Alien conspiracy theorists answer me this?

reply to post by tanka418


True say. I do think craft carrying people, would be made out of much higher quality materials what ever that be. As well as to whatever system, or A.i, they have on board, just like how cars can park themselves, but on a much more ridiculous level. It would have to monitor everything, to oxygen, artificial gravity to keep the cockpit at a G, to long distant scanners, or just keeping it balanced in an atmosphere.

An A.i or something similar to the point it could just think about it task, or controlled drones would possibly be cheap in structure, but systems would probably be more expensive in design. My point is, cheaper ufo's would disintegrate rather easy, and would leave little evidence behind.

Although it hardly an economic statement, it just how much time and effort was put into such systems, or what specifications or purpose would be expensive, let alone structural integrity. And since you have experience in engineering, you know everything would have to be built for a purpose.

An advanced civilization, has probably built many different models, before it ever got perfected.

Makes you wonder if some of them download alien porn when their up there, and the system crashes from a virus. And the designer said no "Anti-virus" soft ware, what genius. Lol.

So two deer are standing next to a road watching cars go by.

One says to the other, "Don't you think it's a bit odd?"

Arnie123
I'm curious about this "Primitive FTL system". In what way would this system be built? If you avoid lies and other forms of the "false", with which you operate with an optimistic pragma, how is it this system would be built and operated? I'm just curious.

It is based on this science. This system created a Gravito-Electromagnetic Field Drive. Basically, it projects a gravity point ahead of itself, on the longitudinal axis. The gravity points attracts the mechanism which moves the gravity point. Sort of a very fast "carrot and stick" sort of drive.

This is the first half, and provides the "drive"; however, we still need to manage Time Dilation. This is done with the very same gravity point. Since it must be substantial to provide the "drive" we need it will also serv to assist in "frame-dragging" (inertial frame-dragging) (wikipedia...). This action along with the small effect provided by good ole Doppler should provide enough offset to time dilation to allow practical travel within 20 - 50 light years.

The best part of this technology is that it already exists, just nobody realizes it yet. The ability to travel to the near by stars should be the next big thing, and, this drive would also allow for commercial operations in space ... now.

reply to post by Specimen


I've put some thought into the control systems required; I'm a semi-retired software / hardware engineer, so this is right up my alley.

While Earth could only operate a large ship right now, the computing requirements would be rather significant.
And, of course, I can only comment on a Terrestrial ship, ...

Firstly the main computer system: for an earth ship, two or three of Earths best super-computers.
Engine control: a rather serious "normal" computer, much like my i7, but current generation.
life support: same
Gravity control: same (gravity control is separate from the drive, as this would be a "local" (ship wide) artificial gravity...the drive system in a slightly different configuration will do this)
Navigation: Another super computer or two.

Communications, and other ship sub-systems would likely require their own i7 machine.

As for the software. All custom...no Windows or Linux...prolly not Unix either, but something new, and yes plenty of AI at various levels.

The finished ship would likely be twice the size of an aircraft carrier, house two nuclear reactors for power. And be just barely capable of performing the task.

But, it would take yall to the near by stars.

reply to post by tanka418


True say for working parts might need their own individual system, but a system for example, I will use cortana from Halo, or EDi from Mass Effect(Lame how im using game characters) whose characters are of A.I would be the actual brain of the craft. A system that can monitor those systems, like converting power to different ends, or even over-ride programs within its own system with little effort, or even hack. It would get to the point, it could litterally calculate much more faster then that engine check light.

Also would be much more user friendly like windows xp, then Vista(which Im using). It wouldn't have to have emotions, just mimic a personality without the traits screwing it up. Unless, it has a mind of it own, it could have an attitude.

As long as the system is adaptive.

As for the exact software, that just get better with time to the point our senses won't notice the difference.

Star Trek with Windows.

Why is it odd? It is rumored there are all kinds of spacecraft traveling at the speed of light and through wormholes. Some are cigar shapped, others are disc-like, some are rectangular, some are triangular, etc.

Assuming they come here, and there is plenty of evidence for that, some can handle our gravity better, some can totally cloak themselves, aliens can teleport and perform other supernatural feats, etc.

In other words different races of aliens are involved and each race has its own technological capabilities. Also I assume aliens are imperfect creatures and can make mistakes just like us.

We dont see ufos often because I am pretty sure they cloak outside our visual spectrum. I have seen ufo-like craft in photos I have taken at parties that I later developed and said to myself "what the hell is that thing?" In fact its rumored that the american government tried to cloak the USS Eldridge(a naval destroyer) during the 60s I believe during the philadelphia experiment. It was a top secret or beyond experiment hence few people knew about it.

reply to post by crazyewok


There are few reported crashes compared to UFO sightings. Like one to a million. Most likely all reported crashes are fake. Most likely not all sightings are fake, however. Next

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


Im not denying the existance of UFO (what they are is up for debate) Im just saying I hope they have seat belts and airbags

Fapomet
reply to post by crazyewok

 

There are few reported crashes compared to UFO sightings. Like one to a million. Most likely all reported crashes are fake. Most likely not all sightings are fake, however. Next

According to my research, most of the crashes reported by the media are real, if not all of them.

This doesn't even take into account all the lesser known cases covered up by the eyewitness for fear of riddicule.

EarthCitizen07

Fapomet
reply to post by crazyewok

 

There are few reported crashes compared to UFO sightings. Like one to a million. Most likely all reported crashes are fake. Most likely not all sightings are fake, however. Next

According to my research, most of the crashes reported by the media are real, if not all of them.

This doesn't even take into account all the lesser known cases covered up by the eyewitness for fear of riddicule.

Wtf are you even talking about?

If there was ONE "real" UFO crash reported by the media (complete BS btw), I'm pretty sure that's called "Disclosure" and guess what? It hasn't happened yet, else you wouldn't be the only one who knows about it.

What is this "research" you speak of? Clicking links on google after typing in UFO? Where is ANY evidence of a "real" UFO crash reported by the media and where's the proof? Roswell doesn't count because you can't prove it was real. I'm not saying it isn't real, it might very well be. The point is it is not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, neither is ANY case of UFO abduction or a crash. There is not one single story that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, because if it was, it would be the single most important proof in the history of man. You fail sir.

crazyewok
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

Im not denying the existance of UFO (what they are is up for debate) Im just saying I hope they have seat belts and airbags

No! Actually they all have "Inertial Dampers"!

Seriously though, I don't think "safety" equipment like that really does much good when One "drives into a planet". And, I would think that that could break almost any technology.

reply to post by Fapomet

The point is it is not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, neither is ANY case of UFO abduction or a crash.

I didn't know that there was a trial for someone's life!

Your notion of "proof" is likely distorted to the point that you will NEVER see what you want; thus NEVER any proof.

Though, you will never be presented with "proof" as such a thing cannot even exist in this context. No, what you will be given is evidence, from which you will have to decide on your own if it is convincing enough.

Some of us have seen such evidence!

And the reality is that even after you are given evidence that is convincing; it will still not be 100%, there will always be room for doubt, as Nature will not allow a "certainty" (100%) in either direction (0%).

So, perhaps its time to drop all the preconceptions about ET, and start learning for yourself.

EarthCitizen07

Fapomet
reply to post by crazyewok

 

There are few reported crashes compared to UFO sightings. Like one to a million. Most likely all reported crashes are fake. Most likely not all sightings are fake, however. Next

According to my research, most of the crashes reported by the media are real, if not all of them.

This doesn't even take into account all the lesser known cases covered up by the eyewitness for fear of riddicule.

The they have a HUGE saftey problem if all the are real! Hell NASA couldnt make such crap craft.


Sorry 1 crash maybe 2 ok. But if they are loseing Dozens that thats pretty bad. I mean if they are exploring earth they are exploring other places (unless they are not ET's) so if they are losing dozens on eack planet something wrong.

reply to post by Fapomet


Do you know what a cover-up is? Why would the media initially discuss a ufo crash and then abandon it? Why would the military hint that something happened and then later retract their explanation with some misinformative story?

I am pretty sure you have no dealt deep enough into the topic. Men-In-Black have been known to visit your house sometimes and make veiled death threats, as though ridicule by the moronic masses was not enough.

There is a reason ufology and crypto-zoology is ranked higher in secrecy than nuclear energy. People cant handle the truth for starters, and secondly the government and private monopolies want to exploit the technology for themselves. Why do you think russia and china haven't come up with their version of "stealth aircraft"? Not really stealth in the pure sense, but they have a very low signature level.

tanka418
reply to post by Fapomet

 

The point is it is not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, neither is ANY case of UFO abduction or a crash.

I didn't know that there was a trial for someone's life!

Your notion of "proof" is likely distorted to the point that you will NEVER see what you want; thus NEVER any proof.

Though, you will never be presented with "proof" as such a thing cannot even exist in this context. No, what you will be given is evidence, from which you will have to decide on your own if it is convincing enough.

Some of us have seen such evidence!

And the reality is that even after you are given evidence that is convincing; it will still not be 100%, there will always be room for doubt, as Nature will not allow a "certainty" (100%) in either direction (0%).

So, perhaps its time to drop all the preconceptions about ET, and start learning for yourself.

What in the world makes you think UFO's escape the criteria necessary for proof?

Hahaha, if anything something like that would require even more scrupulous proof.

It's easy. I can prove that a certain bird flying in the sky is a bluebird by scientific analysis of its body.
My criteria for proof is no different than the rest of the world's (excluding yourself apparently).
Bring an alien body to light, analyze it, report the results. That would be proof.
Or how about a video or pictures of bodies? That would be proof since they could be easily analyzed as fakes if they weren't real.
How about any sort of DNA sample? That would be proof. Or how about a message, radio signal, anything?
ANY of that would be substantial proof, and all the other BS that you call "evidence", is garbage. It's all garbage until so called evidence can provide proof beyond a shadow of a doubt, just like the bluebird DNA. Not that hard to wrap your head around, and I'm not even an alien skeptic, hell I believe whole heartedly that aliens are out there. I also believe whole heartedly that we have no proof of this and when we do, we'll all know it. Fail

Mod edit: Deleted post due to major T&C infractions.