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: 5
3
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 02:00 PM
link   
Thanks for your reply.


Originally posted by warbird03
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.


Did I say "AATs are real" ??? Please check my words again.

Please kindly search through my posts, did I ever use the word "real" ?




posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 02:18 PM
link   
I didn't say you used the word "real." You call it a theory, but instead of weighing the facts and adjusting the theory you say that anything that disproves your theory either doesn't matter because "AATs aren't conventional" or "Those are just stories."


Originally posted by r00t999
I cannot reveal the source of information.


Your exact words earlier in the thread. You say it's information, but without giving a source it means absolutely nothing.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by warbird03
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.


Or the appearance thereof could appear to defy our known laws of physics but they don't.

I wouldn't underestimate the confusion which could be generated from optical stealth.

Optical stealth is a military-only technology (for all civilian purposes you want to be as clearly identifiable as possible!) which has been under development since WW2.

Since it is very hard technologically to make something 'invisible', the better alternative is to make it 'confusing' and then rely on "cognitive stealth" to achieve your objectives.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by warbird03
I didn't say you used the word "real." You call it a theory, but instead of weighing the facts and adjusting the theory you say that anything that disproves your theory either doesn't matter because "AATs aren't conventional" or "Those are just stories."


Originally posted by r00t999
I cannot reveal the source of information.


Your exact words earlier in the thread. You say it's information, but without giving a source it means absolutely nothing.


I apologize that I may have misled you. I originally said:



I cannot reveal the source of information. This may endanger my+his/her life.....(you may add your own icon from above :-))


But did you see the ":-))" in the end ? Please try to not take this "source of information" too seriously.

But, I really appreciate that you take my therory seriously.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   
Thanks for your reply.


Originally posted by mbkennel

Originally posted by warbird03
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.


Or the appearance thereof could appear to defy our known laws of physics but they don't.

I wouldn't underestimate the confusion which could be generated from optical stealth.

Optical stealth is a military-only technology (for all civilian purposes you want to be as clearly identifiable as possible!) which has been under development since WW2.

Since it is very hard technologically to make something 'invisible', the better alternative is to make it 'confusing' and then rely on "cognitive stealth" to achieve your objectives.


Ah, "cognitive stealth" quite an enlightening term, many thanks

AATs make use of the ET phenomenon to "cognitive stealth" itself from public.

ET is the "cognitive stealth" weapon being used...which may never be disclosed.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by mbkennel

Originally posted by warbird03
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.


Or the appearance thereof could appear to defy our known laws of physics but they don't.

Surely this is what I had already intimated here?


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.

"That which is not explicit is the fittest for instruction because it raises the faculties to act" ~ William Blake


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. 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.

However if you're going to be explicit...

Originally posted by mbkennel
Since it is very hard technologically to make something 'invisible', the better alternative is to make it 'confusing' and then rely on "cognitive stealth" to achieve your objectives.

.... Then tell us more


Fascinating. That is the first time I have seen anyone on ATS use the term - "cognitive stealth". You can't leave it there. If you are going to be explicit, finish the story for us




top topics
 
3
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join