UFO How to Build a UFO Antigravity Electrogravitic Saucer

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   
Here is a link to an interesting website that some of you might enjoy www.ufohowto.com...

1) How to identify the UFO that you have seen or witnessed;
2) How to build the UFO that you have seen or witnessed;
3) How you can advance the whole of society into the future 4) How to revitalize the global economy;
5) How you can make a fortune on the New Space Race;
6) How you can make the world a better place.

The site is complete with many drawings , an Ebook and some video as well as some audio shows all on the topic of building a UFO

So remember the next time you look up and see a UFO it might not be a alien at all , it just may be an ATS'er




posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Ha! I remember this joker from an interview a while back with that goof ball Kevin Smith. As usual there were no hard questions (Kevin Smith is George Nory on Valium, lol) so it was a softball show as always.

Needless to say, anybody who claims to have any answers to the questions this forum debates daily needs to be dealt with cautiously, and this is no exception. This guy is a total idiot, by the way. And this community should shun him.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Max_TO
Here is a link to an interesting website that some of you might enjoy www.ufohowto.com...

2) How to build the UFO that you have seen or witnessed;


Building the hull won't be that hard but I'm having trouble sourcing the electrogravitic drive. Once I get my hands on that, yes it will be me buzzing your house in the flying disk!



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by IgnoreTheFacts
 


Yes you are right I also remember something of this interview on Coast as well !

Interesting site though none the less but you are right on how there interview was conducted
, gee where is Art Bell when you need him lol



[edit on 15-12-2009 by Max_TO]



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Max_TO
 


hate to be the bearer of bad news but we dont have that kind of technology yet.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Max_TO
 


Personally number six would be the hardest feat to accomplish, especially if it involves some sort of new technology. Since we all know that something that is generally produced for a good outcome will more than likely be used in a destructive manner by someone else.

Though I will say some very nice schematics, I just can't really buy into it being something that we could build at the moment



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Hard for us, easy for a defense contractor with an unlimited budget, and 1,000 scientists locked in a remote installation getting paid $500k to keep their mouths shut.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by SuperSlovak
reply to post by Max_TO
 


hate to be the bearer of bad news but we dont have that kind of technology yet.


...and never will have, if NASA has any say in the matter.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 02:08 PM
link   
I have come across that site as well while researching UFO propulsion. The books he sells are filled with patents that have been accepted at the patent office.

He has some interesting ideas, he mentions the work of Henry William Wallace of GE Aerospace and thinks that odd nuclear spin might be an important aspect in UFO propulsion.

I think we are already at the point where we can build gravitational propulsion technology.

In 2004 an award was given to a paper submitted to the AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics) on Extended Heim Theory. The proposed experiment to create a propulsive gravitational field requires a very powerful electromagnet on the order of 20 Tesla or more and a spinning disc above the electromagnet.

Mark McCandlish known for this Disclosure Project testimony on the ARV Flux Liner has stated that Brad Sorenson told him the flywheel in the ARV had the appearance of brushed aluminum. He also stated that the ARV Flux liner had a very large electromagnetic coil around the circumference of the craft. What I find interesting about this is that McCandlish originally thought that the capacitor plates on the bottom of the ARV were what propelled the craft. Now I don't believe McCandlish is lying but for arguments sake, if McCandlish or Sorenson were making up the ARV based on how they thought parallel plate capacitors could produce a propulsive effect, what are the odds they would also include the flywheel and large magnetic coil?

I think the ARV Flux Liner operated under the physics principles put forward in that Extended Heim Theory paper and was propelled by the large flywheel spinning above the large magnetic coil.

Furthermore, I think Henry William Wallace's work on the importance of odd nuclear spin as mentioned on that ufohowto.com site factors into this. My hunch is that it is easier for atoms with odd nuclear spin to absorb the EHT proposed gravitophotons.

Aluminum has an odd nuclear spin of +5/2 and the flywheel in the ARV had the appearance of brushed aluminum.

P.S. I've been wanting to post a formal expanded thread on this for some time but am limited by the 20 post limit, the supermod I IM'd to lift it never got back to me.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Bobbox1980
 


In this 2006 New Scientist article:
"Take a leap into hyperspace"
www.newscientist.com...
...it says:

"What's more, the US military has begun to cast its eyes over the hyperdrive concept, and a space propulsion researcher at the US Department of Energy's Sandia National Laboratories has said he would be interested in putting the idea to the test."

So what is the latest with the Sandia National Laboratories research?



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 03:20 PM
link   
Starred and Flagged. BOHICA!! Kevin Smith has lots of interesting guests. I must have missed this one. Great site to browse through. I have no doubt that we have manufactured our own Vimanas. Too many people have stumbled upon simple technology with amazing results.

Dead men tell no tells.....unless they have filed their patent applications quietly first.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Larryman
 


I don't know, I do know you can find the latest papers and research by the team that won that AIAA award here:
www.hpcc-space.de...



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 04:53 PM
link   
Anybody can draw a blueprint. Show me a working model, I dare you.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 07:55 AM
link   
That looks incorrect.
The saucer is a fairly simple machine.
If one considers or knows how electrical force works.
Physical force can be achieved by electrical force.
The saucer 'pumps' its way up in the air.
And of course from side to side.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by SuperSlovak
Anybody can draw a blueprint. Show me a working model, I dare you.


Are you really that narrow minded?

Do you honestly think we haven't had this and multiple other technologies since the 40s or even the 30s?

Where do you think some of the technology we have today came from? Microchips, fiber optics, etc...? You really think we invented it?

If Nikola Tesla was building this stuff in the early 1900s, what do you think the U.S. government and other governments were doing with it for the last 50 years?

I'm quite convinced our government or some form of our government has already explored our entire solar system with technology we've back engineered over the years.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 11:50 AM
link   
Anyone who would have the ability to build an anti-gravitic craft on their own would not call it a UFO.

Case Closed.

Coincidentally, not one frame of video demonstrating the author flying his own craft around.

[edit on 17-12-2009 by NightVision]



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Nate8727
 




Do you honestly think we haven't had this and multiple other technologies since the 40s or even the 30s?

Where do you think some of the technology we have today came from? Microchips, fiber optics, etc...? You really think we invented it?


Technology is reinvented all of the time, it doesn't always take the same form, there are improvements over the years, maybe reinvented isn’t a good word, perhaps I should say re-imagined.

Think of it this way, in ancient Greece they had vending machines that once your provided your offering to your god would dispense a pre-measured drink of water, and it was a continuous system. Now these vending machines were used as proof of a god’s power in some cases and entertainment in others.

They had a system of pulleys and counterweights that would automatically open the door to temples at given intervals for the patrons of the temples.

These technologies have been re-imagined with electronics these days, but still we think of them as modern conveniences although not so modern after all.

Now as far as microchips go, this is not some kind of magic technology that suddenly came out of no where, they are a composition of many different semiconductors, resisters, capacitors, etc. I used to watch as my father built microprocessors by wire wrapping circuit boards. Yes we have come a long way in that short amount of time, and it has to do with the technology of how microchips are made today, which allows for smaller and smaller chipsets to be made. Basically the easiest way to describe the process is basically if you can imagine taking a picture of a compete circuit and transferring that picture to a fully functioning circuit by printing it out with conductive ink. It is not exactly the process but it is the best I can do without even getting more specific.

I would recommend researching a little into the history of electricity into the modern age, in order to get a better understanding on how those microchips work.

Now I have discussed microchips and other technologies, but If you do enough digging around you can find out how pretty much all technologies came to be and the incremental steps that have lead up to the things we have today. They did not magically just show up one day, many people have put in hard work to bring us to the level of technology we are to day; to leave out their contributions would be a horrible short sighted thing to do.

I the advancements we have made have not lead us to the level of technology that we would need for antigravity, I would be very surprised, there are many things that are discovered these days behind closed doors that the public does not have access to right away, but eventually there are usually leaks and maybe we will be lucky enough for this tech to leak out in our lifetime, if in fact it is in use behind the afore mentioned closed doors.

< - - - Edited For Grammatical Errors - - - >

[edit on 12/17/2009 by AlienCarnage]



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by NightVision
Anyone who would have the ability to build an anti-gravitic craft on their own would not call it a UFO.

Case Closed.

Coincidentally, not one frame of video demonstrating the author flying his own craft around.

[edit on 17-12-2009 by NightVision]


That goes for Tesla too.
With all the Tesla made the saucer craft thinkers, there is little to go on.
Photography did exist.
A test flight with a Sperry gyro on board seems never to have been
photographed.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 02:40 PM
link   
Micro chips must have come from spy satellite work.
Fairchild camera made the first chips by photographing a large mask
and then using a lens to etch out circuits.

Suspension must have occurred in Tesla's lab at some point as
there is an FBI FOIAR that indicates a plate suspension.
Researchers have looked through publications to find any words
telling of the abilities of Tesla's aircraft.

I got the anti gravity answer to my question of how do UFOs fly
from an engineer, a 'Star Trek' fan perhaps going back to the
"Forbidden Planet" days, yet now I consider gravity, air and the
ether as having their place in the workings of the saucer.

Oops look what I found:
www.mecfilms.com...
A movie,
TESLA - The Poet of Electricity
with Marguritte Marrington played by Nicole Kidman
That's woman interviewed by the FBI that sited the Tesla
suspension plate experiment on the FOIAR.
Tesla's FBI Files:
www.scribd.com...

Hover says the Property Master never got Tesla's effects.
June25, 1955
[edit on 12/17/2009 by TeslaandLyne]

[edit on 12/17/2009 by TeslaandLyne]



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 03:35 PM
link   
It's always the people who don't understand how technologies such as microchips and fiber optics work that have a hard time believing they were simply developed by man. Those technologies were not simply invented one day. They took many years to evolve.





top topics
 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join