Stunning New Video - Alien Reverse Engineered Vehicles (the Fluxliner!) and ZPE

reply to post by signalfire


Here is a link to the audio... Link Me

Starts around the 1230 mark.

Bedlam

signalfire
Stephen Bassett's Paradigm Research Group released a link to this just recently along with Stephen's rather stunning appearance on the C2C show two nights ago alleging that the U.S. government has been silencing UFO and black project whistleblowers by way of weaponized cancer and poisoning...

This makes sense to you? This is what I call the "Dr No" or "Batman" scenario. The one from the 60's. There's always some some arcane, over-complicated, long-winded method of killing someone. "Yes, Batman, I've hung you upside-down over a vat of boiling acid, and a giant pendulum shaped like a penguin is slowly lowering a sword down to the rope..."

If they wanted to get rid of you, instead of "weaponized cancer" you'd get a "mugging". Or a car crash. Or you'd have a case of suicidal depression and shoot yourself in the back of the head a few times.

Veiling glare laser?

And so why did that defector get a load of polonium-210 in his tea?

It's like the Pink Panther's glove. To make it absolutely clear Who Did It And It Was Not An Accident To Set an Example For The Others.

I think Colonel Putin has that 60's Secret Agent Man SPECTRE worship, too, you know---you have to do dirty deeds in style.

Though I agree that trying to "engineer" cancer is an expensive nightmare---bio stuff is far too messy and unpredictable---being biology it wants to do its own thing, not what you tell it to.

Bedlam
If I handed you an unlabeled integrated circuit and said "Make this do something", you'd likely be able to produce smoke once. If you didn't even know what an IC was, or a transistor, or that you COULD make something like a transistor because you were living in the early 40's, you'd be up the creek.

Don't underestimate people.

Knowing the IC did something presumably useful, you would look at it and recognize that it was performing operations with electrical circuitry, and you could determine some of the materials but not the overall function.

It was already known that junctions of dissimilar materials could have non-standard (non-linear non-Ohmic) properties. Schottky knew about a barrier in a metal semiconductor junction in 1929, with rectification first observed in 1874, winning a Nobel prize in 1909.

Seeing junctions of semiconducting materials in a magic IC would lead people to investigate these combinations more fully and with the knowledge base available then, lead to earlier development of transistors and IC's.

Obviously they coudn't manufacture another IC with even remotely similar line widths at first---because they were reverse engineering an IC, not an IC fabrication factory.

There's another fact. Between 1687 through about 1950, humans went from understanding almost nothing correct, to understanding almost all basic science necessary to explain nearly all observable and engineerable properties of existence across all accessible energy scales of the solar system. (by then understanding nuclear fusion and QED).

That is an immense step change.

Presumably any physical ET technology is still made of atoms.

mbkennel

Veiling glare laser?

An upscale version of shooting someone in the back of the head when you don't want to leave evidence. I see a VGL as being qualitatively different than putting some sort of slow, indecisive poison in his Snapple. Not to mention its entertainment value.

And so why did that defector get a load of polonium-210 in his tea?

THAT was to send a message to his security staff not to defect. But my god (or, in this case, bozhe moi!) was that expensive. I'm all for expedient - you might have tossed the guy through a wood chipper on TV for a lot less.

mbkennel

Knowing the IC did something presumably useful, you would look at it and recognize that it was performing operations with electrical circuitry, and you could determine some of the materials but not the overall function.

If I gave you one outside a circuit, you might think it was jewelry. If you knew it was some sort of electrical device, you wouldn't know which were power and which signal leads. Or how much voltage to use, or, really, much of anything, other than it was a lump of some sort of material that wasn't wood or metal, with metal legs on it. You might recognize it was plastic, however, in the 40s, there wasn't a lot of that around yet. Eventually, you might succeed in uncapping it, maybe not, that's tough without the right tools.

It was already known that junctions of dissimilar materials could have non-standard (non-linear non-Ohmic) properties. Schottky knew about a barrier in a metal semiconductor junction in 1929, with rectification first observed in 1874, winning a Nobel prize in 1909.

But would you realize that the pretty patterns on the shiny stuff were junctions? Remember, they're damnably small in contemporary ICs, I'm not sure you'd see a lot with an optical microscope other than the surface metallization layers. The good stuff is underneath, and quite tiny. And that's only 70 years or so of tech progress. In 1945, they were randomly making wire-junction RF diodes from half-purified silicon. I'm not sure it would leap to mind that there were doping differences THERE under the metallization, if you could get to the die, and if you could strip off the metal and oxide layers to see the raw surface of the chip.

Now, go back some more - do you think in 1874 that he would have been able to figure out what an IC was? What about 1814? Only 200 years of difference, and you would never have a clue.

reply to post by mbkennel

Don't underestimate people.

Anyone who assumes that any technological achievement, from the pyramids to the computer chip, can only be the result of extraterrestrial influence, is underestimating human ingenuity.

Great find!.. ty OP

reply to post by Bedlam


They certainly wouldn't 'un cap' it. They would more likely use x-ray and other imaging available at the time to produce a very nice image of the circuitry contained in the IC. With that image, an analysis of the materials used, and associated electrical measurements of the connections, people would most certainly be able to determine the function of the IC.

reply to post by MarlinGrace


No. You're taking it too far. It's like giving a corvette to volvo to reverse engineer. The basic engineering is the same it's just put together in a different way. Physics are the same the whole galaxy over. Engineering is the same. It's just that they have used different materials or combinations of materials in different ways. Finding those ways is reverse engineering. It is not an impossibility. Hard yes. Impossible no.

crayzeed
reply to post by MarlinGrace

 

No. You're taking it too far. It's like giving a corvette to volvo to reverse engineer. The basic engineering is the same it's just put together in a different way. Physics are the same the whole galaxy over. Engineering is the same. It's just that they have used different materials or combinations of materials in different ways. Finding those ways is reverse engineering. It is not an impossibility. Hard yes. Impossible no.

So flying saucers simply use a variation on the quantum field drives we find in all of our consumer goods?

jtma508
reply to post by Bedlam

 

They certainly wouldn't 'un cap' it. They would more likely use x-ray and other imaging available at the time to produce a very nice image of the circuitry contained in the IC. With that image, an analysis of the materials used, and associated electrical measurements of the connections, people would most certainly be able to determine the function of the IC.

Why makes you think a flying saucer would use anything so primitive as integrated circuits? What if it uses specially crafted DNA molecules? Would an X-ray clarify how that works?

jtma508
reply to post by Bedlam

 

They certainly wouldn't 'un cap' it. They would more likely use x-ray and other imaging available at the time to produce a very nice image of the circuitry contained in the IC. With that image, an analysis of the materials used, and associated electrical measurements of the connections, people would most certainly be able to determine the function of the IC.

We have parts uncapped all the time when they fail...to determine the root cause of failure. No "quote marks" needed. I take it you don't work in the business? In the 40s, you'd have wanted to look at it. So you would try to remove the encapsulation (the "cap" in uncapping) and see what's in there, because you wouldn't understand how a tube could be made so small. If you were up on the history of technology, you'd understand that the cutting edge of semiconductor tech at the mid 40s was a galena crystal with a wire, which progressed on to actual really crappy diodes made out of black half-purified silicon, with wire junctions. "High tech" was a device that used nuvistors or the like - tiny little tubes. The thought of transistors hadn't quite yet crossed their minds.

What x-ray imaging do you think would reveal the circuitry in the IC? Or how the IC was made? Or that the thing used doped junctions? You *might* be able to see some details in the metallization, but a 1940's xray image was not very detailed. You could not have imaged through the package and picked up details of dopants that are as small as we make them now.

When it gets down to determining the function of the IC, that's not likely to happen with anything more complex than a gate package.

reply to post by signalfire


SF, Thanx for the Video Share! Loved it!
Boy, I sure am glad I watched it past steven greer. Wink Wink, nudge nudge.
I put on another thread how easy some things are to re-man. Like the cookie I took apart and redid. Lol! Hell I didn't know what all was in it, but after several attempts, I did it! and Ate it!!
See ya on the Boards, Syx.

I really missed out on this thread it's comedy gold. So I will add in that reverse engineering things is a huge pain in the ass. No matter how many chemists, engineers, physicists you have on the particular project, they always end up thinking with their learned spectrum. It takes a screw up, (See:scientific discoveries by accident) or someone outside of the circle to suggest something so stupid that the others will do it only to prove them wrong and happen to notice something peculiar that they hand't considered.

In any case, most reverse engineering by corporations is done with stolen information or copied products, and a lot of the time it's subpar.

As far as trying to reverse engineer something a hundred or more years beyond our technological capabilities. Good luck on that. As far as a Tesla inventing anti-gravity, time travel and golden egg farting machine. I simply cannot comment. It's a big hush hush secret you know.

DJW001

jtma508
reply to post by Bedlam

 

They certainly wouldn't 'un cap' it. They would more likely use x-ray and other imaging available at the time to produce a very nice image of the circuitry contained in the IC. With that image, an analysis of the materials used, and associated electrical measurements of the connections, people would most certainly be able to determine the function of the IC.

Why makes you think a flying saucer would use anything so primitive as integrated circuits? What if it uses specially crafted DNA molecules? Would an X-ray clarify how that works?

With x-ray crystallography and synchrotron light sources of course.

reply to post by Bedlam


Bullcrap. Documents allegedly produced in the early 40's pertaining to alleged alien technologies describe components that were later identified as transistors, fiber optics, and integrated circuits. A Canadian patent for a semi-conductor FET was filed in 1925. Germanium transistors were demonstrated in AT&T's labs in the late 40's. And by the mid 50's commercial silicon transistors and transistor radios were being produced. Even IC's were being developed in the late 40's and 50's. So scientists were well along the path in the 40's.

Zaphod58
reply to post by MysterX

 

If you don' even have the physics knowledge of how something works you can throw all the money you want at it and it won't help. You have to at least have some knowledge of how something works before you can engineer it. You can study antigravity plates all you want but if you don't understand it how do you build it?

You have to at least be close to the technology level to do it. The smartest people in the world couldn't reverse engineer a 747 if they didn't understand the basics of it.

It's not necessarily the complexity or how advanced something is. To be able to reverse something you need to know the methods of production. Something might have a thin coating of some hybrid material on it, creating a special effect. You might be able to identify the components destructively, or with crystallography. But to be able to recreate the item, you'd have to know the (usually complex) methods used to create it. Otherwise the knowledge is not that useful.

Bedlam


But would you realize that the pretty patterns on the shiny stuff were junctions? Remember, they're damnably small in contemporary ICs, I'm not sure you'd see a lot with an optical microscope other than the surface metallization layers. The good stuff is underneath, and quite tiny. And that's only 70 years or so of tech progress. In 1945, they were randomly making wire-junction RF diodes from half-purified silicon. I'm not sure it would leap to mind that there were doping differences THERE under the metallization, if you could get to the die, and if you could strip off the metal and oxide layers to see the raw surface of the chip.

If somebody said "This is from a time traveller from the future or an advanced E.T." then there would be intense efforts and many people considering possibilities. Any one scientist might not consider the junctions but the whole set of them given years, and most importantly, knowledge that the design was intentional and engineered by somebody smart, yes they would. (1945 was not quite randomly making diodes, maybe late 1800's). One random person given a 'hey look at this' without any explanation of the importance is a different story.

Understanding and exploitation would not be fast, of course.

Now, go back some more - do you think in 1874 that he would have been able to figure out what an IC was? What about 1814? Only 200 years of difference, and you would never have a clue.

That's because the last 350 years has had an extraordinary rate of change, and this is slowing significantly now that fundamental understanding of chemistry & physics on ordinary space and energy scales has been successfully accomplished.

2014 technology difference from 1944, other than in microelectronics, is much smaller difference than 1944 technology vs 1874.
2074 tech vs today will be less of a difference still.

jtma508
reply to post by Bedlam

 

Bullcrap. Documents allegedly produced in the early 40's pertaining to alleged alien technologies describe components that were later identified as transistors, fiber optics, and integrated circuits.

Which documents might those be? Some Corso crap, or fake MJ-12 stuff? Real documents actually produced in the early 40's speak of struggling with making point contact diodes for radar. Much less a transistor.

A Canadian patent for a semi-conductor FET was filed in 1925.

Actually, no. Have you looked at the patent? No semiconductor there at all. He never managed to make one, either.

Germanium transistors were demonstrated in AT&T's labs in the late 40's.

The first point-contact transistor. It was about the size of a hockey puck, no doping. It's a modified point contact diode, like they were using in the 40's for radar diodes. It's very unlike what we use now.

And by the mid 50's commercial silicon transistors and transistor radios were being produced. Even IC's were being developed in the late 40's and 50's. So scientists were well along the path in the 40's.

In late 1958, Kilby fabricated a couple of capacitors and resistors and a transistor on separate bits of germanium and wired them together as a demo that it could be done. It was very large and very crude. It would be a couple of years before a real IC was made, and then it wasn't something like a calculator - you got RTL and DCTL flip flops -four transistors and two resistors. Not exactly a micro.

So, no, scientists weren't "well along the path by the 1940s", they didn't have a clue you could make an IC until 1958, then what you got was understandably crude.

mbkennel
(1945 was not quite randomly making diodes, maybe late 1800's).

The Rad Lab history is pretty specific - they made a lot of them but only a few would work and you had to hand pick to get the one or two per batch that were useful for radar work, then they wouldn't necessarily STAY useful. It was a problem with materials engineering. To me that's random.

That's because the last 350 years has had an extraordinary rate of change, and this is slowing significantly now that fundamental understanding of chemistry & physics on ordinary space and energy scales has been successfully accomplished.

But who says our little space buddies use a technology we'd even understand? You could easily be in the same boat as Newton trying to discover what's going on in a microprocessor. If you gave someone a current technology IC in 1945, perhaps a handful of Intel Atom devices, even if they understood point contact diodes, I am sure you would not know what it was for out of context. Even in context, I'm pretty certain they didn't have instrumentation that could give you a picture of what was going on in the circuit outside the chip, much less inside. It might give you a hint that certain things could be done, but how it was doing so is not something that would be immediately obvious.

I think the most accurate scene in recent sci-fi was that one from Independence Day where Brent Spiner is asked what they learned in the last 40 years about the flying saucer and he replies something like "Not much - we learned how to turn some systems on and off but we don't understand the basic operating principles".