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.

 

Are UFOs just Alternative Aviation Technology (AAT) ?

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by r00t999
 



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


Or because there are:
1) more aircraft in the sky
2) more people walking around with cameras
3) more widespread means of getting news of such sightings
etc., etc.



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...:-)


My point, is that the PURPOSE of secret testing is to eventually lead to a PRODUCTION craft. Your assertion is that they never put these craft into public production and usage, and that is completely contrary to military thinking. I've grown up around the industry all my life, and this idea just doesn't jive with the way they do things.


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.


If you are asserting that Arnold saw a test prototype, then it's extremely important that he saw NINE craft, as it is unheard of to be having formation flights of a testbed prototype.


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.


The point is, even the most advanced tech (see the history of stealth, for examle) eventually goes public, as you can't USE the technology without revealing it. (first, the enemy learns about it....then the tech insiders...then finally, the public). Your theory relies on the idea of a completely separate line of technological prowess and advancement, that when considered, it would seem ludicrous for the military to spend millions on things like developing stealth, etc. if these other technologies were available (even if secret). It's self-defeating.




posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Gazrok
 


Another thing to add is besides money, the sheer number of people that would be required to develop something like this and make make it operational and then maintain it would be huge. It would most likely be a far bigger number than they could dispose of quietly. Even if they did get rid of the people who knew about it, they would be throwing away so many years of experience and would have to spend even more time training new people. There's just no way they could keep something like it this quiet for this long.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 12:49 PM
link   

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.
(snip)
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.

There have been craft that seem to have violated physics (or they seemed to be craft in any case). We are more or less certain of that. However if they exist, they cannot have violated any law.

I disagree that a black project craft using exotic physics would be that hard to hide. But for that many years? That really is stretching it, unless it's surprisingly simple to construct and not many need to be in on it then I'd say no way. We shouldn't judge all technology by rocket science standards though. We are talking completely new (to most) science, that may simplify matters not make them more complex.

The fact that these seem to exist means that they need explaining. It could be trans dimensional in nature, E.T. or trans-dimensional technology. Take your pick.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Pimander
 


While it's true that any craft wouldn't be able to defy laws of physics, they could certainly defy laws of physics as we understand them. Our understanding of physics is far from complete or perfect.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 11:16 PM
link   
Thanks for your reply


Originally posted by Gazrok

My point, is that the PURPOSE of secret testing is to eventually lead to a PRODUCTION craft. Your assertion is that they never put these craft into public production and usage, and that is completely contrary to military thinking.

Did I say "they never put these craft into public production and usage" ??
I mentioned missions in my post, right ?



If you are asserting that Arnold saw a test prototype, then it's extremely important that he saw NINE craft, as it is unheard of to be having formation flights of a testbed prototype.

Unheard of in conventional airshows with conventional technologiies, but AATs are not conventional.



The point is, even the most advanced tech (see the history of stealth, for examle) eventually goes public, as you can't USE the technology without revealing it. (first, the enemy learns about it....then the tech insiders...then finally, the public). Your theory relies on the idea of a completely separate line of technological prowess and advancement, that when considered, it would seem ludicrous for the military to spend millions on things like developing stealth, etc. if these other technologies were available (even if secret). It's self-defeating.

It is heard of that there are Black-Ops funded by the military budget.
Perhaps part of the military budget has gone to NI-11.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 11:21 PM
link   
Thanks for your reply.


Originally posted by warbird03
reply to post by Gazrok
 


Another thing to add is besides money, the sheer number of people that would be required to develop something like this and make make it operational and then maintain it would be huge. It would most likely be a far bigger number than they could dispose of quietly. Even if they did get rid of the people who knew about it, they would be throwing away so many years of experience and would have to spend even more time training new people. There's just no way they could keep something like it this quiet for this long.


On the contrary, NI-11, who acquired AAT, is only a very small group of "elite".
It takes a lot more people to manufacture conventional aircrafts.
There is a saying: "It is easy when you know how".



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 11:30 PM
link   
Thanks for your reply.


Originally posted by Pimander
I disagree that a black project craft using exotic physics would be that hard to hide. But for that many years? That really is stretching it, unless it's surprisingly simple to construct and not many need to be in on it then I'd say no way.


"hard to hide" : Perhaps we have been looking in the wrong places with our understanding of published-only technologies.

"unless it's surprisingly simple to construct " : Perhaps it is not as difficult as one may have thought.

Lastly, for the time being, AAT theory would prefer to leave extraterrestrials out of the equation

edit on 3-2-2011 by r00t999 because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-2-2011 by r00t999 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pimander

There have been craft that seem to have violated physics (or they seemed to be craft in any case). We are more or less certain of that. However if they exist, they cannot have violated any law.


I recognize that, but the point I was trying to make is that if any object seems to be breaking the laws of physics, then it is very likely not technology that we possess for the mere fact that our understanding of nature does not allow such things to be built. On the other hand, an advanced alien civilization that is countless years ahead of us in terms of their understanding of physics would have technology that seems like magic to us. That doesn't necessarily mean it is an alien craft, but it's a possibility. It could also just be unexplained natural phenomena.


I disagree that a black project craft using exotic physics would be that hard to hide. But for that many years? That really is stretching it, unless it's surprisingly simple to construct and not many need to be in on it then I'd say no way. We shouldn't judge all technology by rocket science standards though. We are talking completely new (to most) science, that may simplify matters not make them more complex.


Which is why I find the idea illogical. Black projects get declassified after ~20 years. I have not seen one commercial promoting an anti-gravity craft in the last 60 years.




The fact that these seem to exist means that they need explaining. It could be trans dimensional in nature, E.T. or trans-dimensional technology. Take your pick.


I agree. They do need an explanation. However, I prefer not to jump to conclusions without sufficient evidence.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 01:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by r00t999
Lastly, for the time being, AAT theory would prefer to leave extraterrestrials out of the equation

edit on 3-2-2011 by r00t999 because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-2-2011 by r00t999 because: (no reason given)

I was hinting that a minority of unexplained UFO reports may be E.T. However, I suspect most modern ones are more not and AAT is certainly a possible explanation for modern ones.
edit on 4/2/11 by Pimander because: typo



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 03:06 AM
link   
I believe that many UFO sightings are so called black projects as ufo shaped boomerang craft was reported in the late 70s through to the 80s and what did we end up with? yep the stealth bomber and fighter


Theres an old saying 80% are miss id and weather anoms, 15% are ours and the 5% are thiers/ET



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by r00t999
 


I didn't say anything about constructing the craft in the first place; I mentioned maintaining the craft. No matter what, there has to be people maintaining them. If there's quite a few, as you seem to have changed your story to, then there would have to be a large number of people dedicated to maintaining them. It doesn't matter if they're "just for the elite" or any other nonsense. The craft would still have to be taken care of, not to mention all the personel of whatever base they would be stationed on. That would be another large number of people that would know about their existence. What's your next claim going to be, that they don't require maintenance?

Oh right, they're "unconventional." Really getting tired of that excure, you use it for everything you don't have an answer for.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 10:21 AM
link   
Thanks for your reply.


Originally posted by warbird03
reply to post by r00t999
 


I didn't say anything about constructing the craft in the first place; I mentioned maintaining the craft. No matter what, there has to be people maintaining them. If there's quite a few, as you seem to have changed your story to, then there would have to be a large number of people dedicated to maintaining them.

When did I "change my story" ? I would like to know.
I have always maintain the theory that NI-11 has a few "elite" ? When did I say that they were a large number of people ??



It doesn't matter if they're "just for the elite" or any other nonsense. The craft would still have to be taken care of, not to mention all the personel of whatever base they would be stationed on. That would be another large number of people that would know about their existence. What's your next claim going to be, that they don't require maintenance?

They do require maintenance, but the effort of maintenaning may not be as much as one's thought.
They did not require larger hangars like 747s.
"Motherships"? Well, has one been landed ? Visual estimate of size can be illusions.


Originally posted by warbird03
Oh right, they're "unconventional." Really getting tired of that excure, you use it for everything you don't have an answer for.

Well, if they are conventional , then they are the Identified Flying Objects



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 10:28 AM
link   
Thanks for your reply.


Originally posted by Bob Down Under
I believe that many UFO sightings are so called black projects as ufo shaped boomerang craft was reported in the late 70s through to the 80s and what did we end up with? yep the stealth bomber and fighter


Theres an old saying 80% are miss id and weather anoms, 15% are ours and the 5% are thiers/ET


How can we be sure that 5% are ET owned ?
We haven't seen any ET coming out from an UFO yet, have we ? Apart from some New Age (?) stories...

Think about this:
No. of "real" UFO footage: believers will claim hundreds/thousands...
Out of of these "hundreds/thousands..." ..how many has an ET coming out from the UFO ? 0
All we have is ET stories associated with UFO footages...not real proofs, IMHO.
edit on 4-2-2011 by r00t999 because: grammar



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by r00t999
 


You've changed your theory more than once, but the one that's been pointed out a few times is the number of craft you talked about.

I said nothing about hangar size, as that does not correlate to the maintenance required. Any military aircraft requires a huge amount of maintenance for everything from the propulsion system to the electronics to the weapons. And what do motherships have to do with it? Did I mention motherships at all? No, I didn't.

Being a conventional aircraft does not automatically make them identified. To be an identified flying object people have to, well, identify them. Take a look at the F-117 and the B-2. They were spotted as Unidentified Flying Objects many times before their official public declassification, but they were "conventional" aircraft.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by r00t999
Thanks for your reply.


Originally posted by Bob Down Under
I believe that many UFO sightings are so called black projects as ufo shaped boomerang craft was reported in the late 70s through to the 80s and what did we end up with? yep the stealth bomber and fighter


Theres an old saying 80% are miss id and weather anoms, 15% are ours and the 5% are thiers/ET


How can we be sure that 5% are ET owned ?
We haven't seen any ET coming out from an UFO yet, have we ? Apart from some New Age (?) stories...

Think about this:
No. of "real" UFO footage: believers will claim hundreds/thousands...
Out of of these "hundreds/thousands..." ..how many has an ET coming out from the UFO ? 0
All we have is ET stories associated with UFO footages...not real proofs, IMHO.
edit on 4-2-2011 by r00t999 because: grammar


Oh, you want to talk about proof? Let's start with yours. Where is it?



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 10:57 AM
link   
Thanks for your reply.


Originally posted by warbird03
reply to post by r00t999
 


You've changed your theory more than once, but the one that's been pointed out a few times is the number of craft you talked about.


OK, I admitted I made a mistake when I quoted the number of crafts in Arnold's Sighting.
But this is not the main point of the AAT theory.

If you want my theory to be a "perfect" theory, all I can do is to correct the number of craft mentioned, and I will have one ?? The main point is the concept.

Apart from this point, please indicate when I have changed my theory.


Originally posted by warbird03
Any military aircraft requires a huge amount of maintenance for everything from the propulsion system to the electronics to the weapons.

Again, you are basing your deduction on the already-declassified conventional (sorry, to bore you again) technology.


Originally posted by warbird03
Being a conventional aircraft does not automatically make them identified. To be an identified flying object people have to, well, identify them. Take a look at the F-117 and the B-2. They were spotted as Unidentified Flying Objects many times before their official public declassification, but they were "conventional" aircraft.

This, I agree.
Today's AATs will be tomorrow's "conventional" aircraft: my theory still holds.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by warbird03
Oh, you want to talk about proof? Let's start with yours. Where is it?


Have I presented a undeniable AAT case in front of you ?

Unlike me, the others have presented UFO cases, ET cases



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by r00t999

Originally posted by warbird03
Oh, you want to talk about proof? Let's start with yours. Where is it?


Have I presented a undeniable AAT case in front of you ?

Unlike me, the others have presented UFO cases, ET cases


We all know you haven't presented an AAT case. That was exactly my point. You replied to somebody else about proof, but you won't present any to backup your own story. Every single point you have tried to make has been thrown right back at you, so then you just come back and say "It's because they're unconventional aircraft!" Seriously, you can't just fill any holes in your theory with the "Unconventional!" line. As long as you claim it as fact, we will request proof. As long as you do not provide that proof, this claim will not be taken seriously. Simple as that.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by warbird03
We all know you haven't presented an AAT case. That was exactly my point. You replied to somebody else about proof, but you won't present any to backup your own story.

"Somebody else" presented CASES that they think are real, it is just normal/common for anybody (not just me) to request for proof.



As long as you claim it as fact, we will request proof. As long as you do not provide that proof, this claim will not be taken seriously. Simple as that.

A. Theoretical physicists are working out their theories without any proof yet, are you saying they should not be taken seriously ? Should grants be cut from these researches ?

B. Can one keep an open-mind about a theory ?
edit on 4-2-2011 by r00t999 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by r00t999
 


Physicists won't claim anything as truth without proof. You've been acting like AATs are the truth this whole time. I'm happy to keep an open mind about a theory, but if that's what you want then present it as such.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join