It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Build your own UFO?

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 06:47 AM
Over the years I've entertained interest in this fringe topic of UFOs, or Flying Saucers.

Over the years, time and time again, people are always popping up claiming they know how to build a working flying saucer usually with some sort of antigravity engine.

There's many threads on this here on ATS. For instance (old threads with broken links not posted):
UFO how to build a UFO antigravity Electrogravitic Saucer

Internal workings of one type of UFO

Stan Deyo explains Antigravity propusion

There's also such things as this patent application from 1959 by Otis T Carr, supposedly claiming how to also build a saucer craft: How to build a real UFO (that works?)

There's all sorts of claims all over the internet, and even a book or few floating around claiming knowledge on how to build anti-gravity saucer craft (none I'm linking, but you can google "UFO How To The Basics" for at least one).

There was even a rant on one topic post earlier today by some member claiming to have worked out how to build a UFO, but frustrated that he doesn't have the means to do so, or any cooperation from others, so, he concludes that ATS sucks:

Thus, with all these plans and people claiming to know how to build these fantastic craft using Tesla somethings, or secrets derived from direct experience backwards engineering such craft for 'The Government', Torsion (which seems to be the new craze), or any number of what on the first glance surface seem to be plausible methods, why have we not yet to see even one single proof of concept civilian reveal?

All I'm asking for is a scale model proof of concept demonstration craft to show that this antigravity stuff that so many people seem eager to make claims about works.

I postulate, however, that the reason we've yet to see even just a small scale proof of concept working model is because all this talk, and all these claims are totally baseless amounting to just a bunch of techno-babble and promising pictures or designs that have not, and never will produce any sort of vehicle that could lift itself even an inch off the ground, let alone fly.

What's your take on all this ATS?

What happened to these people and their claims?

If you've got your own claim on how to build a flying saucer, what's your excuse for not having even a working small scale model to show us?
It's not that hard a request if anyone does indeed have real working knowledge of how to build one of these supposed craft, no?

off topic: This is my first thread. Be kind

edit on 13-4-2012 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-4-2012 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 07:17 AM
Additionally, I'd like to propose anyone in the ATS community that has the time, technical acumen, and means to do so, to pick whatever they feel may be plausible plans wherever they might find them, and do a video documentary Mythbusters style on building a scale model.

Doing a video would, I think, be a great addition to the community on giving an assessment about any of these claims.

In all probability the end result will likely be an assembly of parts that don't actually do anything, but, that result in itself in testing any or some of these claims, I think would be worthwhile.

posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 07:22 AM
reply to post by Druscilla

Sometimes I wonder if a lot of UFO sightings are just that...
People who have already figured it out and are zipping around doing test runs.
If it were me, I wouldn't tell a soul... but that's just me.
edit on 13-4-2012 by YourNewGod because: ok

edit on 13-4-2012 by YourNewGod because: yup

posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 09:24 PM
Just an assumption, but any working model is probably classified by DHS.

posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 09:36 PM
reply to post by ancientaliendeception

With respect, saying such is like saying every video on Youtube has to go through a vetting and approval process by DHS or any other agency as well.

Anyone that builds a working model, full-scale, or just small scale for demonstration as proof of concept could document the test or demonstration flights to log developmental progress, and upload said videos to every video hosting site on the net, burn all notes and videos to DVD over multiple copies, keep copies of DVDs in safety deposit boxes, and send copies under Nondisclosure agreement (to prevent theft) to every engineering firm that might show interest in supporting such a proof of concept that could net the initial developer millions of $.

Paranoia is one thing, but, anyone that could develop something like a working antigravity saucer craft in their basement or garage is entirely capable of flying under the radar long enough into development such that development can be proven and tested beyond the abilities of any MIB conspiracy cover-up to provide cover-up once global big money companies get a sniff at tech they could exploit and profit from.

No, if someone is 'smart' enough with the technical acumen to even accidentally figure out some revolutionary anti-gravity propulsion, it's dubious to think that they're going to be so naive or stupid to get 'caught', as if such development were illegal, or have just one set of 'proofs' of their work that anyone could simply disappear all their work by burning down their garage, or something.

Further, since these claims are made a number of times by a number of people, and continue to pop up, yet time and gain nothing is ever shown past some pretty drawings, and words on paper, it would seem most likely that these claims are just that, claims, that never got of the ground because they didn't actually work.

If it's so easy to 'figure out' how to create and build an antigravity saucer craft that an unemployed former truck driver living with his mom can claim to have figured it out, every do-it-yourself hobbyist and crazy haired wild eyed inventor would be zipping around.

edit on 14-4-2012 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 10:06 PM
Other than conjecture/ideas I highly doubt you will have it handed to you on a silver platter, especially here on ATS (no offense). I've written about some ideas here and there, some based on my own sightings/experiences. I have recently seen some of those same ideas being used/claimed by others on at least one UFO show, almost verbatim. Whether or not it was plagarized I don't really know. But to me, it's somewhat disturbing (but that's the way it is I guess). I like what the other poster said that perhaps some of those UFOs/ships seen are other people's garage experiments in action. He/she could be more right than wrong.

So, flip the script. Would you tell/show the world how to build a fully functional UFO/ship if you discovered how? Would you release it first on ATS or some other forum? If not, you can just message me the technical details. No NDA necessary...

TRUsssst in MMMEEeeee... ONly MMMEEeeee...

posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 10:37 PM
If you build your own craft, it is no longer unidentified, so I think it's impossible to 'build your own u.f.o.'

posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 10:59 PM
reply to post by Razimus

Thank you for your contribution, but, besides the semantics of what 'ufo' means, despite its original meaning, and your seeming ignorance regarding the term passing over to meaning saucer craft, or any other air/space vehicle typically associated with the characteristics of 'ufo' craft in the English lexicon, do you have anything worthwhile of substance to contribute other than that?

posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 11:10 PM
And who is going to give you a license to drive it. There would be a cop waiting with his ticket book every time I parked it. To fly an aircraft you need inspections. The FAA will impound any thing that flies if it doesn't have the necessary paperwork. I would never get it back either. Naaah....I'm not going to do anything that'll cause problems with my life.

posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 11:36 PM
reply to post by rickymouse

Please source the FAA or any international laws regarding the development and testing of a small proof of concept unmanned Radio/Remote Controlled demonstration model.

If you read my post, you'd see and understand that my proposition only requests that if indeed this antigravity technology is feasible, then, please, prove it if by only giving us a small unmanned remote control model that demonstrates how a full sized working piloted craft of the same design could also work.

We don't have that. No one has shown that. Thus, I'm making the statement that since such doesn't exist, or hasn't been demonstrated, then these claims are baseless.

I further challenge anyone with the technical acumen to take any plans for claimed antigravity saucer craft designs that can be found online, and document the building and testing of just a small scale model.

If it doesn't work, then, we've strong indication that at least the claim behind that design has been debunked.
If, it does indeed work, then, that opens up a whole new can of questions.

posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 11:39 PM
I think batteries would be a good place to stART




posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 11:45 PM
reply to post by mrmedinet

I aM soRrY bUT COUld YoU eXPlaiN THAT a LItTle MOre ClEArlY, oR epANd oN THAt linE oF THoUgHT?

WhAT doBattERIeShAvE tO do WITH AnYThInG?

posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 05:17 AM
reply to post by Druscilla


A very good Topic........ quite refreshing i must say......... now getting back to Problems faced with..... Building a anti gravity saucer craft...........

Problems or Technical challenges :Some understanding of physics required to understand this post........

1)Energy source: There is no energy source in the world(at least in this world) that is efficient enough to produce energy to levitate an object from the ground........... It would take millions even trillion Giga joules to levitate such a craft...... And the energy consumption would increase geometrically as the object travels faster or higher in the atmosphere......... Because craft is still governed by LAW OF INERTIA and LAW OF GRAVITY.
Solution at least in Theory:- is counter to Law of Gravity by reducing the effective weight of the craft....... though the mass would remain the same.......... That is......... reducing or at least shielding the gravitational and other attractions between the craft and the surrounding reality........... Gyroscope is one such device......... which does so but not much efficiently.......... but the physics is quite fascinating on the matter........ though this effect of gyroscope cannot be explained or understood fully........

So with Weight of craft reduced......... we do not need such huge amount of energy source...........And our craft can at least levitate from the ground..........

As how to oppose law of Inertia.......... I am a bit baffled myself.......... but i believe it can be done......... any ideas..........??

2) Braking: With No inertia and gravity how would you stop a craft or put a brake to its motion............??

Solution easy enough: apply opposite thrust......... Its hard to explain but let me give it a try.........

Any object at rest is held in its place by equal an opposite inertia forces on all its ends/sides........... So when Inertia is removed from one side the object would move in that direction...... Hence UFO are usually round disc or sphere......... because then they can easily select the side from which the inertia is to removed and their vessel will move in that direction....... Hence these are UFO are multi directional vessels or saucer crafts..... So to stop they just have to remove the inertia from the opposite side of the motion's direction.............

3)Computers: For doing such advance peco nano seconds calculation........... they would require very advance computers maybe even Quantum computers............ which unfortunately we do not have...........

Other Requirements:
4)Strong alloy........

5)Pilots with enough intelligence capability to run these crafts............

So with our current level Of understanding of science and physics......... it almost impossible for us to create a proper disc or sphere shaped multi directional saucer craft........... However............ we can create unidirectional crafts that can attain the same speeds as the multi directional disc saucer craft............. but has to be bigger than the disc crafts..........


posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 06:14 AM
reply to post by Primus87

As said before, I'm just looking for someone to show a proof of concept working model.

It can be the size of a hamster cage with even a hamster as a demonstration biological 'pilot' while the demonstration scale-sized model is remotely controlled.

Why sink the hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars into building a full-sized vehicle, if there's not even a teeny tiny proof-of-concept model showing that the principals behind the idea at least work?

I bet with only a few hundred $, if even that, one of these design plans floating around the internet could be assembled on a small scale and tested.

As said before, I'm pretty certain were anyone to attempt this challenge, the assembly and attempt would fail, but, with documentation and video to detail the effort, the failure could serve as a busted myth, at least for the specific design plan or instructions obtained for the project.

edit on 15-4-2012 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 09:41 AM
reply to post by Druscilla


You did not get my point....... did you........?? I mean these specifications for small working prototype......... if you search the net you would find out that scientist couple of years ago to levitate a frog had to charge the device for over a month and that too for levitating the frog for couple of mins or hr at most.............


posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 10:00 AM
reply to post by Primus87

You didn't address the proposal. You just went crazy with technical explanations which really don't matter since, the proposal is to pick ANY antigravity saucer craft plans floating around the net, as there are indeed many, and then, following the instructions of said plans, put together a small model, document and video the progress and results, and then, if it doesn't work, then, we can then positively say with informed and tested confidence "It Don't Work. Plans/Designs are bunk".

thing about these plans/designs floating around the internet is that part of the design is that the power plant for propulsion is also the source of propulsion, so, the plans are sometimes also touted as 'free energy' solutions.

Build a UFO, and also get free energy in the bargain. Thus, according to your claims, if you were to follow the instructions of some of the claimed designs on the internet, the power requirements you're making statements about would not be a concern whether you built one the size of a hamster cage, or the size of a football stadium complex. Supposedly it's all scalable according to some claims. Build to whatever scale and it'll work.

Thus, were someone to meet this challenge, it'd be more economical to take the small approach since most probably any claims about aintigravity saucer craft designs on the internet will be a total sham.

posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 10:26 AM
reply to post by Druscilla


you want to debunk or proof that anti gravity craft are possible....... right.........?? i just gave you the reasons why they cannot be built just yet........ there is no point in building whatever crap is floating on the net.......... because there is a difference between anti gravity craft and air propulsion or any other propusion craft............ so whatever the people on the net claim without meeting these challenges......... there can be no Anti gravity craft........... No matter what people say..... some say to use light as a propulsion system........ and i did heard that some experiments where done but not much success....... it faced the same problems/ any other anti gravity craft.........

We know the science to make Anti gravity craft but not the technology to make it......... assuming government(s) did not make one..........


posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 02:40 PM
I just came across this one the other day:


And under

2. POWER SYSTEM One of Tesla’s patents, Method for Signaling, Patent No. 723,188, which has the two primaries marked as “p1 “and “p2”—possibly the origin of the title “p2” given to the 1935-38 New Mexico project run by von Braun—shows an oscillator system having two separate pancake-coils, tuned differently, running off a common rotary spark gap and dynamo.

is a diagram for cylinder or cigar ships and such things as:

That I used to call quad coil Tesla drive cause that one was smoking.
When they go slower they can look like zebras with stripes or follow waves of
light and dark going front to back as the high pressure drive mechanism pushes
electrical charges around.

posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 06:16 PM
Here is an actual field propulsion device, this device works by altering the local gravity field to produce thrust.

posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 06:38 PM
I have some concerns about the public release of such information. An antigravity device has no limit to range unlike a missile. If such information was released and it was fairly easy to replicate then you WILL get sick people with twisted minds using it to direct explosives to desired locations. Imagine if such knowledge fell into the hands of Muslim terrorists. They would be sending chemical, biological and explosives devices to every city in the western world.

For this reason its not a question of simplest method is best (in an ideal world that would be true) but I believe that the method revealed should be highly complex or expensive to replicate so as to lift it out of the capability of average people. I have come to the conclusion that the average person should not get this technology into their hands, at least not in our times due to the evil which is in the hearts of many.
I used to believe that this technology should be put into the hands of the masses, I now realise I was wrong, too many evil people on this earth.

edit on 15-4-2012 by LUXUS because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in