What about empirical evidence?

Mr Anonymous

09-15-05, 06:38 PM

Fukushi - my apologies for the delay in responding, wanted to give you a proper answer and that takes a bit of time and thought...

Here goes.

not necessarily! It can be that you observe something and try to find a fitting theary for it, isn't it!

No. The correct technical term for that is an Hypothesis... Though the term Theory works just as well.

A Theory of itself doesn't constitute proof. It's a suggestion, an idea. If that Theory suggests the possibility of applying the idea in some manner where by one can demonstrate its actual workings then one has what one can term proof of the Theory...

The problem is of course, no matter how good the Theory, how does one prove that it is actually what underlies the thing it is your trying to prove in the first place?

A classic example here would be UFO propulsion.

Now, over the years many, many people have suggested all sorts of Theories concerning quite what it is that lies at the heart of your average UFO's propulsion system - some good, some bladdy awful.

The problem lies here not with the Theories proposed, but with the nature of your average UFO - simply put, they don't tend to hang around long enough for you to be able to pop the hood and take a peek under the bonnet.

If we ascribe, for example, some form of microwave pulse drive as being the engine of choice for your more sportier and discerning of extraterrestrial, then we can say "Okay, how would such a thing work?" and then we can go ahead and figure out to our hearts content exactly how such a means of propulsion can be undertaken and make to work.

So far, so great. We have a working hypothesis - a specific theory concerning UFO propulsion and a method by which it can be brought about.

But, and this remains the question. Once we have the theory, how exactly do we know that the UFO actually applies such a method at all? In order for us to know that for a fact, we have to capture a UFO, pop the hood and have a poke around under the bonnet. Once we locate the mechanisms clearly associated with the propulsive methodology our Theory dictates, then we have both poof and validation of the Theory proposed...

Until then, what we've got is simply just a jolly good idea.

And that's all we've got.

If, and it's a big if, our specific Theory concerning Microwave Pulse Drive, or whatever, is based on actual science, then there remains no reason why the theory can't be applied and demonstrated. If such remains the case, we have proof of the theory and means of verifying the theory empirically via demonstration.

That still doesn't prove anything whatsoever regarding UFO's, but at least you've learned something new and interesting from the whole exercise...

What we percieve to be reality must be real, if not, our perception = false and this means: that we can't draw conclusions to most of the perceptions we have and the percieving/uderstanding we do (implement/connect a conclusion to it)

:) ... A good point, well said. The statement depends entirely though on what it is we believe it is we're observing or experiencing in the first place.

Lets stick with the UFO motif here. Face it, no one who ever actually reported a UFO ever actually did so because they genuinely believed that the object they were observing actually was the errant weather balloon or the simple misidentification of the perfectly ordinary subsequent investigation into the matter later reveals to have been the most probable case in the circumstance described.

And both these criteria remains a fact in by far and in large the vast majority of all reported UFO sightings.

Every time a UFO report is made it is done so wholly in the belief that the object observed was actually a vehicle of some description originating from another world.

The problem here isn't what is being observed, its the assumption the observer makes regarding its nature....

If a child wakes in the night and perceives in the dark and shadows the form of a monster slouched at the foot of the bed they scream for their parents not just piss them off - they react the way they do because what they observe dictates to the evidence of their reason a creature meaning them hard. The experience is real, it is profound, the sense terror the form observed elicits, palpable.

Yet, when the hallway lights go on and a bleary eyed parent stumbles in response to the child�s calls into the bedroom that same light reveals the monster to have been nothing more than the shape of a chair with the child�s cloths draped across it, exactly as it was when the child first went peacefully to sleep earlier that same night.

Now - if your statement as it stands merits scrutiny, it dictates that actually that chair is really no such thing at all. It's a monster with the ability of cloaking itself as a common or garden household object in the light when adults are around, reverting back to its actual form only later when the child is alone and helpless in the dark.

We could debate the various mechanisms of that, the mechanics involved. We could, from what we perceive in these speculations, distil all manner of theories regarding the various means and motives of monsters in general - and lets face facts here, millions of children on a regular basis experience monsters and goblins and all manner of crawly nasties each and every night until they grow out of it - but if we proceed what we are exploring here is not reality as reality actually is, it's the reality of our own imagination we are addressing.

The line of reasoning our own mind dictates, not the nature of the actual thing we observe at all. But us.

And we can know this remains the case regarding UFO sightings, because you yourself have experienced the fact time and time again probably without even realising you've been seeing it.

Have you ever watched a conventional plane fly?

You can tell a lot from just lying in the grass on a warm summers day and watching a plane fly on its way overhead - from its position relative to the sun you can working out its current course and heading, if its throwing out a contrail that dictates its a jet, also goes a good way to pegging its altitude and speed. You can make a lot of very good, pretty much accurate conclusions from such simple and common observation as this.

But the one thing you can't possibly know from observing such a craft whilst observed in transit during part of its journey like this is specifically what airport did the plane take off from.

Neither can you actually tell or know what airport that plane is eventually destined to land.

Even if you happen to be an air traffic controller and have there in your hand a filed flight plan of the plane in question - unless you can visually confirm by eye that the plane you are observing is actually the same as the one listed on the flight plan, you can't possibly know the answer to either of these two questions.

Nobody that ever lived ever possibly could, and this remains perfectly true with the observation of any moving vehicle observed in passage be it plane or boat or car or bicycle or anything at all - unless of course the object being observed happens to be a UFO.

Then, suddenly. miraculously, the world and his dog develops the preternatural ability to do exactly this - to know with absolute certainty that the object they are observing originated from a place no body can possibly see by eye or even telescope and yet [know absolutely all the same exactly where the object observed in transit originally came from.

And whichever way one cuts it, there's simply no way around that fundamental flaw in "The Knowledge" concerning such things.

And that is the place where everything concerning UFO sightings begins. The differences between what is possible to actually observe and actually be able to know from the observation.

The fundamental question one always has to ask oneself is precisely how is it possible for a person to be able to know the things they claim based on their own account of how they came by the information in the first place.

That's the start point one takes if one wants to actually find out anything about anything...

eeeh, wel, not precisely but fair enough!
What I'm trying do answer is the notion that what people experience is only a part of the whole truth,...

So this could mean people who've NOT have had PERSONAL experiences, must therefore refrain from believing things that are plausible to their imagination: like for instance: if they didn't see a UFO themselves, then how could they ever convince themselves of the reality of UFO's? Story's? Books? Al not viable in my point of view...correct?

I think I get where your going here - as a process what your describing here is Chinese Whispers. One person relays a message to the next, the next passes it on and so on and so forth. At the end of the line you compare the message you started with the message relayed back to the original message sender and, invariably, one thing transforms into something entirely completely different.

Moreover, everyone in the chains perception of the message being relayed is quite different from the next...

When you're dealing with a subject by in large anecdotal in evidence inevitably you end up dealing with a game of Chinese Whispers and indeed, pretty much as relayed above, thought, research and debate invariably tends to concern and address issues regarding human assumption and expectation regarding such matters as extraterrestrials and what have you, rather than actually addressing the matter to hand.

People tend to forget, before the term UFO or Flying Saucer was ever coined, there existed an established belief already amongst certain members of the Fortean Society (that bastion of all things otherworldly) that the earth was being visited by extraterrestrial beings - pre-1947 and the Kenneth Arnold sightings which really sparked off the whole original Flying Saucer phenomena, the tenants of this particular belief sighted examples from the bible as being "evidence" that what man perceived as Angels and God were actually the work of astronaughts and space ships.

Pre-Kenneth Arnold there came the occasional report of aerial sightings of objects termed as Ghost Rockets from around the 1930's, subsequently there also came tales from WWII aircrews describing Foo-Fighters, neither of which convey in any way a description conforming to that of unidirectional, disc-like craft in the slightest, but sightings all which the very same individuals that after Kenneth Arnolds original modern-day Flying Saucer observations would be trumping in the national press the loudest about how the objects described by this Arnold chap were exactly the sorts of things they had been talking about for decades before - even though there remains a marked disparity between the physical description of a Ghost Rocket and that of a flying disc...

One never wants to let a mere fact get in the way of an almost faultless hypothesis.

But what so-called UFO researchers tend to conveniently forget the most is the simple fact that, though this Kenneth Arnold chaps original sightings of 9 objects (8 crescent shaped, one large disc) observed over the Mount Rainer area indeed sparked off the modern UFO phenomena we have today, they tend to leave out the very reason this chaps sightings actually got picked up and published in the national newspapers to begin with.

It was never anything at all to do with the belief in extraterrestrials to begin with - it was all to do with a chap called Chuck Jaeger and the US's attempts to break the speed of sound.

In October 1947 Jaeger would become the first man in history to fly a plane over the threshold of the sound barrier, Mach 1. And it was an American x-plane in which he did it. By that time the Cold War was already well established and it was Americas already well avowed public intent to lead the way in what would eventually become termed as The Space Race - after WWII America and Russia emerged with literally all of the stuff of science fiction of the pre-war era developed as actual physical reality. Rockets and Jets were the marvel of the age, and America�s attempts at being the first to break what was at the time the greatest barrier of all, the Sound Barrier, was well documented and well speculated upon throughout the world.

The attempts leading up to that final success were well covered in the press throughout the period of 1946-47, and Americas failure up until that point a matter of public knowledge.

So, when in June of that same year a chap reports seeing objects travelling at a speed considerably over the speed of sound, something in the region of 1000 mph I believe the original report claimed, naturally that caught the presses attention.

Have we succeeded, is it the Russians? These are the questions actually people were initially asking themselves regarding the Kenneth Arnold sighting - but the fact that it was public knowledge that the no one had as yet broken the sound barrier and yet here is a description from a reasonably respectable individual concerning objects which apparently could and more, disclose nothing by way engines in order to do it, rapidly alerted the attention of the sorts of people who did hold with the belief in extraterrestrial visitations at the time and suddenly they found themselves with a national platform from which they could speak.

After all, it was a fact, no man made craft had ever breached the sound barrier, right?

The day after the Kenneth Arnold suddenly the world is being invaded from out of space, but actually on the day of the publication if Kenneth Arnolds actual observations, no one was saying anything of the sort...

But it�s the perception that colours the public�s imagination the most, as well as that of your merely average UFO investigator...

It all starts with Flying Saucers. And simply because a thing doesn't look, act or behave in anyway like a conventional plane or jet certainly that provokes a few interesting questions, but its a considerably stretch to simply take an observation like that and conclude that that same object, simply because it doesn't behave like a conventional aircraft must as simply consequence be capable of interplanetary (latterly, interstellar) flight.

It's a conclusion, certainly.

But based on what? Fact, knowledge, or simply just belief? ;)

duendy

09-16-05, 03:44 AM

you have to look for clues everywhere...........your analogy of the child and the chair in the dark is good regarding the potential of subjective imagnation, but when a UFO is recordedin film that's a different matter, no?

today it is most possibly harder than anyting to be able to tell if a video, photo, is doctored cause technology is so good. this goes for 'talking terrorists' too....after all they can make pigs talk on film...riiiiiight?

so maybe films made pre a certain time, and by whom would hav e to be included in the criteria of possible real evidence

also things like that dude who was recently arrested for hacking into the secret US files. he is supposed to have read there being used anti-gravity craft secret technology

so......why would he say that? wht does he benefit for saying that? it wouldn't exactly help him. the US are threatening
extradition of his person with possibility of al least life in jail!

it is PLAUSIBLE that their might be advanced technology we haven't been told about?...ie., are you aware that your governing body keeps things from you, and in fat gets a kick out of manipulating you. tis field demands another area of inquiry as part of your investigation about this. so specialization allowed!

Also--what about AREA 51? what do you suppose has gone on/is going on there? any ideas?

what i a saying is tis. what else can a person do when faced with unusual phenomena than --if having one--readh for the recording equipment??...seriousoy. what else can they o? i am asking you'll

shout at the occupants to trow down some metal?? what what?

so they record it.

now. IF one's hypothesis is all about craft that hae to go faster than light to travel from Nebula xxyx etc, then surely that is complicating things isn't it?,,,,geyt me?
rather look at te clues we have, even in tis little space. tat the possibility is recorded craft may be MAN-made.......

Stryder

09-16-05, 06:02 AM

Area51...
Okay well as you know during the Mid to Late 1940's the US continued their Testing of Atomic weapons. From the test locations they realised that Nuclear explosions could be quite devistating not just from force but fall out.

This would suggest when they eventually build such weapons on a larger scale they should be housed somewhere "Remote" to lessen the Civillian Casuality's should either a bomb accidentally explode or the place housing them became a target.

This increased the number of "Area's" and of course the size of the "Area's". (Area 51 isn't the only "Area".)

It is possible that Area 51 continued Weapons development projects that could be no longer housed in Civillian Laboratories or Universities due to security protocols. (Afterall it's documented that during the Atomic bomb creation/tests the Civillian Researchers involved didn't like the amount of Secrecy/Military rulesets applied to them and their work as it felt suffocating to them.)

Obviously in recent years there was alot of talk about "Prototype Stealth Bombers", considering the first non-test Bombs were dropped by an aircraft it only makes sense that such Area's could still house payloads and explain why such Area's are "Remote Locations".

Mr Anonymous

09-16-05, 08:23 PM

you have to look for clues everywhere...........your analogy of the child and the chair in the dark is good regarding the potential of subjective imagnation, but when a UFO is recordedin film that's a different matter, no?

�. so maybe films made pre a certain time, and by whom would hav e to be included in the criteria of possible real evidence

Hello duendy, sorry to paraphrase your post here, can�t abide it m�self when people just pick lines at out of context and break the whole thing down so the sense of the original posters reply is completely lost.

I trust I�ve gotten the gist of the beginning. It�s a good point, and it�s important to remember.

It�s possible, likely actually, that indeed there does exist genuine, untampered film footage of objects which conform to UFO Classification. And perfectly correctly, I�d say the further back you go, the less sophisticated the opportunities for jiggery-pokery available become, the likelier the genuine nature of the material.

This isn�t to say that older material hasn�t been faked. There have been some remarkably well put together hoaxes which only today�s advanced image processing capabilities have brought to light which have served as Ufology greatest trump cards for decades until exposed. And it isn�t as if the people who supported them as genuine knew the truth. They didn�t. UFO debunkers told them they were fake for years well before the exposure, but in the final analysis the arguments the debunkers used often times turned out to be actually as hoakey, if not hoakier (if such an adjective exists) than many of the claims the UFO believers were actually making in their support for what ultimately turned out to be�

Nothing at all. Nothing real.

But yes, there may yet still indeed be genuine footage. The real McCoy. And let us say that me and you are actually looking at it, the genuine thing�

What is it that we actually see?

also things like that dude who was recently arrested for hacking into the secret US files. he is supposed to have read there being used anti-gravity craft secret technology

so......why would he say that? wht does he benefit for saying that? it wouldn't exactly help him. the US are threatening
extradition of his person with possibility of al least life in jail!

it is PLAUSIBLE that their might be advanced technology we haven't been told about?...ie., are you aware that your governing body keeps things from you, and in fat gets a kick out of manipulating you. tis field demands another area of inquiry as part of your investigation about this. so specialization allowed!

Presumably, in viewing genuine film footage of some form of metallic object, roughly unidirectional in airframe, singularly lacking in any external means of propulsion, wings, tail, etc, capable of travelling at appreciable speed and incredibly high (nay, many would claim impossible) manoeuvrability you would, to your mind, be observing evidence possibly of some form of secret military project utilising radically advanced propulsion principals not seen in evidence anywhere else in the world.

Were you a believer in extraterrestrials, you may possibly be inclined to expand upon that.

Looks like nothing else on earth, behaves like nothing else on earth�. Can�t be explained in terms of any known method of propulsion�. What else could it possibly be we are witnessing here except either a genuine example of extraterrestrial technology in action, or else the application of extraterrestrial technology acquired� who knows how, but it however it was it probably began with an R and rhymes with Boswell, right? ;)

And this differs from the reaction of the-child-in-the-dark-to-the-chair how, precisely?

Remember, we�re looking at the footage of the real McCoy here, the genuine-100%-accept-no-substitutes article: and depending upon ones proclivities regarding what it is we believe we are seeing, we see the evidence of our own personal belief.

You see evidence of what you already believe regarding such objects, a believer in extraterrestrials see the same thing in precisely the terms of their own belief�. Absolutely no different from believing that monsters can exist, therefore what I see at the end of my bed in the dark is a monster, not a chair.

Yet you are observing non-subjective evidence. Even better. Genuine film footage of an actual UFO�.

And so we answer the question posited in opening:

but when a UFO is recordedin film that's a different matter, no?

�Fraid not in the slightest. Hell, if a UFO actually parked itself in Times Square and just sat there long enough for every news crew the world over to film it twice before getting bored and buggering off again as eerily and mysteriously as it first arrived � sure, you�ve captured evidence irrefutable that UFO�s are real beyond any possible shadow of a doubt.

But y�still don�t know what it is, where it came from, what it�s made from, how it actually works. You�ve got no clue as to its purpose, I believe we�ve already covered the bit concerning its function, and you remain absolutely, completely, utterly non-the-wiser for the entire affair.

The reason being, everyone perceives UFO�s to be representations of certain things. Advanced this, extraterrestrial that. Type in the term UFO on Google. There are actually more sites on the net dedicated to the beliefs concerning UFO�s than to good quality hi-resolution facials...

And they are all different.

And I'm not talking about the facials here. ;)

So we go beyond just the mere evidence of simple film footage, we experience the actual thing. We even get to reach and touch the bladdy thing and still all we see is what our belief tells us UFO�s are, not at all the actual UFO itself.

And this is the problem with UFO�s.

It�s nothing to do with them.

It�s us.

We are the problem. We are the ones who set impossibly high expectation on the merest of �evidence� in the hope that what we belief and hope and dream is somehow real because of them.

At the end of the day, presuming such things which conform to UFO Classification actually do transpire to be vehicles of some description � big deal, what you�ve got is a very nifty means of getting about, but that�s all you�ve got.

Unconventional, sure.

Now. Where�s the rest�? ;)

The question this thread posits concerns the nature of empirical evidence� But evidence of what, precisely? Reality as it is, or merely what we believe reality to contain?

duendy

09-17-05, 04:22 AM

i think you make things too complicated. let us be simple. many poeple hve recorded craft. some of this footge canot be explained.....someof these pics of UFOs seem to comply with range of distance, light, etc............so ther is the evidence. what else cold the eveidencer have done? fl after it nd get some metal?....no. he used the technology at hand to record it

tese so-caled scpetics here who THEN claim that ALL reoiorted sighting, including those recorded are ALL KNOWN to be 'false'...I then ask, so where is YOUR evidence for that bold assertion. a simple question

some will ten trow in ETs into their hyopthesis tat UFOS cannot be even possibly cause of the vast difference, and limitations of physics--going faster tan light etc--. SO i thn say, but why include te ET stuff? that is superfluous as such (thoug i respect poeple who assume ET contact, that is not 'proof' as a RECORDED pic/video of a craft, rigt?)........so i say...why not MAN-made craft? so then we look at tis aspect. we leave the oter stuff and investiage thepossibility of tis. tis means NO specialization. being flexible in approach right?

the few autors ho have looked at tis reveal that te CIA are involved in TWO sides of the UFO debate....they bot fund the 'fors' and the'againsts'.....this is like political scam of 'left' and 'right' where BOTH parties belong to the same source
so...are you gong with me....w e are collecting clues. clues that might bring us closer to some kind of answer to whats going on....

Mr Anonymous

09-17-05, 07:17 PM

i think you make things too complicated. let us be simple�.

:) .... duendy, I assure you I�m with you all the way when it comes to chucking out the ET stuff � if your average UFO report consisted of the witness giving a detailed account how they first saw the UFO they�ve reported take off from Zeta Reticuli or wherever and wing its way across the galaxy to here and, presumably, back again, then subsequent thought has to go into explaining UFO�s in terms of interstellar travel because that is what the eyewitness sees�

The fact that your average UFO report doesn�t relay anything of the sort and frankly never has (not even the truly whacked out UFO nut goes quite that far) does indeed imply Ufologists have been looking in all the wrong places for answers all along and only really looking at UFO�s in the first place as a means by which the presence and existence of extraterrestrials can be facilitated and maintained in terms of the belief in intelligent extraterrestrial life goes �

But you were discussing the viability of certain sorts of evidence.

Rather than do the usual, in addressing your question I not only conceded to the point concerning genuine film footage as evidence, I suggested why not chuck the need for evidence altogether and suggested a scenario where the need for evidence becomes irrelevant.

In terms of simplicity, an actual UFO touching down in broad daylight in Times Square it surely doesn�t get more clear cut than that short of a fully illustrated guided tour and a description of a UFO in terms of standard applied physics �

In the interests of even greater simplicity, I draw your attention to the following, HERE (http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/how-by-frank-marshal/Index.html) .

No need to argue over evidence whatsoever, a UFO as a vehicular means described in terms of standard applied physics � short of set of engineering schematics, it�s even better than the real thing when it comes to a scientifically acceptable explanation of what a UFO is and how such a thing actually works. You can apply the actual physics and build your own.

But the point, duendy, is this: here�s a UFO. Not contesting its reality. The above link contains everything you need to know about how a UFO operates and why it behaves the way eyewitness describe. The real and actual deal�

The question is, okay. You�ve got a UFO. But what do you actually see. It, or what it represents to your way of thinking?

duendy

09-18-05, 06:30 AM

not sure we are meaning the same ting.......let me be clear whati am saying then then u can decide....i am saying, or exploring, cause i dont know--that there's a possibility that advaned technology is being hidden from us........

that this secret technology uswes some form of anti-gravitational free-energy

that the reason it IS suppressed i that allowing public knowledge and thereby use, this would greatly strip away the power of the fascstic elite forces controlling us and this planet

that eventually they will use tis sedret technology as a means to totally take over...ie., their proposed 'new world order'. so we can see who benefits from suppressing this technology....no?

so, i a looking at a bigger picture. not just 'UFOology' or what ever you want to call it

Mr Anonymous

09-18-05, 07:09 PM

:) ... Not a bit duendy, that's exquisite. Thank you for your candour, actually that's precisely what I've been getting at...

To your point of view UFO's themselves represent a deeper, larger, more encompassing mystery.

I get that. That's the problem, here's the rub of it...

Fukushi begins this thread enquiring about the nature of empirical evidence regarding UFO's - and in asking the question highlights a problem fundamental to the whole issue regarding the subject which is this -

Fundamentally, no body actually gives a crap about UFO's.

Least of all the people that profess some form of belief or interest in them.

The point I'm trying to get at here is that the only purpose UFO's serve in themselves is as a means towards some deeper, deeper mystery. In the case of believers in extraterrestrial visitations, proving the existence of UFO's means a way of proving the existence of visiting ET's. In the case of people like yourself who don't prescribe to the ET scenario, UFO's are, as you so admirably put it, a means of a way of proving the existence of secret technology and global domination by a sinister interior force...

So, in seeking "empirical evidence" ostensibly to do with Unidentified Flying Objects, actually what people are looking for is proof of something else entirely, an ice berg of various concepts UFO's themselves manifest only as evidence of the very smallest part of all the hidden rest.

And can you see the problem here?

Over the entire course of the last 60 odd years no one has ever once simply sat down and actually thought about UFO's - despite all the books and the films and an internet full of material dedicated to the issue and nothing but - still no one actually gives a flying crap about UFO's themselves, only about them as being evidence of something bigger, larger and completely hidden.

Basically meaning, if the truth were handed to you on a plate, would you actually be able to see it unless it manifestly appeared to lead in the direction you already believe the truth lies?

duendy

09-19-05, 03:49 AM

not sure i agree with you

If, say, someone is very very much wanting therer to be some connection between UFOs and ETs, ten tis hope can actually be quit religiousy--the desire for some off-earth intervention to 'save' us etc......now, in that respect i might agree with your take in it

but regarding my own position, no. of course then the craft would be paramount. for it could mean that technology is of human origin. all the ET stuff wouldn't get in te way of observation, etc. you'd be lookin wit a different attitude

HOWEVER....s i keep saying.....i do not know. these are seeking-out questions, orrrrr detective investigations, and i tend to look as far afield as possible so i can see a larger pattern. for example, the behaviours of the power elite, and cui bono, who benefits, an so on

i do not discount that there also could be ET craft and contact. there is a fascinating case of Carlos Diaz :
see: Ships of Light: The Carlos Diaz Experience http://hesemann.watchers.ca/shipsoflight.html

so. i dont want to get caught up in ny 'side'....but to try and be as open about this subject as poss

Mr Anonymous

09-19-05, 07:31 PM

...but regarding my own position, no. of course then the craft would be paramount. for it could mean that technology is of human origin. all the ET stuff wouldn't get in te way of observation, etc. you'd be lookin wit a different attitude

Oh, I've no doubt your a very open minded person duendy, but in what way would your sort of position be particularly different from that of a believer in ET? I mean, as you described your outlook on the matter, previously:

i am saying, or exploring, cause i dont know--that there's a possibility that advaned technology is being hidden from us........

that this secret technology uswes some form of anti-gravitational free-energy

that the reason it IS suppressed i that allowing public knowledge and thereby use, this would greatly strip away the power of the fascstic elite forces controlling us and this planet

that eventually they will use tis sedret technology as a means to totally take over...ie., their proposed 'new world order'. so we can see who benefits from suppressing this technology....no?

Observations of UFO's specifically date back from as early as June 1947 - that means the fascist elite have been in possession of this "anti-gravitational" free energy and able to harness it for the purpose of ship propulsion specifically for some 58 years now...

I mean, okay. In the early days, whilst your running your prototypes and ironing out all the bugs and so forth, y'can expect sightings to be rare, sporadic things and highly hush-hush. However, in the intervening time conventional science has gone from Nuclear Fusion to Nuclear Fission - and even the Stealth Bomber only took 10 - 15 years to develop from early prototype to production model.

If this technology was up and operational, albeit in prototype form, back in 1947 - from around the mid 60's onwards the technology involved should be in full operational service to the present day.

In fact, by now, the developers should be regarding it as rather old hat...

Y'see, if we pursue the line of logic here, surely we end up spending more time figuring out why the technology of the thing is actually hidden and still not in evidence, rather than just simply address what UFO witness actually describe observing concerning the objects in question as presented in first hand UFO reports?

Besides, what exactly is it about UFO's that dictate secret, "special" physics need to be applied in order to understand what people simply relay in observation?

Surely, the belief that UFO's utilise special, extraordinary physical principals in the first place is an assumption not at all borne out in observation?

Just because a thing doesn't look like a jet and doesn't act particularly like one doesn't necessarily dictate its using a whole new set of physics in order to do that - it's an assumption.

Given that people have been applying that particular line of reasoning for the past 58 years and coming up with bubkis, wouldn't it be a slightly better idea to, instead of Ufologists insisting the world forget everything its ever known and accept whatever radical new theory it happens to be pushing concerning UFO propulsion or whatever, to just try first wrapping their head around what it is the rest of the world does actually know and try applying it sensibly...?

Real world physics may be as dull as old dish water, but at least it has the virtue of being both understandable, demonstrable and, more importantly, it actually works... ;)

duendy

09-20-05, 09:07 AM

Oh, I've no doubt your a very open minded person duendy, but in what way would your sort of position be particularly different from that of a beliief in aliens...?
[/list]

[SIZE=3][FONT=Arial Narrow]Observations of UFO's specifically date back from as early as June 1947 - that means the fascist elite have been in possession of this "anti-gravitational" free energy and able to harness it for the purpose of ship propulsion specifically for some 58 years now...
me: cheekout tis which will give you a brief overview of one individual's ideas about alaterntive possibilities regarding UFOs http://www.meta-religion.com/secret_societies/secret_societies.htm

I mean, okay. In the early days, whilst your running your prototypes and ironing out all the bugs and so forth, y'can expect sightings to be rare, sporadic things and highly hush-hush. However, in the intervening time conventional science has gone from Nuclear Fusion to Nuclear Fission - and even the Stealth Bomber only took 10 - 15 years to develop from early prototype to production model.
me: not sure what you are saying. do you mean that because of the overt evoulutionary progression of technology thattis must discount early revolutionary developments?

If this technology was up and operational, albeit in prototype form, back in 1947 - from around the mid 60's onwards the technology involved should be in full operational service to the present day.

me: well not openly......? te idea is that what ever it is it is covert

In fact, by now, the developers should be regarding it as rather old hat...

me: just wondering to myself...how one could improve on free energy. IF i existed??

Y'see, if we pursue the line of logic here, surely we end up spending more time figuring out why the technology of the thing is actually hidden and still not in evidence, rather than just simply address what UFO witness actually describe observing concerning the objects in question as presented in first hand UFO reports?
me: i feel it is highly significat to wonder bout precisely becuse of other events that are secret but are becoming known about. and tat a pattern becomes being evident. so one would--in my view--be unwise to notbe aware of the whole emerging picture.....it only can get tied down if one insists that there can ONLYBE nman-made UFOs. he it can become a religion. as i said we dont know. but attempting to approach this rigidly wont bear fruit. tats my way any hey

Besides, what exactly is it about UFO's that dictate secret, "special" physics need to be applied in order to understand what people simply relay in observation?

me: Free Energy!

Surely, the belief that UFO's utilise special, extraordinary physical principals in the first place is an assumption not at all borne out in observation?

me: well accounts i have heard usually include awe about the ability of so and so spacecraft

Just because a thing doesn't look like a jet and doesn't act particularly like one doesn't necessarily dictate its using a whole new set of physics in order to do that - it's an assumption.

me: all of this is assumption. but i also recommend then seeing what may be pluasible.....Obviouly if you have craft made by humans it will hve to abide by physics. but WHAT physics is the question? is it an advanced physics? are you telling me that disregarding thi issue for a moment, tat in te futture there wont be further discoveries about physics? get me?

Given that people have been applying that particular line of reasoning for the past 58 years and coming up with bubkis, wouldn't it be a slightly better idea to, instead of Ufologists insisting the world forget everything its ever known and accept whatever radical new theory it happens to be pushing concerning UFO propulsion or whatever, to just try first wrapping their head around what it is the rest of the world does actually know and try applying it sensibly...?

me: tried to explain before. when people/scientists try and be too maverick, and step on corporate toes, and secret society toes, they can get emselves killed. tho made to look like various accidents, suicide etc......obviously if a form of teechnology was syppessed it wouldn't be welcomed for a.b or c to start taking a patent out on sumthin similar...?

Real world physics may be as dull as old dish water, but at least it has the virtue of being both understandable, demonstrable and, more importantly, it actually works... ;)

me: true. but whats your point?

m-------------l---------------/////////

Mr Anonymous

09-20-05, 06:14 PM

>Sigh....!< duendy. All the best with it.

Toodles,

A ;)

Fukushi

09-22-05, 06:08 PM

You don�t have to apologise for any delay, I appreciate it that you take the time to think it over. In this way we are always certain of what we are trying to say to each other and what we are trying to relay to people. I hope you don�t mind that my own response is a little late too.

Late in my own terms, because, as always happens, you and duendy have taken this thread in a direction which was not originally intended, but: a differing direction is not by definition a bad thing and often leads to new insights, however there are scarce new insights to divulge in the discussion for the reality of �unconventional-flying-objects�. One often tends to relay on information that is (ent-)rusted in his neural pathways of his/her brain,�

People are generally afraid of new insights that behave contrary to their popular belief systems that are carved in the sociological pathways of society. People want simple answers! Yes, ufo�s exist! No, ufo�s don�t exist! Yes, there is intelligent life outside of our earth! No, there is no other intelligence outside of our own planet. They even try to force a �democratic� vote upon it, to determine if it does or doesn�t, these questions can�t be answered by a poll,�how much more unintelligent can it get? Unfortunately the question of �UFO�s� or �alien existence� does require a whole lot of study and techniques that are all but simple, let alone to explain. Therefore scientists and also ordinary people often tend to relay information upon a basis of the �given�: that which is established as a fact is taken for granted and often not even allowed for to be questioned.

Too often people are discredited, because of a theory that they can�t fathom and too often theory�s are denounced and any evidence (whiter it be data, facts or documents), gets pockmarked and branded as ridiculous, ludicrous, preposterous, unbelievable, absurd, illogical, unscientific, unsound, unfounded, outrageous, speculative, despicable, loathsome, �

Bordering on the TABOO, one needs to realise that it often required for scientists to attack this so-called �establishment� to gain credibility to their own theory. Not often this would result in boycott and damnation of the scientists in question, that had no other means of validating their research through different media outlets, often resulting in front-page tabloid covering, thereby contributing to the confusion and even myths surrounding the subject, or eventually not getting covered at all. Often ending careers that could have been other whilst promising to say the least. What a waste of potential this mentality brings about. So don�t go off screaming that nobody cares, because you better hope that National Security isn�t in danger, or if you might care: the rest of the world and it�s inhabitants too.

However mind-boggling or implausible it may seem, people really need to check reality and however strange it may seem; reality is not the common sense we use to define it! (reality), not in the slightest. We live in a small part of the improbable universe, that came about tunnelling. The majority of this vast universe is fabricated out of black matter and exist out of dark energy, (not the other way �round :D ) for the record: it is not US living in the �norm� of any �ality�, we, and everything surrounding us, is NOT the norm, we are the very implausible and improbable! No need to denounce ourselves however :D because we do exist! And so do those other universes in this �multiverse� beyond the reasonable doubt.

We are indeed not here just to explore or deplore the term �empirical�, this is indeed not what this thread is intended to do,�What it does try to do is to confirm the validity of �empirical� evidence as means of substantiating the existence of �unusual� and/or �unconventional� Flying Objects. As for formulating an hypothesis that follows the observation, "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory" thus logically follows the quest for experimental (=scientific) testing of �unconventional-flying-objects� and �alien existence� in particular. How then, can we perform experimental testing on these issues is the question we should look for in this debate, any clue leading to a scientific theory could be and should be delved into. You say nobody gives a shit about ufo�s, well, that�s just a wrong assumption and you know it. There are circulating a whole lot of differing and/or overlapping theory�s, to which we will refer to as the need arises. (you are truly fishing after my theory to denounce it, aren�t you mr.anxious! )

If we make an observation, it is done on an empirical basis,�
Then:
we find an working theory,�or hypothesis, to my knowledge these two are one and the same thing. Empirical data is based upon observation or experience:

According to The Concise Oxford Dictionary: Empirical. Originating in or based upon observation or experience; capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment.

According to the Bureau of Justice Assistance:
Empirical
Relying upon or derived from observation or experiment.
Empirical Research
Research that uses data drawn from observation or experience.
Empirical Validity
Empirical evidence that an instrument measures what it has been designed to measure.
And also: - the adjective 'empirical' means 'based upon experience'. (http://www.cultsock.ndirect.co.uk/MUHome/cshtml/media/efterms.html) In philosophy the term empiricism refers to the theory that all concepts are derived from experience and that all statements which express knowledge must ultimately derive their justification from experience; those who hold that view are referred to as empiricists
I think you may call me an empiricist in this regard. I personally hold true my own experiences, and I know by personal experience what hallucinating means, I know how an airplane looks, I know what a komet looks like, I know were to locate the planet Venus in the night or evening sky, I know how a balloon behaves and looks like, I know how satellites behave and look like, I do know the difference between being awake and dreaming,�need I say more? Okay, I know the difference between an ULM and a UAV and how an model plane look like, sounds like, how a helicopter moves, that it can bear a searchlight(s), I know about cosmological events like nebulae and starbursts and pulsars and I know how a projectile moves, what a Frisbee or your sisters rabbit can do to fix a hoax, I know about almost any weather-related lightning effect, including ball-lightning, vortexes, wind hoses, and dog piles, so about anything you can find flying trough the air if you care to look up on a good clear evening or nightsky.
In short: I do have a BASE upon which to draw conclusions, in retrospect as well as eventual future happenings that may or may not occur in my surroundings. Upon which I FORMULATE a certain hypothesis about an unusual �experience� that I may have had.
NOTE: This thread is also not about my own personal experiences that I may or may not have had, because that would require a differing approach from the approach I�m taking now.
The concept of a Flying Object that can�t be an airplane because of it�s bright color, it�s speed and trajectory,�(which means it flies, makes straight turns, pulsates and has a round form, can�t be venus bytheway) Or that it�s floating in the air just one meter above ground etcetera etcetera,�

You denounce the explication of empirical evidence and say that all it leads to an hypothesis, not validating as proof of the theory. Okay, but then you postulate that a theory is not valid in it�s own respect, and I quote you:

A Theory of itself doesn't constitute proof. It's a suggestion, an idea. If that Theory suggests the possibility of applying the idea in some manner where by one can demonstrate its actual workings then one has what one can term proof of the Theory...

So the theory is just like that hypothesis: not constituting any proof of theory,�okay,�then let�s go even further to �prove� to you personally and to the rest of this board and the world, that UFO�s REALLY DO EXIST by means of proving the theory, which means, to both of us I hope, comparing the facts, looking for similarity�s in the experiences, building an �hypothesis� or �theory� about the phenomenon that is observed. Right?
Well eeeh, that is exactly what has been done the last 60 years, Right!

Going for your �classical example� of ufo propulsion, it indeed doesn�t needs to be that outer worldly as most people suppose that it is. We do have a working hypothesis as you say and we do have a specific theory (or idea if you will) about how to produce an effect that is similar to that of UFO propulsion.

But, and this remains the question. Once we have the theory, how exactly do we know that the UFO actually applies such a method at all? In order for us to know that for a fact, we have to capture a UFO, pop the hood and have a poke around under the bonnet. Once we locate the mechanisms clearly associated with the propulsive methodology our Theory dictates, then we have both poof and validation of the Theory proposed... I�m suspecting �they�ve been there and done that,�

If, and it's a big if, our specific Theory concerning Microwave Pulse Drive, or whatever, is based on actual science, then there remains no reason why the theory can't be applied and demonstrated. If such remains the case, we have proof of the theory and means of verifying the theory empirically via demonstration.

There are plenty of reasons why a scandal should remain hidden, or heads will roll! Go and take the lit off,�.

I�m sure you�re familiar with theoretical physicists? They do math on a chalkboard, they theorise away, � yet they didn�t have the possibility until recently to �validate� them. (CERN) Take Einstein for example: his relativity theory put the world in a perspective that was very logical, but nevertheless people cling to their popular beliefs and the denounced it! All he had WAS a theory!

Should we build a UFO, just to validate and prove the means by which it would be possible to bridge the cosmological gap between here and Zeta-reticuli? We are trying to do so, by every means, and may I tell you as citizen of this world that we are damn close in civilian science,�.but we�re way behind the industrial-military-complex.
- end of part I -

Oli

09-23-05, 05:40 AM

Eye witness reports are the least reliable form of evidence available. You say you know how this, that and the other look. I assume you'd agree that air force pilots also know? Then how come the RAF claimed several He-112 fighters in the Battle of Britain when the aircraft in question never went into service, let alone combat? People see what they want to believe.
And if you think
we�re way behind the industrial-military-complex then think again, the "military-industrial" complex has no idea.
Every single theory I've seen on UFO propulsion is either a non-starter or rabidly farcical.
Comparing experiences without hard data and/ or evidence is nothing more than speculation: not a hypothesis, not a theory, just guess work.
You still talk about "that this secret technology uses some form of anti-gravitational free-energy". There is no such thing as free energy. And the technology, if it did exist, would not be suppressed - there is no evidence to support a "suppressed technology conspiracy" of this sort, in fact NASA, among others, is openly soliciting possible technologies and solutions for starship drives.

duendy

09-23-05, 06:36 AM

you sir follow a religion

your religion is ...scientism---!

As dogmatic as the paradigm it proceded, which depened on the authority of the Church to 'pass' any visions, experiences experieced by an individual

dont know ho wuch you know the contepmt you breed when you say to anothe human being 'sorry, but you cant trust what you see, and experience....'....!!!

sayts who. YOU? and who are you, pray?

Oli

09-23-05, 06:48 AM

Read again what I wrote, not what you think I wrote. Eyewitnesses are the least reliable form of evidence, not all eyewitnesses are wrong. It has been proven time and time again, ask a police officer about the reliability of eyewitnesses, I've met combat pilots who have been utterly and totally wrong about what they've seen, and the best they come up with when I've shown them what they really saw is "oh, well I thought it was so and so".
I follow no religion, I look for solid, provable, repeatable evidence. Eyewitness reports, even if every single one was 100% true about what they have seen, provide NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER on propulsion modes, let alone the inner workings of such methods.
I could state with equal reliability that UFOs are carried by incredibly fast and agile flying invisible pixies, and the result would be the same.
We've been through this before, the experience is real to the observer, but not necessarily "real" as in tangible, external, measurable.
As for who I am, obviously, I'm me. Any more information would very probably have no meaning to you whatsoever :D

duendy

09-23-05, 09:01 AM

Read again what I wrote, not what you think I wrote.

me: Oh, I see. So you are questioning my reading powers now? that figures

Eyewitnesses are the least reliable form of evidence, not all eyewitnesses are wrong. It has been proven time and time again, ask a police officer about the reliability of eyewitnesses, I've met combat pilots who have been utterly and totally wrong about what they've seen, and the best they come up with when I've shown them what they really saw is "oh, well I thought it was so and so".

me: now you are just doing what you critique aren't you. you have rported some experience you have had and expect me to buy it ot of hand.
ting is it conflicts wit MINe! i have listened to more than several professional peopl who do NOT go back on their very powerful experience of seeing UFOs etc. SO
look. you do what many 'sceptics' do when talking about tis. compare psychological studies done wit ordinry witness events, wit non-ordniary events such as seeing UFO, WITHOUT taking into account the qualitative difference such an event would have on a person. te enormous attention person would have.
When we couple that with themany actual documented footage such as photos and vieo, dont u think that adds weight to un-documented reports that describe similar craft and so on?

I follow no religion, I look for solid, provable, repeatable evidence. Eyewitness reports, even if every single one was 100% ptrue about what they have seen, provide NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER on propulsion modes, let alone the inner workings of such methods.

me: what would satisfy you?....i am guessing ..lookin under the bonnet? nd meanwhile what? just make many many people who report about seeing strange craft feel dissed for doing so.....orrrrrr.
like i keep saying, it is VERY worthwhile when interested in all this to greatly broaden your ield of inquiry. this'd mean beginnnng to look behind whats going on in te world. how does that relate to possible sevret advanced technology

I could state with equal reliability that UFOs are carried by incredibly fast and agile flying invisible pixies, and the result would be the same.
We've been through this before, the experience is real to the observer, but not necessarily "real" as in tangible, external, measurable.

me: maybe the very scientific methodical procedure is the drag....i what holds you back from ......discovery. for the criteria you demand. how do you prose to ever get it. nuthin satisfies you. mybe theres an element of denial here too. its en shown in te history of ideas how new discoveries are hard to take in by the preexisting mindset

As for who I am, obviously, I'm me. Any more information would very probably have no meaning to you whatsoever :D

prove to me you are 'me'...otherwise i am afriad you dont exist

Mr Anonymous

09-23-05, 06:33 PM

me: what would satisfy you?....i am guessing ..lookin under the bonnet? nd meanwhile what? just make many many people who report about seeing strange craft feel dissed for doing so.....orrrrrr.
like i keep saying, it is VERY worthwhile when interested in all this to greatly broaden your ield of inquiry. this'd mean beginnnng to look behind whats going on in te world. how does that relate to possible sevret advanced technology

emmm, duendy?

All Oli's pointing out here is that every single UFO report ever made states clearly that as far as the eyewitness, the person that was actually supposed to have been there was concerned, when it came to the matter of discerning any means of propulsion being in evidence at all, the object witnessed displayed nothing of the sort in their first hand observation.

It's a critical criteria for meeting UFO Classification, possibly the only single consistent characteristic to be found throughout UFO reports in general -

Yet, upon reading this time and time again, Ufologists routinely disregard entirely what the actual witness discloses regarding the matter and set out instead to whittle on about how the propulsion system every witness whose ever filed a report on the matter has stated all along simply wasn't there, works...

Has it ever even occurred to you that a UFO itself wouldn't actually need an engine in order to conform to eyewitness testimony?

duendy

09-24-05, 04:39 AM

emmm, duendy?

All Oli's pointing out here is that every single UFO report ever made states clearly that as far as the eyewitness, the person that was actually supposed to have been there was concerned, when it came to the matter of discerning any means of propulsion being in evidence at all, the object witnessed displayed nothing of the sort in their first hand observation.

me: what do you mean? fuel smoke being seen?

It's a critical criteria for meeting UFO Classification, possibly the only single consistent characteristic to be found throughout UFO reports in general -

me: according to who?

Yet, upon reading this time and time again, Ufologists routinely disregard entirely what the actual witness discloses regarding the matter and set out instead to whittle on about how the propulsion system every witness whose ever filed a report on the matter has stated all along simply wasn't there, works...

me: i admit to not understanding what your emphasis is?...as fas as i am aware a person is in AWE when aeeing these phenomena. thew wole question of 'propulsion' is besides the point surely...? someone not particulalry interested in engineering, aeordynamics, wouldn't be interested in all tha, it's be 'shhiiit, look at that move!' etc

Has it ever even occurred to you that a UFO itself wouldn't actually need an engine in order to conform to eyewitness testimony?

again. what are you on about? i dot evewn THINKof 'engine' when thinking about UFOs.....'engine' for me is someting i am in knowledge of. the have em in cars and planes righnt? that we 'know'

Fukushi

09-24-05, 03:27 PM

Oli: I didn't even mention Free-energy, so you better take your own advise at hearth.

Yes: eyewitness reports are not viable as 'proof', it gives more of an impression on what sociological 'beliefs' are in this era.

Thousands of people are wrong every day, on various subjects, what I say? MILLIONS! Dah! (this is not a sarcastic remark) but there are also MILLIONS of people who got it right! (I'm one of them, ofcourse: you don't HAVE to believe me :D )

Also: not all witnesses file a report,...not all witnesses are lunatics craving for attention and above all: not all witnesses are wrong,...

And about that ufo-propulsion-system,....are you saying that If YOU can't observe a clear propulsion system like a propeller or a jet engine,...that it hasn't got a propulsion system? and you are also implying that if it hasn't got an engine, that it must be a fabrication of the mind or something?

I clearly stated that Plasma drive isn't really that hard to fathom,...: in fact: it has all the looks (light) of a ufo,...so I'm merely suggesting that 'that' could be it. (the engine)

If you just don't want to believe me,...that's fine,...but I do believe it, because I can see the logic of it.

Greetz
Fukushi

ps: Part II is on the way, but I think it's to early in the discussion to introduce it, I think you should read my post again and elaborate a bit on that.

Mr Anonymous

09-24-05, 05:26 PM

And about that ufo-propulsion-system,....are you saying that If YOU can't observe a clear propulsion system like a propeller or a jet engine,...that it hasn't got a propulsion system? and you are also implying that if it hasn't got an engine, that it must be a fabrication of the mind or something?

No Fukushi - I'm saying if the W.I.T.N.E.S.S.E.S. report no discernible means of propulsion - which virtually E.V.E.R.Y. UFO report ever filed relays - perhaps the W.I.T.N.E.S.S.E.S. (which we can assume to be an acronym meaning Person Who Actually Reports Seeing A UFO) are actually saying something dickheads who mealy write "knowledgeably" about the subject ignore.

And we can actually further this statement by the fact that, in the response you are referring to I used the term Eyewitness and Eyewitnesses repeated throughout and mentioned myself not at all.

ps: Part II is on the way, but I think it's to early in the discussion to introduce it, I think you should read my post again and elaborate a bit on that.

I'll tell you what - you write part II, then I'll respond because I've got a kicker of an answer lined up and really, it'll be worth the wait I promiss... ;)

oh, and duendy?

again. what are you on about? i dot evewn THINKof 'engine' when thinking about UFOs.....'engine' for me is someting i am in knowledge of. the have em in cars and planes righnt? that we 'know'

Please, do accept my unconditional apology's for assuming my use of the term "engine" in my previous question would be immediately taken on your part to equate to the term "propulsion system" - I quite understand, the use of technical jargon such as "engine" can often lead to confusion amongst the non technically minded.

Allow me to elucidate. Y'see, in general terms, an engine is a device specifically designed to produce some means of either motive or propulsive force - there by allowing a vehicle to move.

Engines themselves come in all sorts of different shapes and sizes, they also work in various and different ways, the fundamentally common element by which all share the same term "engine" however lies in their ability to bring about or else facilitate "motion" of some kind or another.

In the context of UFO's one could safely assume that to mean, specifically, propulsion - however, as you're perfectly correct to point out, not everyone is as familiar with common technical terms as myself.

So allow me to rephrase the question - Has it ever even occurred to you that a UFO itself wouldn't actually need a propulsion system WHATSOEVER in order to conform to eyewitness testimony?

(By the by - I added the WHATSOEVER bit there, just in case you were thinking I was actually asking you a different question... Which actually I'm not. In the slightest. Just so's y'know.... ;) )

Fukushi

09-25-05, 02:27 AM

are actually saying something dickheads who mealy write "knowledgeably" about the subject ignore. could you perhaps refraze? Because I really don't understand what it is you are trying to relay,...sorry

and descernible? what the ... please,

non technically minded.
and you are the thechnical minded one here? Be carefull, or I'll challenge you to that. By the way: If you refrase a question:
So allow me to rephrase the question - Has it ever even occurred to you that a UFO itself wouldn't actually need a propulsion system WHATSOEVER in order to conform to eyewitness testimony? Aren't you aware that the ufo itself constitutes the propulsion system? (very important this is: read again!)

ps: this is not an ad-hominem

duendy

09-25-05, 05:32 AM

you see Mr Anonymous, you seem to me to be focussing on something that wpuldn't really register as my first port of call
mayybe, you as very interested in engineering would natrually project this concern onto others, as say those interested in the ET idea would also

DOnt know if you've heard of te physcist Jack Sarfatti?.....he apparently is claiming we have gone POST quantum, and he talks about--theorizes about 'thought-directed' space craft!

of course, most of his stuff goes way over my head. i also find him very arrogant, but here's a taste of him:

"What Am I Talking About Anyway?

God does not roll dice with the universe in classical physics.
God does roll dice with the universe in quantum mechanics.
However, God LOADS the dice with consciousness in post-quantum mechanics.

That is what I am talking about.
That's what I a ranting and raving about.
That's my message in a nutshell.
Happy 21st century.

THE EVOLUTION OF PHYSICS
* Classical deterministic physics is 100% about dead rocklike things (1600 to 1925 AD)
* Quantum indeterministic physics is 100% about thoughtlike, but STILL unconscious, things that mysteriously "collapse" to 100% rocklike things (1925 to 1995 AD)
* Post-quantum self-deterministic physics is about co-evolving 50% thoughtlike tings that combine into 100% living conscious things (1995 to ?)"
http://www.qedcorp.com/pcr/pcr/pq.htm

Mr Anonymous

09-25-05, 08:30 PM

could you perhaps refraze? Because I really don't understand what it is you are trying to relay,...sorry

Okeyday...

Lets start with UFO Reports. When a UFO sighting is reported by a member of the public eventually the matter is referred to an investigator whose job it is to arrange a meeting and, if wishing to proceed, interview the person making the report. Basically they take a statement, make notes, take photographs,do their level best to appear as if they are look like they are actually "investigating" and also get the witness to fill in a questionnaire regarding their experience.

The questionnaire part of the exercise is part of an ongoing effort to build a classification data base regarding the various and disparate sorts of UFO phenomena reported. These are generally based on either the Hynek or the Vallee UFO Classification System, or more commonly some weird hybrid of both. You can Google the specific terms to find out more, but most people just stick with what they remember from watching Close Encounters Of The Third Kind...

The questionnaire part is probably the most significant part of the process. The questions are generalised, steering the witness to provide a description in the broadest possible terms rather than the individual specific and covering such details as colour, apparent texture, noise produced by the object, markings, etc.

And what a jolly grab bag it all is.

UFO's, broadly speaking, come in a variety of all sorts of different shapes, colours and sizes - disc's, ovals, crescents, pyramids, tubes, cigar-shaped, bell shaped, Mexican hat shaped, cake shaped (I kid you not) triangles, etc -

Over and above classification in the broadest possible terms only one consistent observation remains shared by each and everyone...

Well, strictly speaking its two. And this goes back all the way to 1947.

UFO's sightings commonly describe the object in question as displaying the capacity to move through the air (at various apparent rates of speed and manoeuvrability) but at the same time as so doing display apparently nothing whatsoever by means of any conventionally understood means of bringing that about - basically, no sign of any apparent means of propulsion.

The only other consistent remains that whilst doing all that the object in question would to be able to do all that without possessing an airframe configured for flight in the slightest.

Compound that with the often reported ability to be able to break Newtons 1st Law of Mass & Motion when undertaking a high speed and ridiculously Sharp course change and what you end up with is basically this conversation and a whole chunk of internet dedicated to more of the very same...

I'll return momentarily.

Duendy -
DOnt know if you've heard of te physcist Jack Sarfatti?.....

Yes, and physicist is certainly one term I suppose one could use to describe that mans work, an actual physicist on the other hand may not actually agree... ;)

Okay duendy, I get that your not from a scientific or engineering background here, and I appreciate your patience with me in persevering so far. I'll make this as non-techy as possible, but I'll explain the process of this so you can get the gist.

The thing about the witness bothering about noting weather or not the thing they saw had an engine or not is perfectly correct - actually, you're earlier reply of someone going "What the FCUK?!" categorises most peoples initial reactions perfectly well.

You see something you genuinely think is a flying saucer, the expletives just never stop. You generally never get a clear, concise, observed description from anyone unless they've got some background in observation - pilots, aircrew's, sailors, radar operators - basically people who, when they go to the office of a morning, basically that means the office is either at 22,000 feet up or else they're out under it all the live long day.

Or, they're lying through their arse.

But whatever initial report a person wishes to make on the subject, its in the follow up that the details, or else the attempt to ascertain the details, is made.

In order to ascertain weather or not an object is actually a UFO and not simply a perfectly ordinary, conventional object or IFO (Identified Flying Object - as the jargon never stops with this subject and if there's one contribution UFO Research has indelibly made on the world its its singular ability to generate new and ever more meaningless acronyms at simply the drop of a hat...)

Anyway, the investigation process is supposed to be designed to eliminate all other probable explanations - such as planes, Venus, swamp gas, migrating birds... There's a list. It's long.

In order to do that the questions asked relay to such things as any sounds the object made, wings, props, the Virgin or EasyJet Logo splashed all over the fuselage, that sort of thing.

Part and parcel of a conventional aircraft are such things as engines, engine noise, basically general signs of an otherwise perfectly conventional explanation for the sighting in the circumstances the alleged sighting took place.

Now, the thing with propulsion is it's very well understood. In order to get anything to move in a given direction you've got either one of two basic choices - you can either apply energy too it, basically chuck it in the direction you want it to go and off it goes, or else you can stick something to it which expends energy in one direction (an engine or propulsion system if you prefer) and the mass of the thing the engine is attached to shoots off in the opposite direction...

There's this whole bit about inertia and all the rest, but basically if a things got an engine on it it has to expend the energy it produces in order for that engine to do its job, and hiding it away within the guts of a vehicle with no means of escape just tends to blow a thing up in every direction rather than just the one you actually want your vehicle to travel in.

And energy expenditure in the form of propulsion - thrust, physical force, where present, shows.

There's heat, noise, turbulence, manifest and obvious signs that its there - but apart from doing the actually moving part of the whole process, you're average UFO wouldn't appear to employ anything which corresponds to any know conventional means of propulsion - hence putting the U in Unidentified Flying Object.

Fukushi, duendy - this bit is addressed to the pair of you.

Now, invariably this is where the term "conventional means of propulsion" gets hacked out of the rest, quoted back at the author and declared - Ah! Well, there you go! Of course a UFO doesn't employ anythings so dull as a conventional method of propulsion - It's a UFO! Obviously its using ........... <--- and by all means, feel free to insert your favoured method of extraordinary, extraterrestrial or secret propulsion where inicated...

It's missing the point.

The operative term here isn't the word conventional or known - it's Propulsion.

It doesn't matter a crap the physics used, the term propulsion means what it says on the tin. Energy is either being applied or expended in a given direction in order to bring about motion.

Equally, a vehicle acting under propulsion behaves in accordance with fundamental Newtonian physics. It doesn't matter how advanced the theoretical propulsion theory posited be - the fundamental physical laws still underpin genuine real world physics equally as much.

Now, Fukushi, I take your point about the UFO being the actual "engine" - but thats a description that equally describes a car, an F-16, a Vostok Multi-cluster Rocket, a nuclear submarine - anything that's an engine either inside or on it isn't separate from its carriage. It's part and parcel of the same damn thing.

Jacking up the ante propulsion theory wise doesn't alter the underlying problem which remains - eyewitness testimony doesn't relay observation of any form of propulsive means.

So why does everyone try to figure out how the propulsion system is supposed work, when everyone who's ever clapped eyes on one of the things has always said right from the very beginning they didn't see any evidence of propulsive means being employed?

It's a very simple, very basic question - one which the proposition of Propulsion Method X doesn't in anyway actually address.

duendy

09-26-05, 03:38 AM

Oli

09-26-05, 04:19 AM

duendy

09-26-05, 05:44 AM

Fukushi: it was Duendy that mentioned free energy, it was him I replied to. Plasma drive? If you say so.
Duendy: Mr Anonymous (putting words in his mouth here :) ) is not necessarily assuming the craft "must follow Newton's laws", I assume he's saying the same as me. IF IT MOVES THERE MUST BE A PROPULSION SYSTEM - regardless of what it is.

me: just looked up the term, 'propulsion'--according to te Dict. it means 'driving foreward'.
ok, so we know from reportsof UFOS, and videos i also have seen, that they move......so? wat is tis obsession with propulwion. it fails me to see this constant emphasis abot it from my anonymous....xcuse me if i've missed the point. but what else COULD a craft do than move. whatis te ALTERNATIVE to propulsion?

And Sarfatti IS a physicist, he just happens to be (over) the ragged edge of modern physics - he cannot prove anything he's stating - linking "gates" between mind and soul????
well, like i said, i have actually communicated wit him via email, and his manner is very curt and arrogqnt, but it makes sense his exploraton of 'post-quantum' in relation to tis subject. his explorations gell wit where tigs will popbably go. obviously quantum physics will not always be THE answer.....AND tere is a prpability, as i have said now several times, that advanced physics is being kept secret fo various reasons!

Oli

09-26-05, 05:53 AM

How much quantum physics are you familiar with? Because what I know of it does not tie in with what I've read in his stuff. Perhaps you could explain it to me.
Again, why would physics, advanced or otherwise, be kept secret? If parts are kept secret then other scientists will not be able to verify the theories. And if scientists not in the know come up with the same information are they then signed up to the secret? How does the body of "whoever" that maintains the secret keep track of who is doing what?
Sarfatti is probably curt because he can't explain (except under his own terms which relate to nothing else) and there's no excuse for arrogance in the face of questions. If someone is genuinely seeking answers to questions for which he has already worked out the solution then surely he'd do his best to let them see the light? I know I would, and I assume you would, so Sarfatti.... :D

duendy

09-26-05, 06:57 AM

How much quantum physics are you familiar with? Because what I know of it does not tie in with what I've read in his stuff. Perhaps you could explain it to me.

me:: well put it tis way, i also had a private communication wit the physicist Nick Herbert a whil ago and asked him outright if physicsts understood quantum mechanics and he said 'NO, they just use it'?...if they don't, do I ?....buti CAN accomodate the possibilty that whatever it is will probably advance, and as i said, may lready have advanced but is kept top secret. The reasons being about power, and who KEEPS the power. hasn't it been said "Knowledge is Power"...well, SECRET knowledge is even more powerful then, no?

Again, why would physics, advanced or otherwise, be kept secret? If parts are kept secret then other scientists will not be able to verify the theories. And if scientists not in the know come up with the same information are they then signed up to the secret? How does the body of "whoever" that maintains the secret keep track of who is doing what?

me:: Really good question,and one i am still actually exploring myself.
As you know, the UK is the most CCTVed country, apparently. not a move from any of us fails to be recorded on the monitors all about....tis giv es an indicaton of te Big Brother secenario closing in all around.
This controlling mindset goes right to te top. We know there are top secrets dont we? recent;ly a young man from UK hacked his way into the US military secret computer systems. what he found seems to back up suggestion they are hiding advanced tchnology!......theier rponse is also hardly a slap on te wrist. they want to extradite him and give him a life--and they mean life--sentence.
you can be sure thatany scientists privy to such top secret technology and inf would have been well groomed and picked and will belong to the right secret clubs where they take oaths--simlar to mafia oaths. i am being serious. as i said, these popl do not play around, espcially when power--THEIRpower is involved. to think otherwise is naiveity

Sarfatti is probably curt because he can't explain (except under his own terms which relate to nothing else) and there's no excuse for arrogance in the face of questions. If someone is genuinely seeking answers to questions for which he has already worked out the solution then surely he'd do his best to let them see the light? I know I would, and I assume you would, so Sarfatti.... :D

as far as i am aware ihe is quite accessible. his website welcomes feedback. but obviously he is a physicst with the lingo they use, and anyone not familiar wit it will be a drag, in that they cant keep up wi the lingo and ideas

i just used his post-quantum piece to show that therer are atleast som physicists laiming tat QM isn't the end

Oli

09-26-05, 07:11 AM

You're the one that said he was "curt and arrogant", which doesn't strike me as "welcoming feedback". Yup, never denied he was a real physicist, although I've come across numerous cranks that use the terminology :D
I wouldn't be surprised if a good number (or even a majority) of physicists doubt that QM is the end, there's superstrings, branes and whatever comes along next week. Physics is an evolving thing, it finds answers that raise more questions.
Sarfatti's work links QM to the "soul", but he provides no evidence that A) the "soul" exists as an entity or B) that it's possible to link to it, he's speculating without data or ways top prove or disprove his "theory" - hence it's not science.

me:: well put it tis way, i also had a private communication wit the physicist Nick Herbert a whil ago and asked him outright if physicsts understood quantum mechanics and he said 'NO, they just use it'?...if they don't, do I ?....buti CAN accomodate the possibilty that whatever it is will probably advance
Agreed that QM isn't "understood", but the fact that it can be used means there is understanding at some level, that does NOT mean that it accommodates every body's crank theory (eg Sarfatti).
Again, science cannot be kept secret because that invalidates the whole discipline. If there's someone working "in secret" on a branch of physics then they have no way of corroborating anything and must, since they're the only ones who know what to look for, spend most of their time keeping an eye on those who aren't in on the secret to stop them finding it.
The idea of "secret/ suppressed" science is nothing more than a wild-eyed conspiracy theory.

duendy

09-26-05, 08:23 AM

You're the one that said he was "curt and arrogant", which doesn't strike me as "welcoming feedback".

me::at least he replies. some dont eve give you that courtesy. what i mean is icant swap calculus wid him

Yup, never denied he was a real physicist, although I've come across numerous cranks that use the terminology :D

me::always am wary when people get called 'cranks'. usually i's by people stuck in a worldview that see everything otside it as 'crazy'. tat attitude can stifle creativity if not careful by psychologcal intimidation. i ould terefore sooner listen....

I wouldn't be surprised if a good number (or even a majority) of physicists doubt that QM is the end, there's superstrings, branes and whatever comes along next week. Physics is an evolving thing, it finds answers that raise more questions.
Sarfatti's work links QM to the "soul", but he provides no evidence that A) the "soul" exists as an entity or B) that it's possible to link to it, he's speculating without data or ways top prove or disprove his "theory" - hence it's not science.

me::em am curious. were does he mention 'soul'? i thought he mentioned 'consciousness'.....how do you define soul isthe next question?

Agreed that QM isn't "understood", but the fact that it can be used means there is understanding at some level, that does NOT mean that it accommodates every body's crank theory (eg Sarfatti).

me:: well...yeahhhh, but tere is STILL the 'mind/body problem' right? or hasit ben solved?

Again, science cannot be kept secret because that invalidates the whole discipline. If there's someone working "in secret" on a branch of physics then they have no way of corroborating anything and must, since they're the only ones who know what to look for, spend most of their time keeping an eye on those who aren't in on the secret to stop them finding it.
The idea of "secret/ suppressed" science is nothing more than a wild-eyed conspiracy theory.

and you not this for sre do you? can you give me evidence which proves your theory? proof? hypothesis...?

Mr Anonymous

09-26-05, 07:11 PM

Mr Anonymous....with respect, you seem very hung up on tis propulsion thing....and seem to make assumptions becaus of that. ie., te the craft 'must' follow Newtons law etc etc

to me this obsession is just as much a barrier as is the ET assumption, etc etc

...... :rolleyes:

duendy - you were asking me the questions - all I'm trying to do is answer you so as you can noodle the reply.... :)

Remember, it was your contention that UFO's use some form of secret "anti-gravitational" propulsion system "they" don't want us to know about?

Then you started asking me about what I meant by propulsion....

So I answered you.

Mr Anonymous (putting words in his mouth here ) is not necessarily assuming the craft "must follow Newton's laws", I assume he's saying the same as me. IF IT MOVES THERE MUST BE A PROPULSION SYSTEM - regardless of what it is.

Hello Oli - Hope I'm not chucking a spanner in the works here, but actually, no. I'm saying the exact opposite - I'm suggesting that there is no propulsion system whatsoever, that a UFO (if in fact an actual vehicle) is a completely engineless affair...

A vehicle entering the earths atmosphere from space doesn't need a propulsion system in order to do that - gravity does all the hard work for you and it comes for free.

People say UFO's travel at incredible speeds without any apparent means of propulsion being displayed all thanks to extraordinary extraterrestrial/secret physics.

The US Space Shuttle on re-entry flies at Mach 15 when doing so and isn't producing so much of a farts worth of propulsion to do it. It carries engines, but on re-entry they're dead weight.

Now, if boring old 20th Century terrestrial space craft can fly faster than so-called advanced extraterrestrial/secret technology without using an engine, I'm wondering why something that equally is supposed to enter the atmosphere from the sky down has to fart around with all this spooky physics changing UFO mumbo-jumbo when are dull, primitive efforts can travel far faster without it.

A vehicle entering the atmosphere from orbit needs some means of preserving and altering altitude - being deployed from orbit means your already travelling extremely fast to begin with over a planet which has a surface that rotates.

What's the point in expending additional energy in propulsion when your already travelling colossally fast to begin with and don't physically need to?

That's what I'm saying....

Close though, appreciate the effort.... ;)

duendy

09-27-05, 04:23 AM

so you are comparing te shuttle--entering earth's atmosphere with UFOs. and from there assuming that because of the incredible speed of the engineless shuttle, that UFOs also could be explained by such navigation?

doesn't make sense what you say!

has anyone here ever seen a shuttle? if so has anyone ever seen a UFO? would you say they have the same trajectory?

as far as i am aware reported caes of UFOs, and what i have seen in footage, they do all kinds of strange manouvres, ncluding just being still. hovering still in one place. i have also seen a group of tem fprm a formation and just hover still

can a shuttle do tis? dont shuttles just shoot right down to the sea?

Mr Anonymous

09-27-05, 06:57 PM

A vehicle entering the atmosphere from orbit needs some means of preserving and altering altitude....

I didn't say a UFO was like a space shuttle. I'm pointing out a space shuttle flies faster than a UFO is supposed to, and doesn't use an engine to do it because NOTHING entering the atmosphere from space needs a bladdy engine to enter the earths atmosphere from the sky down.

I didn't say a space shuttle behaves like UFO is supposed to.

I said all a UFO needs is some means of staying up in the damn air!

Look - You park a satelight in a geo-stationary orbit. From the point of view of ground based observation the satelight appears to be perfectly stationary. Point a radar tower at the thing and radar tracking says the same thing.

However - you're dealing with an object parked in orbit. Despite how it appears to eye or radar that object is actually travelling at anything from many, many hundreds, to many thousands of mph depending on its altitude.

So. There your satelight is, perfectly "stationary" not appearing to move anywhere until it slows down in its actual speed.

Then the satelight appears to move.

The slower it actually travels - the faster it appears to be travelling. Tracking it with radar tells you the same thing.

Simply by slowing down from a far higher velocity, travelling under inertia already applied by whatever means it was that parked it in orbit in the first place, the satelight gains all the benefits of moving as if acting under constant propulsion without expending energy constantly to do it.

Providing it has some means of staying up.

Patently, since a UFO behaves quite distinctly from a space shuttle and doesn't possess wings and a tail or an airframe configured for flight, if it stays up in the air long enough for anyone to observe the blessed thing it possesses some other means of maintaining altitude.

But that's ALL it has to do in order to behave in the manner people who claim to have observed UFO's relay.

Including what you just described.

Just simply utilise some means other than atmosphere to stay in the sky.

Exactly as I said the first time round, only using considerably more words to do it...

Again. :rolleyes:

Oh and -
dont shuttles just shoot right down to the sea?[/

No. Once in side the atmosphere the pilot flies the shuttle like a glider and lands the thing perfectly safely on the ground, after which it gets fixed up and used again...

What your thinking of is the command capsule from rocket.

The difference in the behaviour of a space shuttle and a UFO is that a space shuttle has an air frame configured for atmospheric flight and used air to remain airborne.

A UFO doesn't have those sorts of characteristics. When it comes to the ability to fly your average UFO is designed for flight to about the same extent a baby grand piano is designed for competitive Grand Prix motor racing...

Oli

09-28-05, 03:27 AM

Ahh, but some UFOs supposedly hover and then climb very rapidly, that presupposes a power plant/ engine, no?

Fukushi

09-28-05, 07:38 AM

UFO's sightings commonly describe the object in question as displaying the capacity to move through the air (at various apparent rates of speed and manoeuvrability) but at the same time as so doing display apparently nothing whatsoever by means of any conventionally understood means of bringing that about - basically, no sign of any apparent means of propulsion.
Oh, well NOW I understand what you are trying to say! So you can�t fathom it either do you?
Well, I guess you never heard of an interesting effect of ionising gases that form when the flow of electrons is redirected to a specific point. Here: read all about it (view attachment)

If you need more info,�don�t hesitate to ask.

without possessing an airframe configured for flight in the slightest.
What do you mean by �airframe� ? And should this too be any more special than modern-day-21ts century physics?

So I contest your opinion, that a UFO hasn�t got ANY means of propulsion, you �censored�

Fukushi

09-28-05, 07:42 AM

apparently the attachment function doesn't seem to function,...hmm,

okay,...wait a min here you go:

UFO's sightings commonly describe the object in
question as displaying the capacity to move through the air (at various
apparent rates of speed and manoeuvrability) <b>but</b> at the same time as so doing
display apparently nothing whatsoever by means of any conventionally understood
means of bringing that about - basically, no sign of any apparent means of
propulsion.

Oh, well NOW I understand what you are trying to say! So
you can�t fathom it do you?

Well, I guess you never heard of an interesting effect
of ionising gases that form when the flow of electrons is redirected to a
specific point. Here: read all about it http://homepage.ntlworld.com/ufophysics/electrokineticufo.htm
And while you�re at it:
http://soteria.com/brown/pictures/index.htm
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/lifters.htm
http://www.americanantigravity.com/
http://www.100megsfree4.com/farshores/tesla_2.htm
(Nikola Tesla's EM Field Lift experiments)
http://www.sacred-texts.com/ufo/ufo4.htm
http://www.sacred-texts.com/ufo/ufo6.htm
http://www.lostech.net/antigravity_catalogue.html
http://www.think-aboutit.com/ufo/antigravity_antimatter.htm
http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/electrograviticsystems.htm
http://www.fortunecity.com/greenfield/bp/16/hameltech4.htm
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/time_travel.html
http://www.ufoartwork.com/
http://www.mufon.com/
http://www.bvalphaserver.com/
http://www.ufoevidence.org/
http://www.4dreamland.com/Mambo/index.php
http://www.unknowncountry.com/
http://www.disclosureproject.org/
http://www.greatdreams.com/
http://www.ufotv.com/aspages/gettypes.asp?schtype=cropcircle
http://www.ufocity.com/
http://www.ufoinfo.com/contents.shtml
http://ovnis.esoterica.pt/ingles/antarctingl/VRIL6ingl.htm
http://www.alien.de/alien/
http://www.alien-ufos.com/
http://www.aaaa.demon.nl/military.html
http://www.todobr.com.br/cgi-bin/redirect.cgi?query=ufo
http://www.ufocenter.com/
http://www.fsreview.net/spi/nazinth.htm
http://www.cco.net/%7Etrufax/trans/lammer.html
http://www.dreamlandresort.com/index_en.html
http://www.veling.nl/anne/templars/ancientaircraft_nf.html
http://www.geocities.com/aliens_ufos_videos/
http://alienidentities.com/ai_ie4.html
http://www.ufomag.co.uk/LatestIssueINDEX.htm
http://www.ufoconspiracy.com/
http://www.cufos.org/cometa.html
http://www.drboylan.com/
http://www.efodon.de/html/publik/do/edo25.htm
http://www.naziufos.com/dischi/saucers1-ie.htm
http://geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/2301/military.html
http://www.magonia.demon.co.uk/arc/00/newmag.htm
http://www.geocities.com/r_ayana/FreeWheel.html
http://www.ufo.no/english/articles/afu.html
http://www.martiansgohome.com/smear/v46/ss991010.htm
http://www.jp-petit.com/Site_Anglais/Ummo_Book/Ummo_Book1/Ummo_Book1.htm
http://wintersteel.homestead.com/files/JamesArticles/Silver_Bug.htm
http://www.thewhyfiles.co.uk/combat-diaries/diary14chapter_6.htm
http://www.afu.info/
http://d.webring.com/hub?ring=ufoalliance&id=26&hub
http://www.caus.org/home.shtml
http://www.aliensonearth.com/
http://www.fsr.org.uk/FSRMain.htm
http://www.think-aboutit.com/ufo/
http://www.ufoarea.com/
http://users.erols.com/feanor17/Ufo.html

If you need more info,�don�t hesitate to ask

duendy

09-28-05, 07:48 AM

ok....can someone plase explain/speculate how reverse engineering might work?

how is it connected with the idea of free energy?

at the mo i am not particularly after sceptical reponses...justa speculative idea of how a craft would utilize free energy from environment?

Mr Anonymous

09-28-05, 06:58 PM

Ahh, but some UFOs supposedly hover and then climb very rapidly, that presupposes a power plant/ engine, no?

No. It all comes down to what a vehicle operating in this way uses to maintain altitude...

I've taken the liberty of preparing this (http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/how-by-frank-marshal/Index.html) with illustrated content. It's not terribly long, about 8 screens all told, 50% of each page being made up of animation showing the manner the physics discussed work and should be applied.

Perhaps if you get a few spare minutes you might want to give it the once over, it answers your questions and more besides... ;)

Fukushi, duendy? Boys, same goes with you. Follow the link bellow, even if you don't follow the writing entirely the illustrations show you the gist of what it is I'm talking about and, it's nothing at all like either of you seem to think it is....

It isn't science that demands UFO's be explained exclusively in terms of fantastic idea's with little in the way of actual science to support them - it's people who believe in UFO's that demand this and seem hell bent on continuing to pursue the topic in incredible terms only.

Ufologists are forever declaring that science is incapable of explaining UFO phenomena - that simply isn't true, never has been. Science has always had plenty to say about the matter, its just generally science doesn't tell UFO believers exactly what it is they want to hear, so they ignore it.

Now, I'm not a person who actually gives a flying crap about the subject. I never have been, and I plan on continuing to live a very long and blissfully happy life continuing in that exact same vein.

However, its never ceased to amaze me how people who claim the matter is significant insist on investing time and effort in looking for answers to the things they, despite all reason to the contrary, insist on believing to be true in all the places least most likely to actually provide a single answer to what it is they claim to be seeking.

One of these days, maybe, it's going to occur to someone out there that, rather than trying to drum up theories and ideas which seek to address everything pertaining to UFO phenomena and doing it poorly, perhaps time and effort might be better served just setting out to explain just the one key, critical issue well in the sorts of terms science doesn't have a problem with.

Proving the existence of UFO's is impossible. But prove that a vehicle which conforms to UFO Classification and behaviour is not only possible but feasable...

No one can ever persist in the claim that UFO's simply don't exist.

Try taking it onboard chaps. After all, I'm not the one that's supposed to care about this silly business - you are.

Now, Fukushi - since you seem to have developed the belief that you're in some way entitled to respond to me in terms which require censorship when I have at no time offered the slightest insult to you, I believe now is a good time to leave the pair of you to it.

All the best with it,

A ;)

Try reading... Y'never know. Y'might actually learn something. (http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/how-by-frank-marshal/Index.html)

(Oli? I think it fair to say the title of the link addressed isn't aimed at you... ;)

duendy

09-29-05, 07:32 AM

hmmmmmm mr annonymous, your tone seems somehwhat patronizing to me...maybe i might be imagining it...but i dont think so

as for your source, my system cant see the images your words are referring to

i tend to summarize your whole view tus...nd it is same as other 'solutions' to tis this issue:

you attempt to homogenize the WHOLE subject of UFOs etc into te narror confines of your 'superior' theory.

although, yeah, it might have some truth in it....it most certainly aint te WHOLE truth

Squeak22

09-29-05, 10:57 AM

Great "How does it work" site.

SkinWalker

09-29-05, 12:49 PM

Mr. Anonymous

I remember that link posted before and looking at it this time, I realize that I have the same question, though I didn't ask it the last time you gave us the link. What about the cloud behind the object. The second page of the site seems to imply that the object is at a great distance and the apparent speed is due to the earth's rotation, but I still don't see how the object could fit that model and still have a cloud in the foreground.

Admittedly, I haven't had time to actually read word for word the site and I only skimmed it.... I'll give it a closer look later, but I didn't see any reference to the cloud problem.

Mr Anonymous

09-29-05, 03:49 PM

Great "How does it work" site.

:) .... Why thank you very much Squeak, very kind of you to say.

Mr. Anonymous

I remember that link posted before and looking at it this time, I realise that I have the same question, though I didn't ask it the last time you gave us the link. What about the cloud behind the object. The second page of the site seems to imply that the object is at a great distance and the apparent speed is due to the earth's rotation, but I still don't see how the object could fit that model and still have a cloud in the foreground.

Admittedly, I haven't had time to actually read word for word the site and I only skimmed it.... I'll give it a closer look later, but I didn't see any reference to the cloud problem.

... It could possibly be accounted for by the reference to the UFO "footage" shown on the first page being written in inverted coma's...

Hello Skin, nice to see you around again old man.

It isn't actually UFO footage at all - nor does it actually claim to be.

On the second page in you'll see the same clip reduced in size with a larger animated wireframe CGI running simultaneously with the "original" showing a "UFO" starting off in a geosynchronous orbit around the earth for one full rotation and then decreasing its original velocity after that point.

At that corresponding point the "UFO" in the camcorder "footage" peels off West...

Well, actually in the clip it curves, but that's just a consequence of the way the CGI simulation is rigged up.

What your actually seeing in both clips is the same event just "filmed" from two separate positions. One where the observer (the virtual camera) is looking down at the earth from space, completely free from the rotational motion of the earth.

The other is shot at the same time where the observer (the virtual camera) is placed on the surface of the earths surface looking up at the CGI model of the UFO, part of its rotational motion of the earth.

You see the general idea of the thing is that if you park an object in a geostationary orbit, from the point of view of observation from the ground looking up, the object appears to be perfectly stationary - even though in fact the object itself would actually have to be travelling at a speed of anything between many hundreds to many thousands of miles per hour - as far as one can see the thing remains perfectly stationary.

The instant it slows down however, from the point of view of observation from bellow, it appears to move in a given direction at a rate of speed directly proportional to its actual degree of deceleration.

The slower it actually travels, the faster it appears to move.

In setting out to illustrate the physical principal involved it was important to do it in such a way as to convey both what what one actually see's and, at the same time, what actually is happening and to only use the physical principal being discussed in order to do it.

So, in order to best convey how the principal would appear in observation from the ground I integrated the frames shot of the UFO model from that position in the simulation into a background clip of camcorder footage of just empty sky - hence why the UFO curves off in a Westerly direction and not in a straight line as would happen if that were really an actual physical object being filmed acting in this way.

There was just no way of setting up the simulation any other way without cheating when it came to the physics, so pleasing aesthetics simply had to go on the back burner in exchange physical accuracey...

I can assure you Skin, if I was passing of fake UFO footage as real - it would be perfection. I have an eyeball for the particular y'know...

although, yeah, it might have some truth in it....it most certainly aint te WHOLE truth

... well I know that y'nanna - that's exactly how I described it in my own words in my own previous post... :p

Rather than set out to explain everything concerning UFO Phenomena in one all encompassing theory and doing it poorly, set out instead to just explain one single aspect that actually matters but do it well - the rest can take care of itself later.

If UFO's exist they only do so because there exist underlying physical principals which allow them to.

Not theoretical physical principals, but real ones.

And unless those real world physical principals exist you don't have to worry about all the rest of it because the UFO's ain't happening to begin with.

Now I fully realise that real world physics are a bore to you, that you have no interest in them and not the slightest intention of taking them on board and bothering to understand how they work. I get that.

But at the end of the day duendy, all I'm doing is pointing out the fact that actually there do exist real world, already very well established and accepted physical principals, which do actually exist and do, therefore, allow for the existence of a vehicular means which conforms to UFO classification.

I'm not taking away any of your toys here duendy - I'm giving you them, with my compliments, for gratis and with no strings attatched...

And this, to you, is a problem?! :bugeye:

Give the actual science stuff a try one of these days duendy, you might surprise your self and actually come to realise you do actually understand quite a lot of it probably far better than you yourself actually believe...

And if that's patronising, I can live with myself.

duendy

09-29-05, 04:37 PM

Mr Anonymous

09-29-05, 07:23 PM

well i cant see the blummin pics....so, shoot me...already

you have heard of earth lights right? do tese fit in with what yer ona bout?

what is your view of crop circles.

lets keep it simple with 2 quesys

and dont underestimate me dude

i Am interested in physics...tho cant understand the technical lingo math o'course.....nd science in genral

so thereeeee

:) ... I wouldn't doubt it for an instant old man.....

Sorry the animations aren't playing - there in shockwave format. Surprised your trawling on the net haven't forced the thing to be installed on your computer already. If you're interested, follow the link you can download the player for your browser here - it's a common media format, so it will also let you watch material your missing out on elsewhere - Flash Player. (http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash)

As for earthlights, the stuff I'm banging on about doesn't explain a single damn thing about them. It doesn't touch on crop circles at all.

You were however interested in "anti-gravitational propulsion" and "free energy" - the stuff I'm banging on about doesn't explain those either - (though the proper term your looking for with the "free energy" thing is called Zero Point Energy and frankly it is a myth...)

But what I do bang on about does give you something which does a seriously good impersonation of both - close enough possibly for some one to think that "anti-gravitation" was taking place and "free energy" was what might be powering it.

It isn't and in practice wouldn't be, but it at least puts things in terms of how real stuff works and might give you some useful pointers in your research so as, as you continue it it which I should hope you will, you can determine for yourself when someone is telling your something actual or just spinning you a line by just telling you what you want to hear.

Y'never know, might actually be useful... ;)

All the best,

A

duendy

09-30-05, 03:54 AM

m
:) ... I wouldn't doubt it for an instant old man.....

Sorry the animations aren't playing - there in shockwave format. Surprised your trawling on the net haven't forced the thing to be installed on your computer already. If you're interested, follow the link you can download the player for your browser here - it's a common media format, so it will also let you watch material your missing out on elsewhere - Flash Player. (http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash)

me:::no you donna understand. my system is veryt simple digital set-top box. it dont do flasah, or any moving images. a drag but true

As for earthlights, the stuff I'm banging on about doesn't explain a single damn thing about them. It doesn't touch on crop circles at all.

me::: hmmmm a shame, because i like to keep this subject as expansive as possible.
I was looking at a website tother day, and someof the crop circles were really impressive and detailed, an i wondered.....wo would do a crop circle like tht....overnight in sme caes.
ONE was of the Illuminati symbol of the pyramid withte all seeing eye on tp, you knowlike th one prtrayed on the American one dollar bill?.....
As for earthlights, i tink it was Paul Devereux -the author--ho presented ll about this phenomena.
the reason i mntion them is that -again-some people presume that THAT is what it al is, nd try nd fit ALL into THEIR theory.....!

You were however interested in "anti-gravitational propulsion" and "free energy" - the stuff I'm banging on about doesn't explain those either - (though the proper term your looking for with the "free energy" thing is called Zero Point Energy and frankly it is a myth...)

m:::frankly how do you KNOW?

But what I do bang on about does give you something which does a seriously good impersonation of both - close enough possibly for some one to think that "anti-gravitation" was taking place and "free energy" was what might be powering it.

me::: do any 'entities' come OUT of thie things you are talking about?

It isn't and in practice wouldn't be, but it at least puts things in terms of how real stuff works and might give you some useful pointers in your research so as, as you continue it it which I should hope you will, you can determine for yourself when someone is telling your something actual or just spinning you a line by just telling you what you want to hear.

me::: yes. itis handy. i look foreward to one day seeing the images you are talking about. you should try and get about this in TV.

Y'never know, might actually be useful... ;)

All the best,

A

@@@@@@@@@@@@lllllllloooooooooooooo

Mr Anonymous

09-30-05, 08:04 PM

Ah... right. Now I understand. Good god man, you must have the patience of a saint typing things out on one of those set top jobs...

Y'know, maybe your local library might be a better deal. Damn sight less frustrating working on a PC. Keep your eyes peeled round computer repair shops, computer rallies, even the small pages in your local newspaper - an old 300 MHz PC will set you back around �50-60 quid if y'know how to haggle.

O'course, you'd have to make your own arrangements ISP wise for going on line, but trust me. Home computers. All the rage amongst the young folk these days, I expect great things to come of them in the future... ;)

me::: hmmmm a shame, because i like to keep this subject as expansive as possible.
I was looking at a website tother day, and someof the crop circles were really impressive and detailed, an i wondered.....wo would do a crop circle like tht....overnight in sme caes.
ONE was of the Illuminati symbol of the pyramid withte all seeing eye on tp, you knowlike th one prtrayed on the American one dollar bill?.....
As for earthlights, i tink it was Paul Devereux -the author--ho presented ll about this phenomena.
the reason i mntion them is that -again-some people presume that THAT is what it al is, nd try nd fit ALL into THEIR theory.....!

Well, I'm more a nuts and bolts sort of a chap m'self, so I don't tend to deal terribly much in the too exotic, but indeed. They are gorgeous whatever the hell they are...

But yes, as you say. People tend to want to look for some sort of all governing, all encompassing grand theory linking everything to everything else and expecting it all to tie up neatly and make sense. trouble is, it's where a lot of the thinking tends to fall down - instead of looking closely at all the individual bits and examining them thoroughly, the eye tends to be on the Grand Scheme and so details tend to get missed.

In the context of Crop Circles and Earth Lights, really one is far better off just noodling out the one or the other, rather than trying to explain the correlation between the too in terms of something bigger, grander and all the rest.

The truth tends to be what it is, not necessarily at all what people merely think or simply believe it to be. Simply what it actually is. Trick is to find out what it is, not tell it what it should be...

m:::frankly how do you KNOW?

Regarding Zero Point Energy? No ones ever seen it. There are plenty of people who claim they've discovered it and have pointed to various contraptions of their making and declared it true. However, not a one of them, other than being prepared to switch the thing on and let it do its stuff, has ever been prepared to let anyone else have a poke around inside and see how it works.

You'll find the usual excuse to be that they are awaiting patent protection on their idea's to be finalised before being prepared to reveal to the scientific community how their devices work - which on the face of it sounds reasonable enough...

But then you find, 10, 15, 20 years later. Still no sign of their Zero Point Energy devices on the market and though securing patent protection is certainly neither cheap or quick, it doesn't take that long and after a while the excuse begins to wear rather thin...

Y'see, you can go to a stage show and watch a magician saw a young lady in half and stick the bits back together...

It's a trick, y'know it, because its called magic.

Just because someone flips a switch on what purports to be a hyper efficient fuel cell and something appears to happen as a consequence, doesn't make it any less of a simple mechanical trick.

Especially when the magician doesn't want anyone poking around the back or the inside.

Besides, I know my physics and the sums on these things never actually add up.

me::: do any 'entities' come OUT of thie things you are talking about?

Oh, I make it a point of never discussing entities on a first date... It's just vulgar, and slightly boorish.

First line on the first page reads in bold: This isn't about Aliens...

me::: yes. itis handy. i look foreward to one day seeing the images you are talking about. you should try and get about this in TV.

Well, I don't know about that... But, if you know anyone who's a subscriber to BUFORA's monthly publication I believe they're currently running it as a two parter in the September and October editions of The UFO Times, or whatever the duce it is they call it these days....

The pictures don't exactly move, but at least they're clear and understandable.

Best I can do I'm afraid.

But, like I say, try your local library or internet caf�.

Anyway, all the best with it.

A ;)

Stryder

10-01-05, 07:21 AM

You were however interested in "anti-gravitational propulsion" and "free energy" - the stuff I'm banging on about doesn't explain those either - (though the proper term your looking for with the "free energy" thing is called Zero Point Energy and frankly it is a myth...)

Perhaps you should look for References of the "Poltergeist Laboratory" and "John Hutchison".

From what I understand John Hutchison was looking for "Free Energy" and was doing experiments with alot of electromagnetic/radiological equipment. The experiments he conducted involved matricing an entire room and with the network of processed data, it was possible for him to mainpulate vectors of space around objects to enduce the same sort of reaction on an electromagnetic level as a person moving an object by hand. (namely the name "Poltergeist lab")

He continued his experiments and found occasionally to have some odd events occur where metals would react weirdly with the stiffened Spacetime, so much so alot of people mentioned "The Philadelphia Project" as the metals (and other materials) had supposed melted areas, even though no heat source was ever present.

I did present a case to him via e-mail that his effects and why they were so difficult to reproduce was down to the Particle/Waveduality of "particles".
My theory being (I say "my" as I haven't studied into if others share the same view) that a wave formation would react differently with a particle that in a singular motion (like an orbit) in comparison to one thats oscillating to the point of being a wave form.

(Such duality I suggest is down to The Uncertainty Principle and why people might view particle or waveforms)

I was intrigued in his work because of the use of the potential use of antenna matrices creating electromagnetically aligned molecules within the atmosphere that could be used to generate weight displacement for "Unpowered Objects" and even the creation of "Unpowered flight paths". (Unpowered meaning that an object or craft wouldn't need an engine on board, since the matrice of systems surrounding it would do all the work/vector mathematics)

duendy

10-01-05, 07:33 AM

Ah... right. Now I understand. Good god man, you must have the patience of a saint typing things out on one of those set top jobs...

me::::Ahhhhhhhhhh at LAST! someone who understands my plight an perseverence...much thanks sir

Y'know, maybe your local library might be a better deal. Damn sight less frustrating working on a PC. Keep your eyes peeled round computer repair shops, computer rallies, even the small pages in your local newspaper - an old 300 MHz PC will set you back around �50-60 quid if y'know how to haggle.

O'course, you'd have to make your own arrangements ISP wise for going on line, but trust me. Home computers. All the rage amongst the young folk these days, I expect great things to come of them in the future... ;)

Well, I'm more a nuts and bolts sort of a chap m'self, so I don't tend to deal terribly much in the too exotic, but indeed. They are gorgeous whatever the hell they are...
me::: Yes. some seem very complex. quite hard to imagine how some yokels or students might a dont it over night

But yes, as you say. People tend to want to look for some sort of all governing, all encompassing grand theory linking everything to everything else and expecting it all to tie up neatly and make sense. trouble is, it's where a lot of the thinking tends to fall down - instead of looking closely at all the individual bits and examining them thoroughly, the eye tends to be on the Grand Scheme and so details tend to get missed.

me::: yes. details

In the context of Crop Circles and Earth Lights, really one is far better off just noodling out the one or the other, rather than trying to explain the correlation between the too in terms of something bigger, grander and all the rest.
me::: not sure whatyou mean here..ie., 'noodling out'? also i wasn't connecting te two as such---s in earth light mke crop circles

The truth tends to be what it is, not necessarily at all what people merely think or simply believe it to be. Simply what it actually is. Trick is to find out what it is, not tell it what it should be...

me:::quite

Regarding Zero Point Energy? No ones ever seen it. There are plenty of people who claim they've discovered it and have pointed to various contraptions of their making and declared it true. However, not a one of them, other than being prepared to switch the thing on and let it do its stuff, has ever been prepared to let anyone else have a poke around inside and see how it works.

me:::well IF it did exist it would be THe most revolutionary event we have ever experenced, and would change everything. dont you think?

You'll find the usual excuse to be that they are awaiting patent protection on their idea's to be finalised before being prepared to reveal to the scientific community how their devices work - which on the face of it sounds reasonable enough...

But then you find, 10, 15, 20 years later. Still no sign of their Zero Point Energy devices on the market and though securing patent protection is certainly neither cheap or quick, it doesn't take that long and after a while the excuse begins to wear rather thin...

me:::Well...like i keep saying. such as tis would could NOT just 'appear on the market'....it is much too revolutionary. surely this adds to te plausibility of its possible existence being suppressed...?

Y'see, you can go to a stage show and watch a magician saw a young lady in half and stick the bits back together...

me:::Absolutely. we can be really messed with by professional manpulators...same goes with psycholgical techniques like neuro linguistic programming etc

It's a trick, y'know it, because its called magic.

Just because someone flips a switch on what purports to be a hyper efficient fuel cell and something appears to happen as a consequence, doesn't make it any less of a simple mechanical trick.

me::i suppose it depends whose doing the switching i spose

Especially when the magician doesn't want anyone poking around the back or the inside.

me::: some are atrating to reveal their tricks.....of course a major trick of forces who dont wish us to get near the truth is same as magicican..ie., DIVERSION

Besides, I know my physics and the sums on these things never actually add up.

me::: well i know that even some scientists can get stuck in a rut...otewise herer wuldn't be 'breakthroughs'....also there is the problem of over-specialization of course

Oh, I make it a point of never discussing entities on a first date... It's just vulgar, and slightly boorish.

me:::i know....but it has to be faced sometime!

First line on the first page reads in bold: This isn't about Aliens...

me::: have lost track what tha means for a mo

Well, I don't know about that... But, if you know anyone who's a subscriber to BUFORA's monthly publication I believe they're currently running it as a two parter in the September and October editions of The UFO Times, or whatever the duce it is they call it these days....

me::: not sure i understand the relevance?

The pictures don't exactly move, but at least they're clear and understandable.

me:::oh right..........it just seems a good part of The Puzzle...anote string an all tat

Best I can do I'm afraid.

But, like I say, try your local library or internet caf�.

me::ting is with them is the time limit....dont like to be rushed

Anyway, all the best with it.

A ;)

Ta.......and tidly on pon ton..........

Fukushi

10-01-05, 06:07 PM

In the context of Flying Saucers, or UFO's if you prefer, one could ascribe that particular means as being the Mothership from Zeta Reticuli, if one simply must. However, equally, it's actually no less difficult to park an artificial satelight in orbit above the Earth via means of conventional, dull, tired old 20th Century Rocket technology if one simply doesn't happen to have a Zeta Reticulan Mothership ready to hand...
You see, there is a very definite reason why your average UFO or Flying Saucer, presuming such are in fact real of course, actually has to be an engineless vehicle traveling under its own inertia...
Not simply because it's a nifty observation and perfectly obvious to boot, but actually because, when eye-witnesses have described the way in which UFO's can appear to alter course and heading, what they appear to be describing seems to be suggesting the impossible:
That UFO's apparently possess the ability to break the Laws of Physic's.
And the reason that would be important is because, in physically conforming to eye-witness description, such a vehicle as this really wouldn't be doing anything of the sort at all ...

Well Mister Frank Anonymous Marshall,

Have you ever even bothered to look at some footage of the space-shuttle re-entering the atmosphere? I guess not, cause if you had, you wouldn�t in your WILDEST dreams come up with an explanation of this sort of the WHOLE phenomenon of ufo�s.

�Gee, it flies: it must be a space shuttle entering the atmosphere!�

I�m very sorry but: have you no brains at all? You can�t even SEE things parked in LOW earth orbit by the naked eye, let alone see some clearly metallic object, with a spherical round body, or some other design (we earthlings drive a whole heap of car�s all with different design, so what was that point about? I�m supposing their design is very pragmatic, but >I could be wrong off course).

The only time you MIGHT see SOMETHING in low earth orbit is at night with the sun illuminating the satellite or ISS in question. Man! Every one of those damn ufo bufs should be working as a intelligence officer on the battlefield, they can easily replace our satellites: they have much better eyes by far!!!!

So I�m actually confirming my side of point: your point was NEVER ever even meant to be an objective response to my paradime, you just wanted to proliferate your own damn illusions, without even checking their validity on a scientific basis,�.CGI simulations,�

CGI simulations MY -sensored-!

Not theoretical physical principals, but real ones.
So have you read about those 21st century physics already? Be careful not to dismiss a working theory! :D

Now I fully realise that real world physics are a bore to you, that you have no interest in them and not the slightest intention of taking them on board and bothering to understand how they work. I get that.
oh, now mister ANOyedNIMUS, you will try to accuse me too of being the non technical-minded one, because I just set the record straight? I�m not hearing much from this thread lately? It�s very quietly inhere suddenly! Or you must still be reading that is,�

Give the actual science stuff a try one of these days duendy, you might surprise your self and actually come to realise you do actually understand quite a lot of it probably far better than you yourself actually believe...
Who are you to be patronizing others onto what they are supposed to belief when they actually had their first hand experience?
Who are you to believe that you know best what science is all about?
Who are you? Mr. Frank Anonymous Marshall??? You could easily have used the name John Smith, all the same,�.

But yes, as you say. People tend to want to look for some sort of all governing, all encompassing grand theory linking everything to everything else and expecting it all to tie up neatly and make sense. trouble is, it's where a lot of the thinking tends to fall down - instead of looking closely at all the individual bits and examining them thoroughly, the eye tends to be on the Grand Scheme and so details tend to get missed.

And this is such an outright mis-un-der-stan-ding! Thing ARE connected in this universe man! Look at the Big picture if you will? Think about the theory for everything? The snare theory and all?

Regarding Zero Point Energy? No ones ever seen it. There are plenty of people who claim they've discovered it and have pointed to various contraptions of their making and declared it true. However, not a one of them, other than being prepared to switch the thing on and let it do its stuff, has ever been prepared to let anyone else have a poke around inside and see how it works.

You'll find the usual excuse to be that they are awaiting patent protection on their idea's to be finalised before being prepared to reveal to the scientific community how their devices work - which on the face of it sounds reasonable enough...

But then you find, 10, 15, 20 years later. Still no sign of their Zero Point Energy devices on the market and though securing patent protection is certainly neither cheap or quick, it doesn't take that long and after a while the excuse begins to wear rather thin...

Man! You should see the patent store immediately! I can guarantee you that your eyeballs will fall right out of their sockets!!! You wouldn�t believe all those rare and exotic patents that are out there!!!

Oh, I make it a point of never discussing entities on a first date... It's just vulgar, and slightly boorish.

First line on the first page reads in bold: This isn't about Aliens...

This is so goddamn typical: I start a thread and someone hijacks the shit out of it to proclaim their own little revolution, damn this thread isn�t about Alien no! this thread is about THE VIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE for once and for all! Go start your own threads about your low earth orbits debris stuff like that damn it !!

And duendy: you don�t have to
Ta.......and tidly on pon ton..........& @@@@@@@@@@@@lllllllloooooooooooooo copy-paste an entire msg without relaying any point, just to make shure Mr. Frank Anonimus Marshall�s post holds the last place in this thread!

No way Goszay! I�m ruling this thead! It�s mine!

Perhaps if you get a few spare minutes you might want to give it the once over, it answers your questions and more besides...
No, it doesn�t.

Ufologists are forever declaring that science is incapable of explaining UFO phenomena - that simply isn't true, never has been. Science has always had plenty to say about the matter, its just generally science doesn't tell UFO believers exactly what it is they want to hear, so they ignore it.
And that is an outright lie and you know it! Science has been telling us exactly what we DO want to hear and it�s the debunkers like yourself that look the other way and go off and try to find OTHER explanations because it is YOU who are not satisfied by the explanations �conventional� science delivers to the subject!

Now, I'm not a person who actually gives a flying crap about the subject. I never have been, and I plan on continuing to live a very long and blissfully happy life continuing in that exact same vein. Well exuse me, but looks can be indeed deceiving,�.looks like you care a whole lot to me,�mentioning all your reply�s and the effort it must have taken to build that website alone,�and why? BECAUSE YOU DO CARE. swindler!

PartII is still not applicable here, so I�m withholding it.

Greetz
Fukushi

Ps: don�t be offended, I�m not either. It�s nothing personal: the cursing is just to express my being upset by such stupidity: I might be stupid too sometimes,�but at least I know when I�m stretching it !!! WHA HA HA !

Mr Anonymous

10-01-05, 10:12 PM

Fukushi? Do be a good chap and grow up.

I've not the slightest idea quite why you're feeling so aggrieved as to be making such a rambling, incoherent attack but it would be awfully nice if you could find your way of giving it a skip - or at the very least make your objects comprehensible so as they might possibly be addressed rationally. I mean -

CGI simulations MY -sensored-!

What on earth is that all about? In the clip your referring to you're clearly looking at a computer generated animation, I have not the slightest idea how anyone could possibly look at it any other way, and yet your reaction to it seems somewhat... peculiar.

I'm sorry old man but until you can find some way of calming down a bit and not biting at me, there's really very little percentage in continuing any further.

Well Mister Frank Anonymous Marshall

Ooo, and by the by. Have you ever heard the term Pen Name before and, if y'have, at least have the sense to spell it right - it's Marshal. One L, not two...

Toodles,

A ;)

* * * * *

me::::Ahhhhhhhhhh at LAST! someone who understands my plight an perseverence...much thanks sir

:) ... Indeed, indeed I do. People easily forget not everyone actually uses a PC on the internet or, in those that do, not everyone finds typing a physically easy or painless thing to do - A chap I used to converse with regularly here in this very forum back in the day had a truly awful condition affecting the tendons - sharp as a button he was, funny too, but people would just take one look at his typing an presume some deficiency on his part not at all the case fact.

I admire tenacity in anyone, and having to pick your letters one by one takes more tenacity than most people possess - I congratulate your stick-with-it-ness. It's a fine trait to possess.

me::: Yes. some seem very complex. quite hard to imagine how some yokels or students might a don't it over night

If indeed they happen overnight, indeed it is. Always fascinated me how they started as just relatively plain, simple geometric forms and they rapidly progressed into ever increasing complexity... One could almost be forgiven for seeing it as being an almost competitive kind of "sport" with rival teams each trying to out do the other.

Quite human really, isn't it..?

me:::well IF it did exist it would be THe most revolutionary event we have ever experenced, and would change everything. dont you think?

Oh. absolutely. No two ways about it - you crack Zero Point Energy, you never have to buy yourself lunch for the rest of ever... Kind of why people are so keen to make the claim they've done it. If true, it would be great and one could stuff the scientific establishment - one could just put it on the open market and, as long as it works, business wouldn't give a stuff about the how's, whys and wherefores, just that it it turns a buck.

Business is a great leveller of all things.

me:::Absolutely. we can be really messed with by professional manpulators...same goes with psycholgical techniques like neuro linguistic programming etc

Precisely. If you've ever watch a chap like Darren whats-his-face working - I can never remember that mans name, Day or Brown or something - you get to see psychological manipulation at work and even when told the trick of it, y'still don't get to see it happening even though y'know it is...

Frankly, funky looking machines and pages and pages of techno-babble look the crude ploys they are in comparison to someone actually using a talent in an informative and entertaining way.

me::i suppose it depends whose doing the switching i spose

lol ... Yeah, could make a fair bit of difference that.

me::: well i know that even some scientists can get stuck in a rut...otewise herer wuldn't be 'breakthroughs'....also there is the problem of over-specialization of course

Oh, it happens. I mean, if you've ever heard the story of the chap who discovered those bacteria which cause stomach ulcers - these days most ulcers can be treated with a simple prescription of penicillin - my better half suffered unnecessarily for ten years being fobbed off with ineffectual treatments for the symptoms as have hundreds of thousands of people world wide all because the established thinking in gastroenterology simply never bothered to consider the idea that bacteria could not only survive in the acidic environment of the stomach but actually thrive on the stuff...

Thing is though these breakthroughs from counter-established thinking come not just because someone says they're possible - the proponent proves it.

Einstein, proposing his idea's of Relativity where the established view of the Universe remained that of it being "Solid State" (perpetual, constantly renewed), didn't just get accepted just because Einstein said it was so - he provided proofs, observational criteria which, if applied, allowed prediction to be able to be made regarding astronomical events - It was only through observing these actually at work that the establishment was forced to accepted his idea's as being correct.

Really, when you get down to it, todays established idea's are yesterdays counter-culture idea's. These are the idea's which usurped those that proceeded them - and so it was with the idea's that became replaced...

The only things throughout which have remained constant are the Physical Laws. These have carried on, not so much because anyone likes them, but simply because they irrefutably work.

It's one of the criteria which makes a Physical Law an actual Law in the first place, and when y'get's right down to it, there really aren't all that many...

Probably still room yet for a couple more I shouldn't wonder.

me:::i know....but it has to be faced sometime!

I'm sure it does old man, but not by me it don't...

me::ting is with them is the time limit....dont like to be rushed

... Well, then the only thing for it is to look around for a cheap, functioning second hander. As long as you set yourself a reasonable budget, really they're worth the investment. Y'can do so much more with a computer than just trawl the internet y'knows. Plus, proper key board. Must be worth its weight in gold after 1000 plus worth of posts doing it the pick and mix way...
Anyway, must dash. Hope the day finds you well, regards,

A ;)

* * * * *

Perhaps you should look for References of the "Poltergeist Laboratory" and "John Hutchison".

Hello Stryder, nice to see you swinging by.

I have indeed read something of Hutchinson's work. Have to be honest, a lot of his explanations loose me at various turns - I'm not entirely certain if its the science or the terminology. Does have a thing for using occasionally odd terms which I'm not entirely sure clearly relay what he's actually saying - but at least he never refers to everyone, irrespective of race, gender or creed, as "old chap"...

So, I suppose he's got something going for him there.

It's certainly an interesting proposition - I mean, perhaps if one was looking for a method of space travel, I've certainly heard worse idea's and most I've had the benefit of writing. It's just...

Let me explain m'thinking here. If we're going for the extraterrestrial angle of UFO's I can't help seeing that as envolving two quite distinct things.

1: Interstellar travel - Presumably, if you've got to get from Zeta Reticuli to here and back again and a UFO is your preferred mode of transport, your UFO physically needs to employ some means or other of going about that, preferably on a viable basis.

And that, however it works, gets the UFO to here - presumably orbit around the Earth at least. But then you've got the next bit -

2: Entry into the Earths atmosphere from Space - This is where things differ. If your UFO genuinely is extraterrestrial in origin, it's a physical necessity that it possesses some technological means of travelling whatever the distance is. There's no two ways about that. That remains an absolute.

Getting into the atmosphere however only requires the UFO to physically possess two abilities - a: the ability to be able to drop like a rock. b: the ability to find something it can use to stop it going splat after it starts making like a rock.

But these remain the only physical characteristics necessary for the UFO to possess....

Do you kind of follow here why I'm seeing these as two separate things? It comes down basically to looking at a UFO in terms of what it physically needs in order simply to exist long enough for someone to actually see one, less so much in terms of what a UFO theorist needs in order to explain them.

Not that it isn't at all an admirable idea, I just can't help but seeing it in terms more to do with the space travel part of the equation, should that prove to be the case, rather than the stuff underlying what goes on at lower, earthlier altitudes...

If y'follow m'drift.

duendy

10-02-05, 05:21 AM

Fukushi

10-02-05, 03:18 PM

What on earth is that all about? In the clip your referring to you're clearly looking at a computer generated animation, I have not the slightest idea how anyone could possibly look at it any other way, and yet your reaction to it seems somewhat... peculiar.
It�s YOU who are referring to a CGI clip to illustrate your point,�.what I mean, and apparently you don�t understand, is that you can�t use a special effect to illustrate some home made truth you understand?
It�s FAKE,�CREATED BULLSHIT in other words, and this you�re trying to sell to us as �truth�, it�s utter crap. Why? ITS NOT REAL for crying out loud !!! Peculiar indeed! Lucky we both agree at some point or else this discussion would be useless to both of us:
No one can ever persist in the claim that UFO's simply don't exist. and one L or two won�t change that either. �Nick ya mosquito�

but people would just take one look at his typing an presume some deficiency on his part not at all the case fact. I�m taking it that you where one of them, if you trip over one L to much in a word that can be spelled in more ways then one, get what I mean? It�s YOU who are attacking ME, not the other way �round.

If indeed they happen overnight, indeed it is. Always fascinated me how they started as just relatively plain, simple geometric forms and they rapidly progressed into ever increasing complexity... One could almost be forgiven for seeing it as being an almost competitive kind of "sport" with rival teams each trying to out do the other.
And I would be more tempted to comply if you both could just stick with the subject, cause that�s not proper conversation, it�s a diversion attempt, and those tactics don�t reverberate friendly intentions, rather hostile.

Does have a thing for using occasionally odd terms which I'm not entirely sure clearly relay what he's actually saying
Well well well, looking at yourself at last?

but at least he never refers to everyone, irrespective of race, gender or creed, as "old chap"...
A thing at which you seem to be very good.

2: Entry into the Earths atmosphere from Space - This is where things differ. If your UFO genuinely is extraterrestrial in origin, it's a physical necessity that it possesses some technological means of travelling whatever the distance is. There's no two ways about that. That remains an absolute.
Oh my, you actually never heard of the term: �mother-ship�?

Let me throw this question to you'll.......

i personally am awre of mant evidencs of UFOs. I have see many convincingphotos, video footage, witness testimy that seem autentic--from all walksoflife

from sceptic i hear their want of 'evidence'

so, let me ask you this. a simple question: what evidencewould really satisfy you?

Let me put it this way to you:

I�ve seen them for myself, several times, alone AND together with a chap I knew back then, we both knew WHAT we saw was no plane or a helicopter or a balloon, no way.

You understand me?

And you haven�t read even the first link in my post or else you�d understand by now, HOW exactly the propulsion-system of a ufo works.

And I�ll skip the insults this time :D

Greetz
Fuku

Ps: and pleeeeeeze stay on subject

Mr Anonymous

10-02-05, 04:13 PM

Let me throw this question to you'll.......

i personally am awre of mant evidencs of UFOs. I have see many convincingphotos, video footage, witness testimy that seem autentic--from all walksoflife

from sceptic i hear their want of 'evidence'

so, let me ask you this. a simple question: what evidencewould really satisfy you?

Demonstration. If UFO's really are craft of some description and behave the way people relay they do so because the physics exists which allows them to do so - that being the case it must be demonstrable.

Empirical evidence. Demonstration. Something tangible or else applicable or better yet both.

Fukushi

10-03-05, 03:37 AM

Thank you! At last!

Are the principals demonstratable? And what about those 'real world physics' that they seem to defy?

Yes: take a look at this site: http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/theories.htm
here you can see for yourself that the basic principals hold together! And that it DOES work!

Well than, can we build a UFO?

Well yeah, off course we can, T.T.Brown already was on it and he worked with the more or less same principals! Here have a history class: make sure you take a look at the Early Experiments and Models section: http://soteria.com/brown/pictures/index.htm#bahnson

And when we take a look elsewhere http://homepage.ntlworld.com/ufophysics/electrokineticufo.htm we can clearly see that these principals had been demonstrated very early on in our time,�

So can we ask a demonstration of ufo fligth?
I think that�s too early to ask, but I think in the not so very far future we will see demonstration of it on a massive scale yes,�

Only if we find the people who posses the technical skills to build one of these things, then the sponsors would have to invest huge quantities in this,�honestly, I don�t know how far their projects stand, but I have a general Idear. Here take a look: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/ufophysics/ufopropagation.htm

Fukushi

10-03-05, 03:53 AM

It seems to me, there is (are) some corporation(s) that are requesting T.T.Brown's patent already,...hmm did you know he was at it in 1928?

Here the patent office: http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?IDX=US2949550&CY=ch&LG=fr&DB=EPODOC

Maby it was wrong of me to start this thread in the section pseudo-science,...

Oli

10-03-05, 04:58 AM

TT Brown's stuff did/ does work, sort of - but it's only ion wind. Check out the NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics site (Mark Millis), they've done studies and concluded that the ratio of lift to input power is too low, but there were a couple of anomalies that might bear further study.

duendy

10-03-05, 06:20 AM

Demonstration. If UFO's really are craft of some description and behave the way people relay they do so because the physics exists which allows them to do so - that being the case it must be demonstrable.

Empirical evidence. Demonstration. Something tangible or else applicable or better yet both.

they--witnesses--simply cannot grab one...lure it down.....work out how to make one. all they ca do is record it on camera, or bear witness to it

hmmmmmm now i am lost for a big word to describe our differing attitudes when FACED with the evidence....i am calling it evidence
yours, shared by one or two othrw here seems to homogenize all of te evidence of UFOs from year dot into a convenient 'it simply is not real evidence category you must be imagining/seeing things'......and others, including me, do not jump to such closure at all at all

Fukushi...VERy interesting. has that guy got any connecion with Nicola Tisla?...not sure i've spealt name correctly

Oli

10-03-05, 06:44 AM

evidence of UFOs from year dot into a convenient 'it simply is not real evidence
The problem with the eye witnes "evidence" is that it's so often contradictory - no two incidents report the same thing, (okay, two witnesses of the same occurrence will generally agree), that, if true, then there must be more UFO models in production than car types, with as many diffferent propulsion systems. And crewed by dozens of different alien species :eek:
It's like trying to work out what's happening when the first witness reports a bicycle, the next a Suzuki super-sportsbike, the next a battleship, the one after a glider ....
There's insufficient hard, consistent data to form a working hypothesis.

duendy

10-03-05, 09:31 AM

The problem with the eye witnes "evidence" is that it's so often contradictory - no two incidents report the same thing, (okay, two witnesses of the same occurrence will generally agree),

me::make yer mind up! you eem to be in disagreement wid yerself there Oly. actually you are dead wrong. for example, the Mexico City event in 1991, many more than 2 people say UFOs from different viewpontw, and this has been so for many events. i think you are makin it up as u go alond my friend

that, if true, then there must be more UFO models in production than car types, with as many diffferent propulsion systems. And crewed by dozens of different alien species :eek:

me:::dont really get your point here. yo are jumpin the gun a bit. at the mo weare actually talkin bout seeing UFOs

It's like trying to work out what's happening when the first witness reports a bicycle, the next a Suzuki super-sportsbike, the next a battleship, the one after a glider ....
There's insufficient hard, consistent data to form a working hypothesis.

you've lost me dude. you are talking about the varities of UFO...? heard of diversity bro?

Mr Anonymous

10-03-05, 06:24 PM

hmmmmmm now i am lost for a big word to describe our differing attitudes when FACED with the evidence....i am calling it evidence
yours, shared by one or two othrw here seems to homogenize all of te evidence of UFOs from year dot into a convenient 'it simply is not real evidence category you must be imagining/seeing things'......and others, including me, do not jump to such closure at all at all

duendy...? I'm doing bugger all of the sort. Eyewitness testimony, anecdotal by its nature. Film and video "evidence" - nothing that can't be done in any number of ways other than filming a UFO. Speculative at best and an area replete with incidences of complete and utter fraud - as anyone whose ever done the slightest research in the matter can't possibly be unaware of....

In your response you ask Fukushi how certain idea's he's convinced about tie up with the work of Nikola Tesla....

Now, Fukushi supplies us with a list of many and various sites which expound the sorts of ideas Fukushi knows all about....

http://soteria.com/brown/pictures/index.htm
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/lifters.htm
http://www.americanantigravity.com/
http://www.100megsfree4.com/farshores/tesla_2.htm
(Nikola Tesla's EM Field Lift experiments)
http://www.sacred-texts.com/ufo/ufo4.htm
http://www.sacred-texts.com/ufo/ufo6.htm
http://www.lostech.net/antigravity_catalogue.html
http://www.think-aboutit.com/ufo/antigravity_antimatter.htm
http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/electrograviticsystems.htm
http://www.fortunecity.com/greenfield/bp/16/hameltech4.htm
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/time_travel.html
http://www.ufoartwork.com/
http://www.mufon.com/
http://www.bvalphaserver.com/
http://www.ufoevidence.org/
http://www.4dreamland.com/Mambo/index.php
http://www.unknowncountry.com/
http://www.disclosureproject.org/
http://www.greatdreams.com/
http://www.ufotv.com/aspages/gettypes.asp?schtype=cropcircle
http://www.ufocity.com/
http://www.ufoinfo.com/contents.shtml
http://ovnis.esoterica.pt/ingles/antarctingl/VRIL6ingl.htm
http://www.alien.de/alien/
http://www.alien-ufos.com/
http://www.aaaa.demon.nl/military.html
http://www.todobr.com.br/cgi-bin/redirect.cgi?query=ufo
http://www.ufocenter.com/
http://www.fsreview.net/spi/nazinth.htm
http://www.cco.net/%7Etrufax/trans/lammer.html
http://www.dreamlandresort.com/index_en.html
http://www.veling.nl/anne/templars/ancientaircraft_nf.html
http://www.geocities.com/aliens_ufos_videos/
http://alienidentities.com/ai_ie4.html
http://www.ufomag.co.uk/LatestIssueINDEX.htm
http://www.ufoconspiracy.com/
http://www.cufos.org/cometa.html
http://www.drboylan.com/
http://www.efodon.de/html/publik/do/edo25.htm
http://www.naziufos.com/dischi/saucers1-ie.htm
http://geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/2301/military.html
http://www.magonia.demon.co.uk/arc/00/newmag.htm
http://www.geocities.com/r_ayana/FreeWheel.html
http://www.ufo.no/english/articles/afu.html
http://www.martiansgohome.com/smear/v46/ss991010.htm
http://www.jp-petit.com/Site_Anglais/Ummo_Book/Ummo_Book1/Ummo_Book1.htm
http://wintersteel.homestead.com/files/JamesArticles/Silver_Bug.htm
http://www.thewhyfiles.co.uk/combat-diaries/diary14chapter_6.htm
http://www.afu.info/
http://d.webring.com/hub?ring=ufoalliance&id=26&hub
http://www.caus.org/home.shtml
http://www.aliensonearth.com/
http://www.fsr.org.uk/FSRMain.htm
http://www.think-aboutit.com/ufo/
http://www.ufoarea.com/
http://users.erols.com/feanor17/Ufo.html

As you can see, its rather a lot of stuff and feel free to make of this eclectic information what you will - the point is many of the sites Fukushi points to regarding ideas concerning UFO propulsion, if not dealing with certain idea's proposed by Tesla himself direct are founded on certain physical idea's Tesla believed to be true.

Fukushi is obviously a very great expert on everything relating to the work of Nikola Tesla.

Now Click Here.... (http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/how-by-frank-marshal/pages/how_page7.html)

Patently, I'm nothing more than a swindler and a charlatan, a debunker of the first order only interested in peddling my own crazy idea's, etc, etc... Yet anyone who professes to know even the very basics concerning the work of Tesla couldn't possibly fail to recognise the arrangement as being anything other than being a simple, straightforward application of a bog ordinary rotary motion Tesla Induction Coil.

It's one of Tesla's most enduring legacies to the actual workings of the 20th and 21st century, the principals under which it works exemplify and underpin every subsequent idea Tesla ever had and it works in exactly the way described in the context of the site you're looking at.

But, according to Fukushi, its all made up nonsense...

Now, you'll find this idea of Tesla's utilised the world over. Anything which isn't pre-fixed with the word Solar and calls itself a Power-Station utilises devices exactly such as these for generating electrical power. That includes hydro-electric and nuclear power stations. Anything that claims to be an AC Generator, got one of these things in it. If you own a car, pop the bonnet have a poke around for the Alternator - yup, there's an application of Tesla right there in your humble motor and you'll be keen to note, switching the engine on and letting the Alternator kick in doesn't magically levitate your car majestically into the air nor produce so much as a moist raspberries worth of propulsive force in the process.

All it does is top up your battery whilst the engines running and the reasons why are exactly as it says in a standard physics book.

Nothing like the way these sites Fukushi knows everything there is to know about will tell you Tesla's ideas work.

Now, let me tell you about Tesla. Genius is a much over used word, anyone can be called it. When describing a man like Tesla, prot�g� is by far the best term of all. He came from a relatively humble background, was largely self taught as a child, and demonstrated an innate understanding of the workings of electromagnetism and electricity as in instinct streets ahead of literally all of his contemporaries of the day.

It was actually reading about chaps like Nikola Tesla as a kid that got me untested in science in the first place and its a course I've happily followed ever since, though you must remember, chaps of my generation didn't grow up with an internet - so we simply had to make do with dull, boring old things like actual facts to do our thinking with....

Tesla's contribution to the 20th Century is beyond question, and it was a success eminently well recognised within his own lifetime. However, Tesla's genius tended to reside within his own field of expertise pretty much exclusively. When it came to the way things worked outside that field of understanding, Tesla could and very often did exhibit a curious lack of proper understanding regarding very basic, elementary physical principals.

Success and recognition for his accomplishments meant Tesla could both say and do, scientifically speaking, pretty much whatever he wanted - but for a self possessed man, which he was very, sometimes great success can be the very worst thing a chap can have thrust upon him.

Acknowledged as a genius increasingly Tesla found his idea's moving inexorably away from mainstream science into the world of the purely fantastic - the whole thing came to something of a head round about 1905 when, after being commissioned by possibly one of the worlds most powerful men at the time, JP Morgan I believe, to construct a fantastical "world system" broadcast tower to the tune of around $1,000,000 of Morgans hard earned dollars only to be trumped completely by Marconi's $25 dollar set-up wireless transmission, Tesla found himself suddenly on hard times...

Penniless and left to his own devices he underwent a nervous breakdown and his stock with the establishment, nor his professional career, never really recovered.

He denounced Einstein an idiot, pottered around in his local park in his slippers and died in relative obscurity and virtual paupery in around 1943.

In the intervening years between his fall from grace and his death at over the age of 70 there was much talk about Tesla's ideas - he proposed death-rays and beamed electrical energy, he proposed many and fabulous things and posthumously, after his death, some of these fantastical idea's were actually tried out at a cost of millions of dollars all to no avail.

Simply because, though brilliant, Tesla was prone to be one of those many individuals who didn't apply any proper sort of effective "review" on their thinking. He'd leap ahead in certainty of things working in certain ways that even a casual perusal of a physics book would have told him straight off that actually, this isn't going to work.

But Tesla was Tesla. He was so used to being absolutely right, it often never occurred to him that he could be wrong - even when he was publicly and manifestly way off beam. He'd never see the critical error in his own thinking.

And the problem with the sort of material Fukushi here is steeped to the eyeballs in is that these sites proclaiming revelation and success in their researches based on the work and idea's of Tesla take as their start point the belief absolute that many of Tesla's mere posturings actually worked and yielded positive results.

They didn't. Tesla himself lived a very long life and, even after 1905 could still find the ear of practically any potentate or sponsor in the world to finance his researches - but the fact of the matter was he never pulled any of these wilder things off.

I'm not just being a debunker here - this is simply history and I find it somewhat incredible that a person such as Fukushi here, with all his expert knowledge of all these wild and incredible things can actually look directly at an application of the very work the man he claims to know so much about as sited here.... (http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/how-by-frank-marshal/pages/how_page7.html) and still contrive decry it as purely non-scientific fraud - simply because it deals with Tesla's idea's in the way they actually work.

Now as Oli has perfectly correctly tried to point out here and will no doubt be completely ignored because he's not saying "Oh gosh, Browns Ion Drive - definitely the key to UFO propulsion!" because it simply doesn't give enough kick within the gravitational influence of a planet to move anything, let alone its own mass....

Try just reading a physics book duendy. Just try. Look up terms like propulsion, gravity, electromagnetism. Understand how they actually work in the real world and then, if you must, wade through the sort of crap your going to be foisted with regarding UFO propulsion.

Proof comes from what is actually possible old man, so too does evidence.

And as I said in my reply - I meant exactly what I actually said using the words I actually used. Paraphrasing it all every-way-to-Sunday doesn't change a single word of what I said. I generally tend to mean exactly what I say on the tin...

Except those times, obviously, when I don't.

Regards as always,

A ;)

duendy

10-04-05, 07:32 AM

Mr Anonymous

10-04-05, 04:39 PM

before i respond in full, let me justask you this:

arrrre you asserting that Eveeeery single EVER reported account and documented evidence of a UFO --as in pointing to advanced technology--has been false?

I'm saying its deeply misguided. A presumption, not in anyway based on fact but supposition - absolutely no different from the logic that points to a UFO and states "Oh, must be Aliens. No other explanation possible. Can't possibly explain it any other way therefore it must be an irrefutable fact..."

Have you ever stopped to ask yourself what is it, exactly, about UFO's that demand "advanced technology" in order to explain them, precisely?

duendy

10-04-05, 04:50 PM

I'm saying its deeply misguided. A presumption, not in anyway based on fact but supposition - absolutely no different from the logic that points to a UFO and states "Oh, must be Aliens. No other explanation possible. Can't possibly explain it any other way therefore it must be an irrefutable fact..."

me::: a UFO is a UFO. it seems to me from where i am standing it is you and others of the 'sceptical' brigade who demand an explanatory closure
....as in eg., 'it simply MUST be something else dear boy'

Have you ever stopped to ask yourself what is it, exactly, about UFO's that demand "advanced technology" in order to explain them, precisely?

yes. the fact of how they have been reported to move....they dont look like planes/aircraft we are familar with....some claim to have been zapped up by weird beams into them, and people have seen such from an outside observation point...etceteraaaa

Mr Anonymous

10-04-05, 05:46 PM

yes. the fact of how they have been reported to move....they dont look like planes/aircraft we are familar with....

Granted, UFO's by all accounts don't look or move like conventional aircraft - that's why they put the U in Unidentified Flying Object. Can't really say much about "beams" zapping people up and so forth, but unusal shape and movement, that's common to all UFO sightings.

But you use the term "we are familiar with.."

What's the most advanced aircraft you can think of, and why?

duendy

10-05-05, 03:21 AM

the black triangular plan...not sure of its name...'stealth bomber'?
why....cause it does look a bit like what you'd call UFO....also in reports of UFOs triangular craft have been seen.....?

Fukushi

10-05-05, 05:07 PM

I never even said anything about Tesla,...

And I never said anything about Aliens either,...

You are very sick

Mr Anonymous

10-05-05, 08:10 PM

the black triangular plan...not sure of its name...'stealth bomber'?
why....cause it does look a bit like what you'd call UFO....also in reports of UFOs triangular craft have been seen.....?

The B2 Spirit, commonly known as the Stealth Bomber. Why do you consider it advanced? Is it just the look of the thing or the actual technology of it?

I never even said anything about Tesla,...

You pointed to a crap load of web sites theorising about UFO propulsion and proclaimed them true genuine "21st Century Physics" - every last single one of them either sites Tesla's work direct or else claims unbridled "success" in demonstrating idea's Tesla propagated with a vehement degree of browbeating arrogance directed specifically at me completely unwarranted to anything I myself had directed at you in anyway personally. You said plenty about Tesla Fukushi, thing of it is you haven't the first wit about what you're actually talking about and whatever patience I may have been prepared to afford you pissed out the window with the gob-shite I've been putting up with from you.

It's not your lack of any form of scientific grounding that makes you an arse Fukushi - a lack of understanding never made a fool out of anyone. If we're truly alive we are all in a state of continual learning - So no, its not the fact you don't actually understand the first stroke about physics that makes you an arse.

It's your manners.

Every single other person who has taken part in this thread has managed to conduct themselves with grace - no body else has been slinging insults towards other posters, only you.

Now either buck your bladdy ideas up or piss off. You're bladdy right I'm sick, mostly of you.

duendy

10-06-05, 06:56 AM

why do i think the black triangular craft--stealth bomber is advanced?........i am guessing it is one of the most advanced technological tings overtly known about...yes. buti still stick wit my ....intuition, inspird by various diverse forms of inquiry, that there exist suppressed forms of advanced technology

nowwww. i asked a question hereshortwhile ago, and have misplaced it and tepossible answer

now i asked this: you are knwoing about the Discolure Project right? where a number of peple conessedto secret forms of advanced technology. were they all lying in your opionion?.....why would they say what they said do you think?

Fukushi

10-06-05, 09:28 AM

I was about to say:

You're an awfull fuckwit yourself so don't bugger me with your crapheap shitload of unfounded baseless idiotic

Pseudo-scientific idears?

but then again, it didn't seem worth the effort to me,...considdering we have 'the' specialist in here with us, Mr.Anonimus himself! oh yes,...

by the way,...if you are trying to anoy me,...you certainly did,...I'm not the one who should fuck of my own thread,...

And I AM being nice to you,...consider that for a change.

:m:

thx

Oli

10-07-05, 04:52 AM

As a typical example of the "professionalism" used in research by some of these sites, I came across a couple of photos on one of them headed "this aircraft is unknown" and "possibly taken at Area 51, definitely NOT an SR-71 Blackbird".
Which just happen to be, respectively, an uncredited CGI, by a guy called Adrian Mann, of a 1950s unbuilt Hawker extremely fast aircraft, and the other is a still from a TV advert for a motorbike (IIRC) in which the producer wanted to give a high-tech future feel to the ad/ bike by mocking up something that looked fast.

duendy

10-07-05, 05:30 AM

errrrr i am awaremy question, which i now have repeated several times seems to be being ignored....the question is: yu are all now familar with the Disclosure Project?....where tere ws a gathering of individuals many of tem high ranking, who confessed that there IS secret advanced technology.

why would ou say they said, if yu believe it isn't true?....and how can you prove they are lying?

Oli

10-07-05, 05:49 AM

duendy

10-07-05, 05:23 PM

I can't PROVE they're all lying -I haven't seen all of their testimonies, I haven't got access to certain data, (eg what they were really doing on the days they calim to have seen/ worked on/ been abducted/ whatever by UFOs),

me:::you mean. do a Columbo?

but what I have seen so far on the vast majority of sites and books that I've read is the that the writer/ editor/ host will grab at the first thing that says "confirmation" to them and stick with that, ignoring the mundane logical reasoning (in most cases simply because it IS mundane)

me::do you have xampls from the actual DIscolure transcripts?

- see the Dishonest or Delusional thread and the reply I got - the interviewer printed the claims verbatim and then told me that So I've emailed him back and given a couple of examples of applying rigour.

me::: lets see what happens then?

Basically by the time the "disclosures" get released to us they've been through at least one if not more filters that are pro-Alien (as in pro - they're out there and coming here) with little or no critical faculty.

me::well MY critical faculty is tis. i tend to --from other stuff i have read--waver on the suppression of advanced technology, and see the ET issue as a diversion from that. tho it could be both, te alien aganda would fit nicely into the Illuminati plan. which is to propaganderize about hostile alien forces. as theyare doing so about 'terrorist' evil forces. i always try and keep the larger picture in mind

Witness, I came across one site that claimed Oppenheimer stated "this is not the first time a nuclear weapon has been detonated upon the Earth's surface", as opposed to the more usual "I am become Death..."

me:::interesting. maybe his speech--although seemingly moving was a sound byte propaganda piece?

With a spin like that how do you tell?
If the US military really does have anti-gravity technology why is it spending 1 billion dollars per item on B-2? Why is it spending billions more on F-35? If they have Alien technology why has the US Army spent several billion dollars to develop a rifle since the late fifties and managed to do nothing but cancel and then scrap every single project (SPIW/ ACR etc)?
Why is it letting its own troops die abroad if it has super-weapons?
Because alien technology is a myth, that's why.

you are too quick to jump to a conclusion. Columbo wouldn't do that. jokey but serious.........we have to get into the criminal mind. a criminal elite thar has so much money and power it is truly beyond the ordinary individual'scomprehension. can you imagine even having 100 million??

soleirs are pawns. we are pawns. the world is teres. they can do things. manipulate. play with events people. can you efen dig the morality of thos epeople who create wars and obliterate thousnds and tousands of people. did you see that horrendous phpt i forewarded to tese forums of an Iraqi child vicime of Depleted Uranium genetic damage?? the picture is so awful, beyond imagination. utter utter utter horror, i cant even look at it for long. and we are talking about what these powers aRE CAPABLE OF. THAT HAVEN'T EVEN INFORMed rtheir own soldiers of the dangrs of DU. and give absolutely no money to war veterens and sick soldiers due to the effects of DU etc. THAt is wat those pople are capable of. if that, then ANYTHING. BELIEVE it. see it!!