Are UFOs just Alternative Aviation Technology (AAT) ?

reply to post by r00t999


What will you accept as undisputable evidence if photos aren't good enough? People will always find something disputable about evidence.

However, you're the one making the claim here. You're the one who needs to back it up.

Originally posted by schuyler
No. You claimed this was a single craft in testing. If there were a fleet of none of them up there, they would be a deployed squadron that had been around awhile.

Thanks for your reply.

1. When I said 1 instead of 9, perhaps I was only telling a partial truth....think about that.

2nd sentence: Don't quite understand exactly what you mean. If you mean sightings before 1947..as I mentioned, AAT's already available. But NI-11 needed not fabricate Roswell's ET before 1947 because incidents were not widely publicized...that's why I said..."Very Unfortunately for...."

Originally posted by warbird03
reply to post by r00t999

 

What will you accept as undisputable evidence if photos aren't good enough? People will always find something disputable about evidence.

However, you're the one making the claim here. You're the one who needs to back it up.

edit on 31-1-2011 by warbird03 because: (no reason given)

Thanks for your reply.

Please show me and fellow ATSers the most trustworthy photo.

Originally posted by r00t999
AAT [Alternative Aviation Technology ] Theory:

The technology has been under development since Nicholas Tesla.

Instead of assuming the UFO/UFOs are ET technology, it is a technology being developed by a group of people (sometimes working with US militaries, but not in US government) called NI-11.

Different forms/shapes of AAT aircraft have been developed by NI-11. (Neo-Aviation Intelligence)

Hi r00t999, do you really think that if those UFOs are a technology being developed by a group of people who sometimes did work with US militaries, the US Air Force would nevertheless have given orders to pilots to shoot them down?

On July 29, 1952, International News Service (INS) announced that the Air Force had ordered its jets to shoot down any flying saucers.

www.roswellproof.com...

And why do you think those AAT crafts are so dangerously messing around with nuclear weapons?

Witness testimony from more than 120 former or retired military personnel points to an ongoing and alarming intervention by unidentified aerial objects at nuclear weapons sites, as recently as 2003.
In some cases, several nuclear missiles simultaneously and inexplicably malfunctioned while a disc-shaped object silently hovered nearby.
Six former U.S. Air Force officers and one former enlisted man will break their silence about these events at the National Press Club and urge the government to publicly confirm their reality.

www.ufodigest.com...

Then the following, can you show me information or some links to where I can find it that proofs that UFOs are just Alternative Aviation Technology (AAT)?

reply to post by r00t999


You may want to look at this thread. The photo hasn't been debunked yet to my knowledge. It's from 1870, while the first actual airships weren't used until about 30 years later. That also leads into the string of unexplained "airship" sightings in 1896-97, still before we were using airships. I'll let you do your own research on that one though.

P.S. Still waiting on sources or any proof at all for your theory.

Are UFOs just Alternative Aviation Technology (AAT) ?

Absolutely yes!

And "they" still test this kind of Flying Objects above planet Earth in all the solar system and beyond the deep space from millennia!

The real question is: who are "they"?

According to the theory, they are already flying missions after missions.

My point is, if they were "testing" this tech in the 40's, then it would be production (and public) within the 60's (and obsolete by now).... You can only fly top secret aircraft around so much before it's public. Just look at the history of aviation, and you'll see. (as well as seeing how it was always known before the official announcements).

Just one of many places where the theory falls apart. The Arnold sighting mentioned earlier (and 9 craft) is another biggie.

The idea that we had craft capable of the feats ascribed to UFOs, back in the 40's, is just ludicrous, as we'd have far better now, over half a century later, (and publicly), and we don't.

Originally posted by r00t999
1. When I said 1 instead of 9, perhaps I was only telling a partial truth....think about that.

You mean you lied? That doesn't bode well for your theory either. You appear to be adjusting your theory based on facts that come to light. That's backwards. You ought to be formulating a theory based on facts you have already found. That also begs the question of your idea of a test flight. If there was a whole squadron of these things flying around, that tells you right there that they entered production mode years ago. If you saw a squadron of nine F-18s fly overhead in formation, would you conclude they were involved in a test flight? Of course not. You would conclude that they were operational. It means an entire infrastructure of training and maintenance was in place to support them. It takes a year of school to learn to fly any modern military airframe.

The fact that some of our craft may have been mistaken for UFOs is not new. It's even acknowledged, as in the case of the SR-71. I happen to suspect that the triangles are our craft, though I can't prove it. That doesn't mean I can reason from the specific to the general. Just because SOME of our craft have been mistaken for UFOs does not mean that ALL UFOs are our craft. Once again, that's looking at it backwards.

Sorry, but your theory is not supported by the facts and hanging your theory to fit the facts after the fact is highly suspicious. I would even dare to call it "cheating." (If you want a milder term, that's fine, too. I just can't think of one now.) Bottom line is you'll have to do a much better job backing up your theory in order for it to be taken seriously.

I'm done here. Thanks for the exercise.

Originally posted by warbird03
reply to post by r00t999

 

What will you accept as undisputable evidence if photos aren't good enough? People will always find something disputable about evidence.

However, you're the one making the claim here. You're the one who needs to back it up.

edit on 31-1-2011 by warbird03 because: (no reason given)

This is what I don't like about ATS.

You admit that no evidence is indisputable, right? But then say anyone who makes claims has to back it up. Then you can just dispute any evidence anyway, as you said.

You have to balance evidence and weigh up possibilities or your quest is pointless. Do you want to spend the rest of your life demanding the impossible from one another and getting a sense of satisfaction when the impossible proof never appears. You have to demand the possible for a healthy investigation or analysis.

It also helps the balancing/weighing process if the argument itself is balanced, which means both sides of a debate produce evidence. Yes claims need evidence. However, a counter claim is by definition a claim as well and requires evidence or has to be weaker than the original claim.

Anybody can just say, "no it isn't," then, "but I don't need any evidence because you've already made a claim." Well sorry, if you want a strong case then you need evidence, whichever side of the debate you are on.

OK, rant over. Sorry warbird03, that was not really aimed at you, your little debate just triggered the rant.

reply to post by Pimander


I agree with pretty much everything you said there. However, he's saying that every UFO account before Roswell or possibly Tesla is completely made up. That's a pretty huge claim which he then doesn't even try to provide evidence for.

Originally posted by warbird03
However, he's saying that every UFO account before Roswell or possibly Tesla is completely made up. That's a pretty huge claim which he then doesn't even try to provide evidence for.

Sorry mate, I just needed to get that out of my system. It gets like that occasionally.

You're right of course, that can't slide. For this theory to gain ground, we need evidence that they are made up. What about the Foo-fighters?

Here's my thoughts on why the "AAT" or "top secret black projects" argument is faulty/illogical:

Now, what we've learned over the past 60 years about what some would consider genuine, unexplained UFO cases that give even some scientists the willies, is that these objects are highly maneuverable and some seem to make high g right angle turns or accelerate at impossible velocities. Some of these cases have been caught on radar or witnessed up front.

Far as we can tell, these kind of events have been happening since at least the 40's. If you understand how primitive our technology was back then, then you understand why it is highly unlikely that we could ever develop a craft capable of those maneuvers. And remember, drones didn't exist during that time. Craft were flown by humans. The inertial forces of a right angle turn at high g's would turn a pilot into mashed potatoes.

To believe that we had the technology (and science) to cancel inertial forces & make high-g 90 degree turns at a time when most of the world, including the United States & Germany (the most technologically advanced countries at the time) were using planes with propellers is quite humorous.

Ask any scientist if they think it is plausible that the government or other world governments would be capable of keeping the science of anti-gravity a secret. They would all laugh, because they know that while the military complex has technology some ~20 years in advanced of mainstream technology (which operates on conventional physical principles, just a bit more advanced engineering wise) they know that actually keeping the science of something like this, that requires knowledge of exotic physics that has been studied quite rigorously in the physics literature is to say the least, highly unlikely. Anti-gravity has been studied exhaustively since the 60's, and while it may be theoretically possible to create such a device that doesn't violate physical principles as shown by Robert Forward during this time, it would require an enormous amount of energy that is just not doable with current technology. A sufficiently advanced civilization may be capable of building such a thing. I would suggest anyone interested in a scientist's take on the idea of anti-gravity being kept a secret should listen to the 2009 interview of a James F. Woodward on TheSpaceShow. He explains why it's very unlikely something like this could happen, without being dismissive or scoffing at the idea.

If you want to argue that UFOs are black projects, then that is a bigger can of worms than the extraterrestrial hypothesis. The idea that the government could keep the science of something that requires mastery of some as of yet undiscovered exotic physics for over 60 years and has still alluded every single well educated mainstream physicist to date is sorry to say, ridiculous.

The ET hypothesis may or may not be the right explanation for some of these cases, but one thing is for certain: it's a hell of a lot more likely than human-engineered craft with technology from the 40's. But that's just my opinion.

Another thing to consider is that aircraft such as the F-22 have the on-board computer restrict performance slightly so the pilot can't accidently crush himself. If we don't have the technology to counter that, then how are we supposed to have craft such as the ones you describe back in 1947? We certainly didn't have the ability to control them remotely 60 years ago.

Let's assume the technology did exist back then for a moment. How about human reaction time? Pilot's reflexes are already pushed to the limit in regular combat aircraft. It would be insanely difficult to pilot one of these "AATs", let alone through a remote connection where there will be a delay. There would be a huge number of crashes from these things if they were used at anything but high-altitude where they would have time to react and correct.

Thanks for your reply

Originally posted by spacevisitor
Hi r00t999, do you really think that if those UFOs are a technology being developed by a group of people who sometimes did work with US militaries, the US Air Force would nevertheless have given orders to pilots to shoot them down?

Similar events (real or not real) like this could just be a part of the smoke screen by US military help covering-up for NI-11 towards the public.

Originally posted by spacevisitor
And why do you think those AAT crafts are so dangerously messing around with nuclear weapons?

It is possible that NI-11 is associated with CND, but in what capacity, outsider will not know.

Originally posted by spacevisitor
Then the following, can you show me information or some links to where I can find it that proofs that UFOs are just Alternative Aviation Technology (AAT)?

Just a thought, AATs may sound more feasible that ETs visits....

Out of "thousands" of more trustworthy "evidences", we still haven't capture any footage PLUS artifacts that demonstrate an ET has come out from a landed craft.

Do you actually think that you can find sources on the Internet regarding NI-11 ?

Originally posted by warbird03
reply to post by r00t999

 

You may want to look at this thread. The photo hasn't been debunked yet to my knowledge. It's from 1870, while the first actual airships weren't used until about 30 years later. That also leads into the string of unexplained "airship" sightings in 1896-97, still before we were using airships. I'll let you do your own research on that one though.

P.S. Still waiting on sources or any proof at all for your theory.

Many thanks for your contribution.

1. I hope this is not double exposure / superimposed image
2. Is the object just "floating" instead of really flying ?
3. From that distance, it is really difficult to determine whether it is a kite or not. One can easily misled to think that this object is flying on the mountain top...just a illusion.
3. Assme the photo is real, has the actual paper of the photo been forensic proven ? It could well be that the photo was taken much more later than 1870, but the story was associated with 1870.
4. Is the claim of 1870 real ? Assume the whole event is real, but did it really take place at 1870 ?
5. Assume the whole event is real, would this be just one of the prototypes that NI-11's predecssors were working on before Tesla was involved ?

NI-11's predecessors: also worked in AATs, but obviously less mature than what we currently have.

Originally posted by Arken

And "they" still test this kind of Flying Objects above planet Earth in all the solar system and beyond the deep space from millennia!

Thanks for your reply.

The so-called footage captured at space-stations e.g. flashes or light/objects, some appear to be "flying-in-a-straight" line...but think about Newton's First Law in outer space, they may be just "floating"..they may be just trashes dumped from previous space missions.

Originally posted by Gazrok
My point is, if they were "testing" this tech in the 40's, then it would be production (and public) within the 60's (and obsolete by now)....

That's why we see more of those today :-)

Originally posted by Gazrok
You can only fly top secret aircraft around so much before it's public. Just look at the history of aviation, and you'll see. (as well as seeing how it was always known before the official announcements).

This is true for "mainstream" aviation. But AAT is never mainstream and intended to remain that way.
Think about this: initally NI-11 and US government only wants you to see the "Wright Brothers/glider" type technology as the "only technology" and keep AAT "under the table". Inception...:-)

Just one of many places where the theory falls apart. The Arnold sighting mentioned earlier (and 9 craft) is another biggie.

As already mentioned....the theory only told the partial truth: 1 instead of 9. Actually, the figure is not the essense of the theory...feasibility of the theory is much more important.

The idea that we had craft capable of the feats ascribed to UFOs, back in the 40's, is just ludicrous, as we'd have far better now, over half a century later, (and publicly), and we don't.

As mentioned, This is true for "mainstream" aviation. But AAT is never mainstream ....
We were just implanted/"incepted" by the idea that "Wright Brothers/glider" type technology is the only anti-gravity technology initially by the US government.

Thanks for your reply.

Originally posted by schuyler
You appear to be adjusting your theory based on facts that come to light. That's backwards.

This is also the way how believing UFOlogists work, right ?

Originally posted by schuyler
That also begs the question of your idea of a test flight. If there was a whole squadron of these things flying around, that tells you right there that they entered production mode years ago. If you saw a squadron of nine F-18s fly overhead in formation, would you conclude they were involved in a test flight? Of course not. You would conclude that they were operational.

1. Did I say that every single AAT sighting is a "test flight" ? IMHO, some of them has already been in production. The Arnold sighting was a "Very Unfortunate" test flight, but it is possible that there were actual missions involved with not so advanced AATs involved during 1947.

Post-1947: both test flights of newer shapes AATs and real missions of older shapes AATs exist alongside each other. I hope fellow ATSers understand what I mean.

2. Note: we have not proven any pilots coming out from a UFO yet (undisputable even to scientific forensics), perhaps these are just probes/fully-automatic crafts.

In short: Do not assume that there must be an ET pilot in a UFO.

Hence, training of pilots are irrelevant.

Originally posted by schuyler
Just because SOME of our craft have been mistaken for UFOs does not mean that ALL UFOs are our craft. Once again, that's looking at it backwards. ...

theory is not supported by the facts and hanging your theory to fit the facts after the fact is highly suspicious...

Good points, actually. This reasoning can also apply to UFOs are "ALL ET technology". But there is a difference here: which is more feasible: AATs / ETs ?

Thanks for your reply and contribution.

Originally posted by GeeGee
If you understand how primitive our technology was back then, then you understand why it is highly unlikely that we could ever develop a craft capable of those maneuvers.

Well, the publish-able/broadcastable technology was primitive, but AAT was initially "under the table".

Originally posted by GeeGee
And remember, drones didn't exist during that time. Craft were flown by humans. The inertial forces of a right angle turn at high g's would turn a pilot into mashed potatoes.

True, only to mainstream technology that we've been told about.

Originally posted by GeeGee
To believe that we had the technology (and science) to cancel inertial forces & make high-g 90 degree turns at a time when most of the world, including the United States & Germany (the most technologically advanced countries at the time) were using planes with propellers is quite humorous.

Have we captured such footages during 1940s ? Have you seen a UFO doing high-g 90 degree turns in 1940s ? Did I say AATs were capable of doing high-g 90 degree in 1940s ?

Originally posted by GeeGee
Ask any scientist if they think it is plausible that the government or other world governments would be capable of keeping the science of anti-gravity a secret. They would all laugh, because they know that while the military complex has technology some ~20 years in advanced of mainstream technology (which operates on conventional physical principles, just a bit more advanced engineering wise) they know that actually keeping the science of something like this, that requires knowledge of exotic physics that has been studied quite rigorously in the physics literature is to say the least, highly unlikely.

Mainstream physics worked / "are convinced/"incepted" to work" on conventional rotor-based / wing-based aerodynamic systems. It is quite normal for them to conclude that UFO-type technology will not work. But are rotor-based / wing-based the only alternative ?

Anti-gravity has been studied exhaustively since the 60's, and while it may be theoretically possible to create such a device that doesn't violate physical principles as shown by Robert Forward during this time,
it would require an enormous amount of energy that is just not doable with current technology.

Perhaps it is not as difficult as one may thought ? Even General Relativity needs refining. right ? :-)
Also, your reference: how trustworthy is it ? I hope it is not pseudoscience. :-)

A sufficiently advanced civilization may be capable of building such a thing.

Take care, you may have fallen to the trap of Assumption of Ignorance : www.youtube.com... Credit: Neil Tyson and St. Petersburg College

Jumping to Anti-gravitiy technology to ETs is such assumption.

If you want to argue that UFOs are black projects, then that is a bigger can of worms than the extraterrestrial hypothesis. The idea that the government could keep the science of something that requires mastery of some as of yet undiscovered exotic physics for over 60 years and has still alluded every single well educated mainstream physicist to date is sorry to say, ridiculous.

As mentioned earlier, scientists worked / "are convinced/"incepted" to work" on conventional rotor-based / wing-based aerodynamic systems. This is in the mainstream education program. Mainstream scientists denial to AATs actually helps to keep AATs "under the cover".

The ET hypothesis may or may not be the right explanation for some of these cases, but one thing is for certain: it's a hell of a lot more likely than human-engineered craft with technology from the 40's. But that's just my opinion

Thanks for sharing your opinion.

I really appreciate that you take your time to think about the topic/subject/theory.

Thanks for your reply.

Originally posted by warbird03
Another thing to consider is that aircraft such as the F-22 have the on-board computer restrict performance slightly so the pilot can't accidently crush himself. If we don't have the technology to counter that, then how are we supposed to have craft such as the ones you describe back in 1947? We certainly didn't have the ability to control them remotely 60 years ago.

True for conventional winged-based technology. Remote control technology : well who knows ? Can someone confirm this : "One of the earliest examples of remote control was developed in 1898 by Nikola Tesla" ?

Originally posted by warbird03
Let's assume the technology did exist back then for a moment. How about human reaction time? Pilot's reflexes are already pushed to the limit in regular combat aircraft. It would be insanely difficult to pilot one of these "AATs", let alone through a remote connection where there will be a delay. There would be a huge number of crashes from these things if they were used at anything but high-altitude where they would have time to react and correct.

Does AATs really require pilots ??
Don't take too much assumptions : AATs must have pilots..OR.AATs don't have pilots...(*)
It is possible that some cases have and some cases haven't...Fellow ATSers.."eat your heart out" (**)

(*) But, nevertheless, I really appreciate that you take your time to think about the topic/subject/theory.

(**) : I may have got the wrong "expression". What I mean literally is : you can derive your explanations to individual cases :-)