproductions and not actually Maimans original laser. Cant find any photos of this myself. Anyway Corso mentioned none of the facts which indeed make them more valuable in my opinion.

Corso cannot be properly evaluated without a good knowledge of the things he talks about. As well close reading of Corso in chapter 13 and a good study of the history of the development of laser form official histories clearly show that Corso was trying to tell us something without giving away the farm in the details in my opinion.

Here is an interesting note on Corso.

Corso mentions that Maiman developed the first laser while at Columbia.

But Maiman was not at Columbia but in California at Hughes Labs when he developed his laser. So is Corso mistaken?

Low and behold close research produces the fact that Maiman did spend some time at Columbia before going to California, Stanford and then Hughes, and would have to have worked with Towns and Schawlow. Apparently Towns rejected the idea of using synthetic ruby so Maiman left Columbia and continued the ruby research at Hughes? With DOD funding?

Is Corso saying that some type of operational laser was developed by Maiman at Columbia before the official release at Hughes in 1960? Did the other scientists actually rip of Gould ,that did eventually gained royalties and rights decades later, and toss him out of Columbia? Or did Corso make a simple mistake about Maiman developing lase while at Columbia? Well this would have had to have taken place several years before Hughes as Maiman spent several years at Stanford before going to Hughes.

Perhaps the truth of the story can be found in the fact that the laser went in use commercially soon after its announcement. It may have already been developed but was kept secret until the DOD went over it fully before manufacturing a modern historical fiction to cover the real story behind the development of laser, making it look like a development under pressure from the private sector.

At any rate make no mistake the DOD is where you will end up when you look for the driving force behind lasers development. Considering the early research was driven and paid for by the DOD, and considering strategic and security consideration as well as DOD funding, there is no way that the laser would have been considered important to the military only after going into the commercial developmental stages. Corso may have been trying to communicate this by saying that Maiman developed the laser at Columbia along with the three other top scientist in the field. The actual development being a Maiman/Gould/Towns/Schawlow development with Gould having worked on the Manhattan project.

The missing bits to the puzzle may have to do with security but could just as easily been the results of legal considerations. These considerations coming into play when the laser went into commercial development and royalties had to be paid, inventors had to be credited, and official histories had to be created.

Something that puzzles me. When I read on various links re the alleged Roswell crash it is stated that the recovered material could not be dented or cut etc and always returned to it's original smooth shape. Why then did the craft break up into hundreds of pieces on impact with the ground ?

Originally posted by big gee
Something that puzzles me. When I read on various links re the alleged Roswell crash it is stated that the recovered material could not be dented or cut etc and always returned to it's original smooth shape. Why then did the craft break up into hundreds of pieces on impact with the ground ?

Thats was some of the material found apparently not the same material that composed the structure of the craft. Apparently.

Apparently ? Apparently so

Originally posted by big gee
Something that puzzles me. When I read on various links re the alleged Roswell crash it is stated that the recovered material could not be dented or cut etc and always returned to it's original smooth shape.

Some think that it was a Nano Engineered super alloy with shape-memory properties AKA Morphing Technologies. That is made from the atom up They have been working on this from several directions towards developing this. They have made tremendous progress in the past 15 years or so And now we have memory metal something that is not quite right but they have made some advancements such as these

Digital video 4 shows the process of reversible patterning of grid-patterned colloidal lines upon turning on and tuning off the AEF. The colloidal pattern was firstly formed under AEF. When the AEF was switched off, it relaxed to the amorphous liquid state undergoing Brownian motion. When the AEF was re-applied, the colloidal pattern was recovered, demonstrating the shape-memory effect in the colloidal system.

I like this following video the best it is real world research and it IS headed towards what they found in the crash I like his work which is getting us even closer to the "FIBER OPTIC LIKE" material they found in the crash. Also back to the original op remember I said they compartmentalize the research and development of such projects well this one is a very good eye opener

From the corporate site : "More than twice the strength of Titanium with the processability of plastics, Liquidmetal alloys are poised to render obsolete current materials technology." Liquidmetal technologies, is a creator of a new metallic, glass, substance that stores energy much better than stainless steel or Titanium.

[edit on 11-2-2009 by SLAYER69]

Fascinating videos Slayer. What puzzles me though, as I said earlier, is why would a craft that was seemingly made from an apparently indestructible material break up into hundreds ( ? ) of pieces on impact with soil ?

reply to post by big gee


Nothing is indestructible You would have to admit that bending it or trying to cut it with a knife is a far cry from hitting the ground at a few hundred miles per hour. Although these materials are built from the atom up and have very strong properties simply bending them they will morph back it does not mean that they are indestructible.

I would go back and review the videos I have just posted I have edited it and made some changes just now.


Remember these are just progressive developments towards what we believe they found. We are not there yet but we are getting closer



[edit on 11-2-2009 by SLAYER69]

Originally posted by big gee
Something that puzzles me. When I read on various links re the alleged Roswell crash it is stated that the recovered material could not be dented or cut etc and always returned to it's original smooth shape. Why then did the craft break up into hundreds of pieces on impact with the ground ?

If you research a bit more most of the craft was recovered intact but still heavily damaged as claimed.

Only the crash atifacts/pieces are shown in photos as they were picked/cleaned up after the main craft was trucked away, as the main priority would be to get the craft out of sight as quickly as possible.

The artifacts that were left scattered over a large area then could be debunked as anything, aircraft, weather baloon etc. then cleaned up asap.

www.hyper.net...

www.youtube.com...

Also look up Lt. Walter G. Haut "deathbed" affidavit Roswell crash.

roswellproof.homestead.com...

www.youtube.com...://www.realufos.net/2007/05/roswell-artifacts.html





[edit on 11-2-2009 by Bob Down Under]

Outstanding research! My hat is off to you. Flagged & tagged.

What a lineup of credible people! Fantastic, I can't say enough...

reply to post by DREAMING MAN


Thanks
We are still gathering and compiling as time goes on we will keep adding more.
Thanks again.

For those readers of this thread and new members who may not have seen the video before that Slayer posted above regarding the 57 species.

You may be interested to visit Sgt Clifford Stone's Thread below.

www.abovetopsecret.com...'

When he has the time he will reply to your questions regarding his career as a crash investigator/the visitors/UFOs.

Here we go right out in the open. Disclosure from the former Canadian Minister of defense. I don't know how much people want.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Excellent Job On this!!
The explanations were very concise and verifiable.The main subject of how to reproduce this type of tech here on Earth is moot the key lies in the production of these essentail ingrediants in 4th dimension.

Great read and video.

Parker



[edit on 19-8-2009 by parker]

reply to post by parker



Hey thanks Parker.

OK here is another video I thought I would post I hope you enjoyit.
If you haven't seen it already you're in for a treat....