Clarity about anti-grav, crashed UFO's and back-engineering., page 1
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times
Topic started on 29-3-2010 @ 10:58 AM by zatara
The purpose of this thread is to gain clarity about what is going on with, and the relation between anti-gravity and back-enigeering technology from crashed UFO's.

Just now I read a thread about anti-grav technology and the 'scientists' who 'discovered' it.

Personally I do not belief any of Hutchisons claims and doubt that any person on this planet has the anti-gravity tec. Why?

For one, (officially) we haven't started to understand gravity yet. That's why we needed to built the huge particle collider.

Another why...what are these huge silent running black triangles in the air at night. Owned by the US-army or little green men?....supposing that the witness accounts are true and real.

Why should it always be the americans who back-enigeneer UFO-tec? Why not the russians or chinese or dutch for that matter?

Using the argument that these other countries are too poor or too stupid knowing what to do with an crashed UFO is not flying.

So, why do these other countries not have these 'wunderwaffen' or 'wundertec'?

Is it that UFO's only crash in the USA? Or is there an US crash-retrieval team who can and will retrieve all UFO's all over the world.

Are these teams so swift and stealthy that no foreign intelligence agency and no army is able to beat them to be the first at the crash-site? Do not think so.

It just doesn't make any sense.

--There either are no UFO's and all the anti-grav tec is US made. Which means
that the science is understood and this whole LHC (huge expensive particle collider from CERN) experiment is not about understanding gravity.

-- All countries have (for some reason) an agreement that only the US is allowed to retrieve UFO's and does the US understand the science of it and is making all kinds of cool stuff with it.

-- The US-army can back-engineer but has no clue about the science of it

--The US-army has been given anti-gravity stuff from ET. No back-engineering.

--There is no relation and is it BS alltogether.


As you can see, I have difficulty to make the connection and wrap my mind around it. In my story there are some gaps and things that clash.

What did I miss, what are your thoughts about the relation between anti-grav tec, back-engineering and crashed UFO's?







[edit on 29-3-2010 by zatara]


reply posted on 29-3-2010 @ 12:03 PM by Arbitrageur
Originally posted by zatara
Another why...what are these huge silent running black triangles in the air at night. Owned by the US-army or little green men?....supposing that the witness accounts are true and real.


www.space.com...

They are big, black, and triangular. In UFO folklore they are proof-positive that planet Earth is a rest stop for joyriding, but road-weary, extraterrestrials.

A just released study by the National Institute for Discovery Science (NIDS), based in Las Vegas, Nevada, sheds new light on the dark and mysterious craft. They offer a more down-to-earth hypothesis.

NIDS researchers contend that these type vehicles are lighter-than-air, blimp-style craft of the U.S. military's making.


Credible scientists and researchers have some good ideas about what the silent black triangles may be, lighter than air craft. If it's lighter than air you might not hear any noisy propulsion system to keep it aloft.

Regarding antigravity and reverse engineering, we don't know the answers for sure, we can only speculate. Personally I doubt there's anything to reverse engineer other than war machines from other countries on earth.

Lazar told an interesting story of reverse engineering but starting with element 115, through lack of education records, etc, his story isn't credible.

If there was some secret alien craft to reverse engineer, I think it could go either way, meaning we might have success in reverse engineering or we might not. (I have an engineering background and have done some limited reverse engineering myself, but only of manmade stuff).

It depends on how far in advance the technology was to our own. To give you an example, take a quad core CPU, and travel back in time 100 years before the electron microscope was invented. It would be very difficult, probably impossible, to reverse engineer such a device with an optical microscope or any of the technology that existed at the time. Even if we were able to figure out what it was and how it was constructed, we wouldn't have had the technology yet to build our own copy of it. That could be analogous to the situation we would face if we were trying to reverse engineer advanced alien technology.

And that's only 100 years. An alien race could be 1000, or 1,000,000 years ahead of us.

[edit on 29-3-2010 by Arbitrageur]


reply posted on 29-3-2010 @ 12:36 PM by Bobbox1980
reply to post by Arbitrageur


That NIDS prepared study mentioned on space.com is hugely flawed.

The author of the study, L. Scott Miller, says:
Each sighting requires a great deal of analysis. A witness's perceptions of speed, acceleration, and size are likely of very little value... I have taken an approach of first identifying needs -- or mission requirements -- and technology availability. Then I compare those with the cold raw, simple facts of a sighting, not the conjecture or guess work of a witness


The quintessential black flying triangle sighting is the Belgium Incident of 1989-1990. Internos made a post on this in Karl 12's thread UFO Flight Characteristics ~ Right Angle Turns.

Radar return data from ground stations as well as Belgium Airforce F16s that were scrambled to go after the flying triangle were released by Belgium. The data shows the craft taking evasive maneuvers when the F16s tried to get radar locks. Evasive maneuvers that include accelerating the craft at 46g dropping from 3km altitude down to 1.2km in 2 seconds.

No mainstream accepted physics theories could account for such acceleration forces being survivable by the crew aboard the craft. Nor could electrokinetics propel these craft at such high acceleration speeds.


I do have my own beliefs on how these craft are propelled, Extended Heim Theory's additional fundamental forces creating gravitational force and expansion force photons on the micro level, and the alcubierre warp drive effect of having contractions in spacetime at the front of the craft and expansions in spacetime at the back of the craft on a macro level.


It is too bad the Belgium Incident was ignored in this article on the black flying triangles, it would have demolished the conclusions of their study.


reply posted on 29-3-2010 @ 12:39 PM by Kandinsky
reply to post by zatara
Good questions, but almost impossible to find definitive answers. It's the mystery of UFOs and you're asking for solutions...we've (publicly) had no answers in 70 years.


Personally I do not belief any of Hutchisons claims and doubt that any person on this planet has the anti-gravity tec.


I agree, Hutchison's claims aren't credible. The basic equipment is available in good high school labs...he can claim 'suppression,' but his experiments aren't repeatable. This has led to the accusations of faked videos.



Another why...what are these huge silent running black triangles in the air at night. Owned by the US-army or little green men?....supposing that the witness accounts are true and real.


As Arbitrageur notes, they are more than likely US tech...dirigibles/airships. Questions remain in my mind, but are generated by the accounts of witnesses and who's to say how accurate the accounts are? If *some* accounts are credible, I wonder how a vast airship can maintain stability at speed in inclement weather?



Is it that UFO's only crash in the USA? Or is there an US crash-retrieval team who can and will retrieve all UFO's all over the world. Are these teams so swift and stealthy that no foreign intelligence agency and no army is able to beat them to be the first at the crash-site? Do not think so.


Yeah, it's hard to get a grasp of this question...many have tried. It supports the idea that some aspect of US forces are generating the 'UFO crash' for a reason we can't yet define. The US focus for these accounts leads to even more questions imo.



There either are no UFO's and all the anti-grav tec is US made. Which means that the science is understood and this whole LHC (huge expensive particle collider from CERN) experiment is not about understanding gravity.


Maybe there isn't a functional anti-grav tech? There are many papers available to the public that explore the possibility without making the theory practical. Perhaps the accounts are seeded to give the impression that it exists? None of the technology we see in action in the Middle-East and Afghanistan suggests anti-grav tech. Look at UAVs...

I don't usually post a fiskesque reply, but the OP is interesting. Now and then, I mull over the same questions and they lead to more questions. The UFO mystery could be designed to remain a mystery...knowing why is inevitably out of our reach.


reply posted on 29-3-2010 @ 12:46 PM by Arbitrageur
Originally posted by Bobbox1980
reply to post by Arbitrageur


That NIDS prepared study mentioned on space.com is hugely flawed.

The author of the study, L. Scott Miller, says:
Each sighting requires a great deal of analysis. A witness's perceptions of speed, acceleration, and size are likely of very little value... I have taken an approach of first identifying needs -- or mission requirements -- and technology availability. Then I compare those with the cold raw, simple facts of a sighting, not the conjecture or guess work of a witness


The quintessential black flying triangle sighting is the Belgium Incident of 1989-1990. Internos made a post on this in Karl 12's thread UFO Flight Characteristics ~ Right Angle Turns.


The NIDS study doesn't mention the Belgium sighting, does it? So how does showing the Belgium sighting may have been something else show the study is flawed? It doesn't.

Thestealthblimp.com site lists a few possibilities www.thestealthblimp.com... :

America West Airlines Flight 564 sighting
Arizona Lights Sighting
The Lebanon, Illinois Sighting
The Tinley Park Lights
The Stephenville Texas Sighting

Though they also listed the Guernsey sighting and I think they missed the boat on that one as it seems more like an atmospheric phenomenon to me.

They don't mention the Belgium sightings either.



reply posted on 29-3-2010 @ 01:03 PM by Bobbox1980
reply to post by Arbitrageur


The NIDS study doesn't mention the Belgium sighting, does it? So how does showing the Belgium sighting may have been something else show the study is flawed? It doesn't.


Look, I am not saying the U.S. government doesn't have flying airships in its inventory, it may in fact have such vessels.

The title of the space.com article was: Investigation Casts Light on the Mysterious Flying Black Triangle

What I am saying is that to label the black flying triangle phenomenon airships with conventional technological capabilities is to completely ignore the Belgium Incident, a UFO incident with more facts and evidence than just about any other recorded UFO sighting, a sighting that demonstrates black flying triangles having far greater propulsion capabilities than what is stated in this study.

I guess I just get irked by articles like the space.com one because it will limit readers' thinking. It will get the unenlightened reader to assume there is nothing to see here, they're just blimps, and move along when the Belgium Incident would peak the unenlightened reader's curiosity.

Considering the study was done by a government organization, NIDS, and the conclusion they came up with, I can't help but think there is a disinformation or useful idiot slant to the study, that it is trying to force fit black flying triangle sightings into the airship category.

The Belgium Incident shows there is far more to the story than airships.


reply posted on 29-3-2010 @ 01:28 PM by Kandinsky
reply to post by Bobbox1980
The NIDS study wasn't a government outfit. They were a group of researchers financed by Bigelow. The Belgian Triangle sightings and UFO wave reports are fascinating reading, however many aspects are open to debate. It's always the way...point and counterpoint.


* Point

The So-Called “Belgian Ufo Wave” – A Critical View

* Counterpoint

A critique of :SkepticReport * The So-Called "Belgian Ufo Wave" A Critical View by Marc Hallet by Jerry Cohen




reply posted on 29-3-2010 @ 02:11 PM by Bobbox1980
reply to post by Kandinsky


The NIDS study wasn't a government outfit. They were a group of researchers financed by Bigelow.


Ok, noted, but I don't think it changes anything. Bigelow is a defense contractor, a part of the Military Industrial Complex. Do you honestly think they are going to support a study revealing highly classified military technology? I do not, I think they are completely biased and would have a lot to lose.

The critical view you linked to is full of holes. Instead of focusing on the real hard evidence, the meat and potatoes, the author continually brings up peripheral and loosely to unrelated details of the incident, debunking those details.

The only meat and potatoes part of the incident he focuses on is the radar return data and he only glibly addresses it as if it doesn't deserve the lion's share of attention in his critique. Most of his critique consists of attacks on people and groups who are in support of the incident involving a real physical craft.

The Belgium Air Force did not come to the conclusion that their radar data and sightings on the ground were a result of meteorological phenomenon yet that is the line that author tried to pull. He is either a useful idiot or a disinformation agent.

People with a well developed BS filter can see what is important and what is not. Almost none of Marc Hallet's critique is important, the only important part is when he addresses the radar data and he barely touches on it with mere unsubstantiated speculation that the weather was somehow the cause of the radar data.

Since the Belgium Air Force never came out and stated that their radar equipment was faulty or having problems I cannot at all support the speculation of faulty equipment along with weather phenomenon being the cause.


Debate clubs are centered around the idea of 2 groups debating an issue from different sides. That does not mean one of the sides has to be valid whatsoever.

Yes you will run into people critiquing just about everything but if you have a well developed BS filter, it becomes fairly easy to tell if their critique has any validity behind it or not.


reply posted on 29-3-2010 @ 02:44 PM by Kandinsky
reply to post by Bobbox1980

Debate clubs are centered around the idea of 2 groups debating an issue from different sides. That does not mean one of the sides has to be valid whatsoever. Yes you will run into people critiquing just about everything but if you have a well developed BS filter, it becomes fairly easy to tell if their critique has any validity behind it or not.


My BS filter is overworked and still firing on all cylinders. I posted two links that discuss the Belgian UFO Wave from conflicting positions...did you read both?
Pages:     ^^TOP^^