It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by r00t999
Thanks for your reply and contribution.
Well, the publish-able/broadcastable technology was primitive, but AAT was initially "under the table".
True, only to mainstream technology that we've been told about.
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 ?
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 ?
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. :-)
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.
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".
Thanks for sharing your opinion.
I really appreciate that you take your time to think about the topic/subject/theory.edit on 1-2-2011 by r00t999 because: Add last line
Happy to be of serviceedit on 1-2-2011 by GeeGee because: (no reason given)extra DIV
Originally posted by GeeGee
I'm not denying that the military had their own black projects that were advanced for their time, but it's stretching the imagination to say they had craft that violated physical principles.
Right, but my point is that I very much doubt they have any aircraft that use exotic physics. Something like that is ridiculously hard to hide.
I haven't seen them myself, no. However, many credible witnesses including scientists, government officials and pilots have reported seeing objects that performed such maneuvers.
I think the best evidence for these kind of maneuvers is radar, though.
If you haven't already, I'd suggest taking a look at the 1952 white house UFO fly over case where one of the objects is shown to make a sharp 90 degree turn.
Another case is the Belgium UFO wave, where radar showed an object go from 0 to 500 MPH in 1 second. These objects may or may not be extraterrestrial, but I sure as hell don't think they're old human technology from the 40's.
Considering every military aircraft I've ever seen in my life, I'd say yes. Discs, spheres, and wingless triangles like those reported in certain UFO cases shouldn't be very aerodynamic according to the laws of physics.
Very hard for published theories...but AAT assumed that there are the un-revealed ones....
I'm not claiming that we understand everything or that we'll never find a way to generate gravity-like fields, but according to current theory it is very hard.
It is good to keep an open mind :-)
That may change tomorrow, in the next decade, the next century, or never. Only time will tell.
As for Robert Forward, he was a sci-fi author and a physicist. He was probably one of the first scientists to ever write a book about exotic propulsion, back in the 60's. He's definitely no quack, if that's what you're saying.
You misunderstand me. I'm not assuming they're ET. I'm only saying that a sufficiently advanced civilization could harness the kind of energy required for that kind of enormous engineering (the Forward anti-gravity device).
As you have seen, I am on the other side of the argument. :-) .
However, I'll say that the ET hypothesis is far more likely than human engineered craft with tech from the 40's. That doesn't mean it's ET, it's just more likely than the hypothesis being presented in this thread.
That doesn't mean it's ET,
You are more optimistic than me... I estimated 99.9%
Most (95%) UFO sightings are explainable by conventional means.
Originally posted by warbird03
reply to post by r00t999
AAT's would indeed need pilots of some kind, whether they're on-board or remote. Tesla may have been developing some kind of method of remote control, but that would mean there still would have to be a pilot on the ground somewhere nearby to be able to control the AAT because they would have to be able to see to control it.
Originally posted by warbird03
With the great distances the UFOs are have been seen to travel and the precision with which they do it, I don't see that as feasible.
Originally posted by warbird03
After all, they were at most using technology 20 years ahead, not 70 years ahead.
Originally posted by GeeGee
I haven't seen them myself, no. However, many credible witnesses including scientists, government officials and pilots have reported seeing objects that performed such maneuvers. I think the best evidence for these kind of maneuvers is radar, though. If you haven't already, I'd suggest taking a look at the 1952 white house UFO fly over case where one of the objects is shown to make a sharp 90 degree turn. Another case is the Belgium UFO wave, where radar showed an object go from 0 to 500 MPH in 1 second. These objects may or may not be extraterrestrial, but I sure as hell don't think they're old human technology from the 40's.
Originally posted by Erno86
rOOt999- Sorry, but I'm not falling for this hoakum. It just sounds like some spookdoom created B.S. created in the hall's of the CIA, using alot of smoke and mirrors + some fuzzy math thrown in.
If I'm wrong, I APOLOGIZE,
Erno
Originally posted by mbkennel
Originally posted by GeeGee
I haven't seen them myself, no. However, many credible witnesses including scientists, government officials and pilots have reported seeing objects that performed such maneuvers. I think the best evidence for these kind of maneuvers is radar, though. If you haven't already, I'd suggest taking a look at the 1952 white house UFO fly over case where one of the objects is shown to make a sharp 90 degree turn. Another case is the Belgium UFO wave, where radar showed an object go from 0 to 500 MPH in 1 second. These objects may or may not be extraterrestrial, but I sure as hell don't think they're old human technology from the 40's.
*cough*
The radar showed signals, which if interpreted as if it were a real object, going from 0 to 500 MPH in one second.
ECM is quite sophisticated, and is not limited to simple "jamming" (because modern military radars are resistant to simple jamming).
It is not always reasonable to assume that because a radar---especially a civilian radar---showed results which appeared to be X, that an actual object actually was doing X.
Originally posted by warbird03
Does anyone else find r00t999 kind of odd? Something about the way he responds seems odd to me. And he responds just to say "thanks for posting" and looks to be a nearly brand new account. I dunno, not trying to point fingers or anything.
Edit: Also, every single one of his posts is trying to tell people all UFOs are AATs, even his posts in the only thread he participated in that wasn't his (where he also linked his threads multiple times). Honestly, there's something fishy about this whole thing.edit on 1-2-2011 by warbird03 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Moonguy
reply to post by r00t999
UFO Phenomena has been documented since the Stone age.
Here are some historical sightings, and as you can see, it goes back almost 50.000 years.
Good luck with your story.. because thats all it is, a story...
edit on 2-2-2011 by Moonguy because: (no reason given)edit on 2-2-2011 by Moonguy because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by warbird03
A) One of the reasons that people have only recently begun looking at history and seeing these UFO events is that before that, most people's efforts were more towards survival than anything else. Only recently has education and study become more important.
Originally posted by warbird03
B) Humans have some great imaginations, but there are limits. Go ahead, try and imagine something that isn't inspired by something from reality. Pretty tough, isn't it?
Originally posted by warbird03
The ancient accounts of UFOs may not be 100% accurate from years and years of being told and retold, but they had to have been inspired by something.