The truth about UFOs by the US Government

originally posted by: TeaAndStrumpets

Nope. Humanity simply cannot construct the kinds of objects people have been describing for decades now. I happen to be pretty up-to-date on aviation technology and concepts -- my profession requires me to be -- and am familiar with the history and evolution of flight, and to suggest that the UFO feats/performances that so many people have observed is the product of human engineering is, quite honestly, not even remotely plausible.

The real problem is most of the time PEOPLE don't have a clue what they are looking at took picture of or filmed.

Some recent theads to prove the point.

Fiery Twin-tailed UFOs

Guy is catching many weird objects in the atmosphere with high-tech set-up

The real UFO's that have a zero mass field and use magneto aerodynamics to zip around that are said to defy physics (they don't actually defy physics), are made with materials that simply can't be made on earth, and could not even be made in our solar system.

The simple reason is nuclear fusion within our own star can't produce those more exotic super heavy elements because our star is too small for the synthesis of those elements, and it requires way more dense and much larger star systems to see it occur.

Hand me downs are how our black military gets them.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Just you keep thinking that as long as it keeps you happy that's ok, It gives me a good when people make quotes like that as if they actually know

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: LukeCahill

Yes, the US did attempt to build "flying saucers". It is (well, was) called the Avrocar. Here is your "flying saucer".

As far as I can tell there was that one and a couple of other attempts that weren't any more impressive, though they de-classified the artist's rendition of a proposed craft that would be more capable, as illustrated in my signature (a clickable image), but I don't think any such craft was ever built.

I almost get the impression that with the media buzz about "flying discs" people were seeing, the top brass decided maybe we should try to build flying discs of our own and the dismal failure that was Avrocar was the result. I'm not sure that what people called "flying discs" were really flying discs. As balloons reach altitude, they may look like a disc from a distance.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

The only connection The U.S. had with The Avrocar was they put up the money.

As i said in an earlier post, The Avrocar's design and construction was not in The U.S.

a reply to: Murgatroid

TRUE disclosure is what I said.

originally posted by: LukeCahill
UFOs are undoubtly real. The fact that so many people get to observe it zooming away or landing or whatever. Has it ever occured to any of you why the government try so hard to cover up alien existence? [...] What do you think?

Since when do UFOs have anything to do with aliens?

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
The real UFO's that have a zero mass field and use magneto aerodynamics to zip around that are said to defy physics (they don't actually defy physics), are made with materials that simply can't be made on earth, and could not even be made in our solar system.

The simple reason is nuclear fusion within our own star can't produce those more exotic super heavy elements because our star is too small for the synthesis of those elements, and it requires way more dense and much larger star systems to see it occur.

Hand me downs are how our black military gets them.

They don't defy physics?

Is this your professional opinion?

originally posted by: wmd_2008
The real problem is most of the time PEOPLE don't have a clue what they are looking at took picture of or filmed.

Even if that were true (and I don't agree that it is), why focus on the worst 90% of cases instead of the best 10%? Especially when the range of quality is so high, with the best often clearly distinct from the worst? There are entire categories of UFO cases where the skeptics' default explanation -- misperception of mundane phenomena, the one you're getting at here -- is not even truly relevant. Take the "Close Encounters." How many cases are there where the UFO is, for example, within 50 feet of the witness, and at or below eye level or even on the ground? A lot more than most people realize. (Especially if this forum is their primary source of UFO information... god help 'em). Those kinds of cases rarely get addressed here. Why? Because everyone's busy discussing silly things like the Avrocar, or debunking 'UFO' photographs that weren't even claimed to be real, e.g., D.C. in 1952.

Threads that do attempt to discuss them often slide down the forum front page surprisingly fast, with barely a single comment from the otherwise very vocal skeptics. Why? Because, if we're being honest, there's really nothing, beyond "the witnesses are lying," that the skeptic can say in those instances.

Yes, people sometimes perceive things incorrectly and then report a UFO. Proven. Long ago. Now how about that top 10%? Or how about the cases where the kinds of mistakes you all are constantly pinning onto UFO sightings is not even a realistic possibility? They're lying, every single one of those many thousands of CE witnesses? Nah....

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Just you keep thinking that as long as it keeps you happy that's ok, It gives me a good

when people make quotes like that as if they actually know

And it makes me happy when people that think those who actually know things, know nothing, and are usually jealous, or just don't like people about 100 IQ points above them, and always try to hammer them down by comments like yours, you know, the troll type of comments you are so familiar typing? Yep those.


And I do actually know since I worked for Sandia national labs as a technician from '85 to 89' on the Kirtland Air Force Base and I held a TS Clearance to work on things in materials sciences, and everything I said is verifiable as true about star systems and how the synthesis of elements happens within stars including super heavy ones in larger stars. And magneto aerodynamics is a classified subject right now in the military. All verifiable with only a smidgeon of research, but you don't check out things before you post troll responses do you? I've never seen you reply in a cognizant manner to anyone. Isn't that embarrassing to you? It would be to most people, even on the internet. I also have friends in high places in the FAA. That is the federal aviation administration in case you don't know. See how easy it is to learn?

Ya DB

originally posted by: NewzNose

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
The real UFO's that have a zero mass field and use magneto aerodynamics to zip around that are said to defy physics (they don't actually defy physics), are made with materials that simply can't be made on earth, and could not even be made in our solar system.

The simple reason is nuclear fusion within our own star can't produce those more exotic super heavy elements because our star is too small for the synthesis of those elements, and it requires way more dense and much larger star systems to see it occur.

Hand me downs are how our black military gets them.

They don't defy physics?

Is this your professional opinion?

Yes it is my professional opinion, and physical laws simply can't be broken. Tell me what law is being broken when a UFO does 10,000 MPH and then does an instant right angle turn? None. They are not subject to inertia with a zero mass field which lowers mass to near zero. And that is not the only thing happening. If you still think some law is being broken, please explain what they are and how?

Physical laws cannot be broken, they only appear to be to those who don't understand the science behind what is happening.

The ignorance on this site is stunningly pathetic and is simply a waste of time for anyone who actually knows a few things to share with them. I won't be sharing anymore here, since the monkeys just throw their poop back at people who do have a clue.

originally posted by: LukeCahill
a reply to: DJW001



Simple logic

I've noticed on ATS that when anyone says 'Simple Logic' it is neither simple nor logical.

Just an observation.

a reply to: LukeCahill

I have this gut feeling, that they are right, we cant handle the truth, they did not get the blueprints from a crashed ufo,
they had human "navigators" like in the philadelphia experiment, they found a way in to the void, all science and physics that we hold so dear, is irrelevant, this reality field is nothing compared to the void, we can not understand, ever.

This is and experiment that involves organic life in a "physical" space, created by non-organic life, that resides outside the space-time continuum.

a reply to: LukeCahill

I almost stopped reading your post when I finished the 3rd sentence but I forced myself and was gagging by the 10th sentence. Then while typing this reply I thought it's only fair if I read the whole thing. Phew! Since if I continue I would be violating some ATS policy so I'll stop here with this last word of criticism: AWFUL!

a reply to: DJW001

Dont be so quick to dismiss the Nazi flying saucers. They are proven fact, and they look futuristic now, let alone in the 40's. The world's first sighting of a "flying saucer" was clearly a Horten 229, by his sketch. Now look up the Horten XIII, the Sack AS6, and the Lippisch DM and tell me the Nazis didnt invent UFOs.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

PROOF PROOF PROOF the most ALIEN thing on ufo forum.

I suggest YOU do some real research on what happens in a star !!!!! Also I have shown more than once on here most ufo believers haven't a clue what they are actually are looking at or filming.

If you look dobber (Sottish term do some research) I have a good number of applause on here you don't get them for nothing.

Anybody can spout the kind if BS you mentioned on your post

originally posted by: Ridhya
a reply to: DJW001

Dont be so quick to dismiss the Nazi flying saucers. They are proven fact, and they look futuristic now, let alone in the 40's. The world's first sighting of a "flying saucer" was clearly a Horten 229, by his sketch. Now look up the Horten XIII, the Sack AS6, and the Lippisch DM and tell me the Nazis didnt invent UFOs.

The Horten 229 was never built because wind tunnel tests showed the design to be aerodynamically unstable, sorry. Other than its shape, it was a conventional aircraft. There is no evidence that the Germans ever built anything but conventional aircraft, rockets, and rocket propelled aircraft.

a reply to: DJW001
Sticking your fingers in your ears and saying no isnt how you learn. You clearly know nothing of the Horten development history because they DID construct it, several versions in fact, and test-flew all of them. At the end of the war at least one was captured and made its way eventually to the US. You obviously didnt even look at what I referred to. So ill show you.

Lippisch DM-1 (air and space museum)

Horten XIIIa in flight

a reply to: Ridhya

As I said, those are conventional aircraft. I was mistaken about their being prototyped; I thought they were only static tested. My bad.

I don't mean to be snarky but seeing the words truth and government in the same sentence honestly looks unnatural. It's like reading 'pregnant husband' or something.
Government is not about truth. That's not their role. They're about order.