Disclosure before your eyes!

Suspend your thoughts just a moment. I seriously think someone on this earth has developed anti- gravity technology. Anti- gravity being a misnomer. I think it's more gravity manipulation. Look at the evidence so far. Let's assume someone in the late forties discovered a process whereby you could take a plate of metal and with the device attatched could produce a negative minus effect under it, ie earth gravity being 1 gravity manipulation minus 1 you would get negative bouancy. But if you had minus 2 earth gravities you would have lift. Now think back to the Arnold sighting. You've just found a way to lift any weight but not forward momentum. Here's where earths gravity is used. Think of the space shuttle in earths atmosphere. It flies because gravity pulls it down but because of its aerodynamics it glides forward. Now think of a saucer shape. No matter which way around you look at it the shape is an aerodynamic wing. You have a saucer with say a 20 foot diameter plate on the bottom with your device attached, angle forward say 10 degrees, activate minus 2 gs., lift 30 feet and turn the device off. The earths gravity will pull you down but with the 10 degree lean the craft glides forward. Drop 20 feet turn the device on, rise 50 feet, turn it off glide forward and down. Now the clever bit is if you keep doing this, lift and glide, You get exactly what Kenneth Arnold saw. A forward motion like a stone skipping across water.
Now you suddenly realise if you turn your plate vertical to the horizontal plate you can get forward momentum but no maneuverablity. Come forward to the seventies and you get sightings of hectagonal ufos. Think 1 plate for lift, plates around the perimeter for 360 maneuverability. Hence craft that have been seen taking sharp 90 degree turns. Now humans are very picky creatures the best way to travel is facing forward, we do'nt really like travelling sideways. Jump forward to the present. Boomarang shaped ufos are the best shape with the propultion units on the inside edges giving forward and sideward thrust. The 2 inner edges equalising power negates the sideways thrust just giving forward momentum, power 1 side more than the other you get maneuverability. These 3 instances over a 50 year period(in full view of the public) I believe as evidence of someone having developed this technology. Sorry if the post is a bit long but feel free to shoot my ideas down.

crayzeed

This isn't really "disclosure" though.

Someone could have invented gravity-manipulation, as you explained, without any outside contact.

Ok, I will agree that there I personally think anti-gravity, or Gravity cancellation is possible, but I don't understand who you say is 'someone'. Is it a person, or the government? I think there may be some technology hidden by the government in this field, but I fail to see how this fits into "Disclosure", As they could be flying these things everywhere in plain sight and it would not qualify as disclosure.

People have also came up with many designs, but they are complex, and none of the people working on them has the money, time, or frankly, the physics expertise to make them work effectively. Plus, they are overprotective of their work and won't release it because they want a profit. That's nice.

Makes sense, I suppose. However, it isn't Disclosure, as was already posted by a member above. Further, how do you explain high-speed acceleration and 90-degree turns? No human body could withstand these maneuvers.

reply to post by crayzeed


Have you ever heard of Dr Townsend Brown? LINK

The US or other government recovered crashed saucers in the 40's and 50's. They did not have enough scientific knowledge to do anything with them. It's a bit like giving a television to a caveman when he has no idea what electricity and electromagnetism is. Remember that we're still trying to include gravity and the standard model of physic. When we do understand gravity as much as we understand electromagnetism, things will change greatly !

Originally posted by TurkeyTots
This isn't really "disclosure" though.

Someone could have invented gravity-manipulation, as you explained, without any outside contact.

Agree.

It does sounds like you have quite an idea, but you should start drawing up blueprints or do some more research on the topic.

Anyone could post some nutty stuff that they "think" will work. If you want to actually make an impact, put forth some effort.

reply to post by IamAbeliever


I appologes for not putting the word disclosure in hyphens as this would have pointed out that real disclosure is not necessary as it is already in the open so there is nothing to disclose. As for any human having to withstand the g forces in violent maneuvering:- if you had the technology to manipulate gravity out side the craft you have the technology to manipulate gravity inside the craft therefore creating whatever gravity you like. Come on ! Please donnot let me have to spell out who it is that is doing this. Just say they have had billions, and still have billions a year at their disposal. Nothing like hidding a tree in a forest. Just because they haven't come fully public with the craft (past and present) does not discount the ladder of development since the 40s.

reply to post by SmArTbEaTz


Well Smart I must say I have never heard of the man but I will search out all the info about the man. THanks

reply to post by revs0lution


Never in my post did I mention any outside help ie. crashed saucers. But in my senario I point out that from the 40s a craft was developed from crawl to walk to run. As any inventor will testify their first models are somewhat chewing gum and elastic band built. As for still not coming out with anything the US military/industrial complex will keep this technolgy under wraps just for the expedient reason of superior weapon potential (as they are still doing with the standard stealth aircraft).

yet another title that is totally misleading

Originally posted by crayzeed
Suspend your thoughts just a moment. I seriously think someone on this earth has developed anti- gravity technology.

I think you are right, and here's the evidence - have a look at the dude in the pink shirt in this video at about 10 seconds into it - his feet just lift off the floor!!

Could the anti-grav technology have anything to do with Indra Industries?

over

If anti gravity does not exist then explain this Russian helicopter LINK

reply to post by SmArTbEaTz


It is a well known camera trick, the rotor of the MI-24 is turning in sync with the framerate of the camera giving the illusion that it is frozen.

reply to post by Drunkenparrot

Okay what about these 12: the Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit Stealth Bomber, the F-22 Raptor advanced stealth fighter, and its successor, the F-35 Lightning II advanced stealth fighter; the Aurora, Lockheed-Martin's X-33A, the Lockheed X-22A two-man antigravity disc fighter, Boeing and Airbus Industries' Nautilus, the TR3-A Pumpkinseed , the TR3-B Triangle , Northrop's “Great Pumpkin” disc, Teledyne Ryan Aeronautical's XH-75D Shark antigravity helicopter, and the Northrop Quantum Teleportation Disc.

www.drboylan.com...

Originally posted by crayzeed
Suspend your thoughts just a moment. I seriously think someone on this earth has developed anti- gravity technology. Anti- gravity being a misnomer. I think it's more gravity manipulation. Look at the evidence so far. Let's assume someone in the late forties discovered a process whereby you could take a plate of metal and with the device attatched could produce a negative minus effect under it, ie earth gravity being 1 gravity manipulation minus 1 you would get negative bouancy. But if you had minus 2 earth gravities you would have lift. Now think back to the Arnold sighting. You've just found a way to lift any weight but not forward momentum. Here's where earths gravity is used. Think of the space shuttle in earths atmosphere. It flies because gravity pulls it down but because of its aerodynamics it glides forward. Now think of a saucer shape. No matter which way around you look at it the shape is an aerodynamic wing. You have a saucer with say a 20 foot diameter plate on the bottom with your device attached, angle forward say 10 degrees, activate minus 2 gs., lift 30 feet and turn the device off. The earths gravity will pull you down but with the 10 degree lean the craft glides forward. Drop 20 feet turn the device on, rise 50 feet, turn it off glide forward and down. Now the clever bit is if you keep doing this, lift and glide, You get exactly what Kenneth Arnold saw. A forward motion like a stone skipping across water.
Now you suddenly realise if you turn your plate vertical to the horizontal plate you can get forward momentum but no maneuverablity. Come forward to the seventies and you get sightings of hectagonal ufos. Think 1 plate for lift, plates around the perimeter for 360 maneuverability. Hence craft that have been seen taking sharp 90 degree turns. Now humans are very picky creatures the best way to travel is facing forward, we do'nt really like travelling sideways. Jump forward to the present. Boomarang shaped ufos are the best shape with the propultion units on the inside edges giving forward and sideward thrust. The 2 inner edges equalising power negates the sideways thrust just giving forward momentum, power 1 side more than the other you get maneuverability. These 3 instances over a 50 year period(in full view of the public) I believe as evidence of someone having developed this technology. Sorry if the post is a bit long but feel free to shoot my ideas down.

crayzeed

I have a question about anti-gravity propulsion. I don't know too much about physics so this might sound silly. Is there gravity in space? Would an anti-gravity aircraft need a different type of propulsion to travel in space, or would an anti-gravity propulsion device work both in space and on a planet? We have gravity here on earth because of magnetic fields? In space, unless you're close to a planet, there would be no magnetic fields? So, unless I'm messing up the physics, which I probably am, would E.T. need two different types of propulsion to get around?