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.

 

UFOlogy a joke again?

page: 4
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by fleabit
I personally believe the number of actual sightings is rare. And also that it's been pretty much a constant throughout the decades, or perhaps even centuries. It's never been a common occurrence. The only reason the # of sightings has gone up is because of the cheap availability of portable recording devices. So people are taking pictures or video of every speck, dot, reflection, lantern, plane, blimp, cloud, bird, balloon, bug, etc. et al.

The sightings are there - it's just that people (like the media) have a penchant for dramatic sightings.. or that is, sightings that have been dramatized into something spectacular by youtube or the media. Lacking that, people don't like talking about the humdrum boring sightings.. which are probably the ones that actually have merit.

It's amusing to go through the pages on this board, and find threads about an umbrella.. UMBRELLA!!.. that gets literally dozens of pages and hundreds of stars. And yet one of the best cases out there.. a UFO that followed a military spy plane for hundreds of miles, was caught on more than one radar, seen by the pilots, and performed feats they could not match.. that case got less than ONE PAGE.

That's why it seems to be dropping off. I don't look for the spectacular like a rocket spiral to fulfill my UFO interests. I prefer the legitimate sightings to research further.


We are in agreement. The dross and the spectaculars 'noise out' the really valuable sightings, which are very rare indeed, but they do occur over time. The Coyne incident has never been explained! In that same year there was also the famous Pascagulla incident, where the two witnesses were secretly recorded discussing their sighting and abduction in the sheriffs office. They appeared to be genuine.

It must be lottery odds to see a 'genuine UFO' because they are simply not interested in advertising their presence. I, like many others, also feel that there are certain time periods when UFO activity is dramatically heightened, for instance at the end of the 1960s and early 1970s (there are still many reports coming in from retirees that date back to that period). I actually think it's possible we haven't had any real visitations for a couple of decades.

I believe black triangles sightings are NATO secret aircraft, lighter than air hybrid vehicles, and therefore also cause more 'noise out'.
edit on 10-6-2013 by ManInAsia because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-6-2013 by ManInAsia because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by fleabit
 


I know. It's so annoying talking to people like me on forums. I've come across people acting like experts and giving off this air of superiority. I apologize for sounding like that myself. I do not claim to have studied every report. I suppose it is possible that some sightings are of Alien origin, so I overstated my position.

What I am saying is that at least some of the sightings are man made crafts. I figured out how they work and then noticed that the reports of their flight characteristics are 100% consistent with what I had already figured out. If you look at how they behave and then think about what would fly like that, you might figure it out. That's not how I figured it out, but it can be figured out that way.

As far as telling you how, I will do so in an upcoming thread if the spooks don't stop something that is being done to me. If they do stop it, then you will not find out and you can go on thinking that I am just another internet loon. That's fine with me, because it will mean that I have my life back.



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 02:37 PM
link   
UFOlogy has had an aura of ridicule around it ever since the closing of Project Blue Book. What do you mean, again?

Even when MSM tries to do it serious justice, they usually wrap with some of the crazier nutters they can find, which then just dumps cold water on the issue, and only adds to the ridicule.



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by jvarga390
 


I'll reply. I don't know if you were asking me to or someone else, but I will. I will start off recapping all that I have already stated on here about the topic and then I will address what you have said..

1) All components of the drive have already been invented and are in use today and most people have heard of at least one of them.

2) The saucers fly so fast that the metal heats up to the point where it glows, which is why they sometimes glow.

3) The way they move reveals something about how they operate.

4) They don't use propellant, buoyancy, or lift to move against gravity or fly.

5) Anyone can make a levitation demonstration model for a few hundred bucks worth of materials.

I will add a few final points here and then I'm done posting on this until/unless I get burned by them again.

6) The ship is supported in the air by the drive in the way a picture on the wall is supported by a nail.

7) The drive requires the same amount of energy to keep airborne that the Earth is using to try to bring it down through gravity.

8) The drive can be used: to fly saucers/ships, to remove friction from mechanical systems, to generate power with a net positive output-over 100% efficiency (but not while on board a flying saucer), to deliver ordinance to target without no chance of interception, and possibly as a bomb if configured in a certain way-even though it contains no explosives or radioactive material.

9) This technology is dangerous and should be kept secret. We don't want someone like N Korea having these things. But I will tell all if I keep getting burned.

Speaking of which jvarga, what you said in your post reveals that you know why they move. But you don't know how they achieve this. I do. It is a coincidence that you posted this 2 comments after my post. Or is it? I will decide if I've been burned by the spooks or not. So, I'm gonna have to leave one more post after this just to be sure.



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by orangegemstone
 


Final Post unless I get burned again.

Okay, here's a few more clues.

1) People on board a flying saucer do feel the effect of gravity.

2) When they turn at "right angles", inertia does not pose a problem for the people on board at all.

3) A demo device can be made with 5 small electric motors, 4 _____, and 1 _____. There also need to be 4 "hinges". The shell of the craft (if you want to add one) will be supported by the 1 _____.

4) The more weight is to be supported by the drive, the more energy the motors will have to use.



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 11:25 PM
link   
This is just a thought, but maybe witnesses and abductees and such are not coming forward due to fear of ridicule. We all know how the media handles these topics, so perhaps people are remaining silent.



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 01:27 AM
link   
reply to post by orangegemstone
 


I have an issue with this:




7) The drive requires the same amount of energy to keep airborne that the Earth is using to try to bring it down through gravity.


The amount of energy the Earth uses to maintain its gravitational field is immense.

To just throw out a claim without qualifying how this is even possible requires some sort of explanation. Seriously, explain yourself and win a Nobel prize and a million bucks.

Otherwise just sit there and look like a fraud.



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by orangegemstone
 


I have an issue with this:




7) The drive requires the same amount of energy to keep airborne that the Earth is using to try to bring it down through gravity.


The amount of energy the Earth uses to maintain its gravitational field is immense.

To just throw out a claim without qualifying how this is even possible requires some sort of explanation. Seriously, explain yourself and win a Nobel prize and a million bucks.

Otherwise just sit there and look like a fraud.

I think he's on topic.



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 


Perhaps I was a little harsh. Apologies.

It just gets irritating when people speak like that without ever backing up their assertions. Strong possibility they are just making stuff up. What's the point in doing that?



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by JayinAR
 


I know, I hate that too. Sorry about coming off like that.

However, I meant the amount of energy the Earth uses on the object itself, not the sum total of all of the Earths gravity. LOL It's a no brainer, so I didn't have to say it, but if an object weighs x amount, then the Earth uses x amount of energy to bring the object to the ground. That same amount of energy is used by the device to overcome that force. It's the same for anything that overcomes gravity. If you throw a baseball, you have to put more force into it than the Earth is using on IT, in order to keep it from falling.

In other words, the heavier the object is that you are trying to levitate, the more energy the drive has to use. That's all. Very simple point.

As for telling you how it's done: as I said I will reveal that in my own thread soon if I am harassed again. I'm asking the Alphabet Soup agencies-or whomever it may concern, to put a stop to my abuse. If that is done, I won't tell you. Then you can laugh at me all day on here and I won't care. Just look at all my posts so far. Keep an eye on my profile and if I start my own thread, the answers will be there. Peace.



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 04:57 PM
link   
Awesome trolololo


Originally posted by markymint
So what was the last big thing - the Norway Spiral? The US media not portraying UFO stories as a joke? I think I have still been visiting this forum for the 3 years since the Norway spiral...wait, 4 years? Christ...

What is your opinion on this? What has happened in the last two years that has been big? Personal sightings of any significance have slimmed out. Major stories have disappeared. We all know that as every year passes ghosts become less and less plausible... but aliens, UFOs? Why have they gone all quiet?

Did someone predict a quiet phase? Is there some speculation? I'd like to know. It's almost been too quiet. Your thoughts? Or is everything still massively go go go and interesting for you? I just...dunno :/ WTF has happened UFO phenomena :/ You've died



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kaone
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


Screw Greer!


I couldn't have put it better myself.

Steven Greer is a scumbag of the highest magnitude.

As to the OP's Query, I believe it is a multifaceted issue, in regards to the waning of interest in the phenomenon.

1) The signal-to-noise ratio is EXTREMELY high. For every legitimate sighting, you have 100 ThirdPhaseOfMoon/Blake Cousins phony CGI Videos.

2) The UFO "Culture" if you will has been HEAVILY invaded by New Age claptrap and mumbo-jumbo, Kumbaya hand-holding hippie burnout bull_____.

3) The "Big Names" in the field are in it for the cash/fame.

4) The ambiguity of the origins/core-nature of the phenomenon is off-putting. You can only go down so many dead-ends before you throw your hands up at it.

5) The "giggle-factor" is huge as well. Very seldom does the topic come up in Mainstream Media, and when it does, it's usually with a sensationalist angle, or tongue-in-cheek attitude, alluding to the study being in the tin-foil hat realm.

This subject has been beaten to death for almost 70 years, and no solid leads
have come of it. Almost every story is simultaneously corroborating, and yet, contradictory.

In my experience, with a large percentage of people I have interviewed, who've had experiences, pretty much no one will come forward publicly to discuss/disclose a sighting or encounter, mostly for fear of ridicule. People don't like being seen as "out there", regardless of the sobriety and sincerity of their stories.

I believe that the approach to understanding this subject is flawed, and that is why, after 70 years, a reasonable, plausible, solid conclusion to its nature remains elusive. Very few researchers have come close to cracking the UFO case, and when they do, oftentimes, more questions arise than answers.

I've said for a long time that if you spend enough time researching UFOs, it will take something away from you.

After a long enough time, you have to pick the hypothesis that resonates most strongly with you, and that's about the best you're ever gonna get.



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 


Perhaps I was a little harsh. Apologies.


Heh, I dont think so. My point being the title of the thread and his posts go hand in hand...


It just gets irritating when people speak like that without ever backing up their assertions. Strong possibility they are just making stuff up. What's the point in doing that?

I'm with you on this one. But hey, it's the Internet.



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 


Perhaps I was a little harsh. Apologies.


Heh, I dont think so. My point being the title of the thread and his posts go hand in hand...


It just gets irritating when people speak like that without ever backing up their assertions. Strong possibility they are just making stuff up. What's the point in doing that?

I'm with you on this one. But hey, it's the Internet.



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by orangegemstone
reply to post by JayinAR
 


I know, I hate that too. Sorry about coming off like that.

However, I meant the amount of energy the Earth uses on the object itself, not the sum total of all of the Earths gravity. LOL It's a no brainer, so I didn't have to say it, but if an object weighs x amount, then the Earth uses x amount of energy to bring the object to the ground. That same amount of energy is used by the device to overcome that force. It's the same for anything that overcomes gravity. If you throw a baseball, you have to put more force into it than the Earth is using on IT, in order to keep it from falling.

In other words, the heavier the object is that you are trying to levitate, the more energy the drive has to use. That's all. Very simple point.


So that means that to get to orbit, we still have the same damn energy valley to climb out of and if we want something huge we still have to burn up something like the Saturn V. Star Trek promised us something better.



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by orangegemstone
reply to post by orangegemstone
 


Final Post unless I get burned again.

Okay, here's a few more clues.

1) People on board a flying saucer do feel the effect of gravity.

2) When they turn at "right angles", inertia does not pose a problem for the people on board at all.


Given what you're saying, does this technology invalidate/modify the equivalence between inertial mass and gravitational mass [which so far to us is solid experimentally supported physics]? Otherwise I can't see how these can be reconciled.



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 09:14 PM
link   
Thats depends... Ether it a joke from the ufo's themselves, or people wanna make it a joke.



posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 12:47 AM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 


I'll answer both of your posts here. Firstly, the saucers do not go into orbit. They can however, use a quasi buoyancy to float to the top of the atmosphere if they want to. That saves lots of fuel for lifting payloads. You could feasibly lift a payload into space and then the payload being a sat, could fire up it's own thrusters to get to orbit speed.

It is less energy expense than a rocket, because a rocket is fighting the gravity in order to lift. The saucer is using it's energy in a different way than that. Once it's not "falling" to Earth anymore, it takes little energy to move about. But simply, yes it takes the same energy to "hover" that it would for a rocket to "hover". But not as much as a rocket to gain altitude.

It does not violate any of the currently accepted laws of physics. The "equivalence between inertial mass and gravitational mass" is exactly as you have been taught. It does not modify your mass in order to go faster or cancel inertia as some have theorized. I know you can't see how this is possible. But think about a magic trick you later found out how it's done. For a minute you were willing to accept the reality of the supernatural, but afterward you felt like a fool for not having seen it. That is exactly how this is.



posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by orangegemstone
reply to post by mbkennel
 


I'll answer both of your posts here. Firstly, the saucers do not go into orbit. They can however, use a quasi buoyancy to float to the top of the atmosphere if they want to. That saves lots of fuel for lifting payloads. You could feasibly lift a payload into space and then the payload being a sat, could fire up it's own thrusters to get to orbit speed.


So interaction with the atmosphere is essential to the physics of the operation, I take it, and the technology is not applicable in space. (i.e. no warp drive).



It is less energy expense than a rocket, because a rocket is fighting the gravity in order to lift. The saucer is using it's energy in a different way than that. Once it's not "falling" to Earth anymore, it takes little energy to move about. But simply, yes it takes the same energy to "hover" that it would for a rocket to "hover". But not as much as a rocket to gain altitude.


For a rocket (or anything) to hover one needs force upwards to counter gravity downward and not necessarily energy expenditure, but in fluids they are usually correlated, like with an aircraft lift which comes with some drag causing energy expenditure.

I can't figure it out, if you take the whole system externally there is a net gravitational force on it, and to get a counteracting force it has to interact with something in its external environment, like a wing does with air.



It does not violate any of the currently accepted laws of physics. The "equivalence between inertial mass and gravitational mass" is exactly as you have been taught. It does not modify your mass in order to go faster or cancel inertia as some have theorized. I know you can't see how this is possible. But think about a magic trick you later found out how it's done. For a minute you were willing to accept the reality of the supernatural, but afterward you felt like a fool for not having seen it. That is exactly how this is.


Fascinating. I still don't know how you can make fast turns and not be affected by inertia but still maintain equivalence.

Is there any special physics or interaction with particular nuclear properties? Does the specific mass/isotopes/spin of materials have an important effect?



posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 12:48 AM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 


You misunderstood me. My fault for not being clear enough. It does not interact with the atmosphere at all other than to heat up from friction when it goes fast. It can go into orbit if it wanted to, but it doesn't need to. I suppose they might, but there would be little reason to unless... (can't give it away just yet)

You said "For a rocket (or anything) to hover one needs force upwards to counter gravity downward and not necessarily energy expenditure, but in fluids they are usually correlated, like with an aircraft lift which comes with some drag causing energy expenditure.

I can't figure it out, if you take the whole system externally there is a net gravitational force on it, and to get a counteracting force it has to interact with something in its external environment, like a wing does with air."

I know! That's what I thought too! It does not interact with anything external to the ship in the way you are thinking. No propulsion. No lift in the way a wing or chopper blade does, and no lighter than air gasses. I can say at this time that there is a push going on within the system due to gravity. The pilots feel gravity and are not floating in the ship. The ship and drive do have a net weight together that also does feel the pull of gravity, but they do not respond to it.

You asked : "Is there any special physics or interaction with particular nuclear properties? Does the specific mass/isotopes/spin of materials have an important effect?"

This is a common question in UFO literature. Or a variation of this. The simple answer is one step more than I am comfortable going at this time. All I will say is that the spin of subatomic particles has nothing to do with it, unless they have come up with a new way to do it, which is possible I guess. But remember, they were making and flying these things in the 1940's; do you really think that any government or physicist on Earth could alter spin and things like that way back then?

The inertia issue is probably driving you nuts. It blew my mind, because when I first figured it out I wasn't expecting this to be true. It wasn't until later that I realized that it would not break the pilots neck. It's funny, I had figured this out a long time ago-or I had it as an idea, but discarded it thinking it was rubbish. I was looking into a related issue when I started thinking about this again and I was about to give up when I remembered something and that led me with the research I was doing on my own at the time to figure it out. I'll tell you that you have all seen a basic diagram of the drive and didn't know it. There is an image in our culture that almost everyone has seen, that looks exactly like the drive. You don't know what each part is in the image, but it is the same.

By the way, I want to thank you guys for reading my posts here and for being polite. Many of you no doubt think that I am a loon. That's cool with me. It's because you are reading my posts that make me a threat to them. You gave me leverage and it's working! Since I first posted here, the people who are harassing me for an unrelated reason have stopped. The people who protect this information are more powerful in the "system" than the group who is attacking me, and so they are being told to stand down! And they better keep on standing down. Thank you guys.

I will still check back here daily for a while so I'm not going away. I will not tell you how it works unless they start in on me again, but I will talk to you if you want, but not on private messages.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join