Let's Have A Nuts And Bolts UFO Discussion

originally posted by: spiritualarchitect

There is NO proof that any of these things ~ saucers, cigars, triangles, tic tacs and the like ~ are man-made.

Not sure why you include "triangles" within that list since clearly there is plenty of proof that man-made triangular stealth craft exist.

As for saucers...



Follow this link for 13 other examples.

"Tic Tacs", via a 16-year-old Navy incident, are the new version of the 'flying saucer' of the 50s, although the "Tic Tac" meme is only recognised within ufological circles rather than within the Real World down the pub etc. At least the Italian company making the sweets themselves are probably cheering, and Italy needs all the revenue it can get at present!

Just government lies and people looking for excuses to not face the fact that their is an alien presence on planet Earth.

Your sig makes that point quite clear, too, but can I ask which reliable sources led you to these conclusions? Not much going on in the UFO forum these days, so I'm genuinely intrigued and not looking for another punch-up (we've had quite enough of those in the past) since you sound like a generally smart geezer.

(PS: Remember - as I told you before - I'm happily married to a Believer who had that most extraordinary encounter with a black triangle that SHE absolutely believes was not man-made. I wish I had been there to see it with my own eyes since I'm one of those rather frustrating "seeing is believing" kind of people.)

originally posted by: framedragged
a reply to: penroc3

Some information is trivially dangerous to disseminate and doesn't require an industriallized nation-state to take advantage of it.

Yeah- but surely the missing secret sauce is what must be a fairly voluminous unifying field theory?
Everyone is already looking for it and have been for ages.

On a generic nuts and bolts note - we already have a number of examples of human technology that cannot be replicated by just copying components and connecting power.

When the underlying processes are alleged to include a granular manipulation of "quantum fields"- the opportunity to replicate/copy/observe becomes almost none existent.
Lets not even start on what kind of computing power/software AI would be required to monitor/ control the alleged interactions.


Not sure whether this emboldens the claims of so called ITK'ers (on the basis they cant be expected to understand all details of a very complicated system/any info they share is pretty much useless without the unifying theory) or lessens.

Regardless- it's unlikely you are sitting on info that could endanger people.

a reply to: Jukiodone

Never claimed I was, and I certainly wouldn't touch this thread with a 10 foot pole if that were the case.

But it didn't take a comprehensive understanding of the weak force, or even any knowledge of the strong force at all, to take advantage of fission.

They simply observed it and brute forced an engineering solution to amplify it within 7 years, using nothing but naive quantum physics models and manpower.

If there is any truth to the topic of this thread, I have an extremely hard time believing its development didn't follow a similar pattern as that.

An odd observation was made, someone connected a dot, and 'they' brute forced a solution to exploit it using nothing but toy physical models, without any real understanding of the underlying principles. Then over the decades it was iteratively improved upon, the physics were unraveled, and the warp factor grew larger. No doubt hand in hand with improvements in computational control systems and material science.

If I had one guess about why that observation hasn't been made since then, it would be that it occurred at a size scale impossible to replicate in the lab and which requires more resources and more personnel than one researcher has access to. The kind of thing that is only available with direct military involvement, just from a basic support base level.

Or, if it has been observed since then, but the dot hasn't been reconnected, I might speculate that there is a slight misunderstanding in special relativity which has become accepted as a universal truth, a misunderstanding which is used to explain the observation away as something else entirely.

But again, hard to say...

I don't need to understand how it works to speculate about what could be accomplished with adversarial metric engineering. And those possibilities are frightening.

So the Boeing concept fascinated me - here’s why.

Sparing the context for this conversation, let’s just say I played golf with a guy who was a nuclear scientist with Boeing. He also handled some other non-nuclear projects for them.


I brought up a few of the ideas listed in this thread with him which he wouldn’t engage on significantly. He did say, however, that the “real” thing that should be focused on is the ability to “fly out of our atmosphere” - e.g. no more rockets.

The Boeing patent is discussed in the link below:

arstechnica.com...

I also find interesting that NASA disclaims their article on the need for rocket propulsion to reach LEO.

spaceplace.nasa.gov...

All of this to say I suspect some thoughts in this thread are solid and probably more on point then we appreciate.

As an aside, I tend to think the MIC are way further along with fusion than we’ve been led to believe. I’ve long held the believe that with limitless money, resources and the brightest minds we can find I suspect we can solve most problems. Given what we know publicly about energy advancements, I suspect the MIC is way way ahead - and something like Boeing’s engine is very realistic.

Particularly when the guy I talked to from Boeing had a very “oh the things you don’t know...” tone as he was giving me suggestions on where to look/what to look for/think about.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

I cant say with any certainty anything about other reported cases may or may not be, how they operate or who operates them. I fantasize about them like anyone else but keep that crap to myself. There are cases that without a doubt cant be denied in their validity simply by the caliber of the persons reporting them. Some hold a very high bar to me but are still unknowns. And I am very OK with not knowing what these things are. I don't want to speculate too much about them. I tend to accept those special case at face value.

I can only express my thoughts on only what Ive personally experienced. My sighting in early 2000's was rather mundane in comparison to some I have read about here and elsewhere. A small white non luminous ball in late afternoon as the sun falls behind the building I am working at. It approaches heading west and slows as it gets to the ridge line to my north and stops. It hovers for about 6-7 minutes at about 1200 ft with something indiscernible moving around it randomly. Then it moves off to the west gaining speed as it leaves. The end. I called our airport control tower (TYS) as it was happening and they saw nothing near me.

What it was who knows. I thought that maybe I wasn't supposed to see it, like maybe it was malfunctioning. Maybe even supposed to be cloaked. It was very smooth in its movement and definitely odd in its behavior. No obvious means of conventional propulsion, Definitely lit up by the setting sun but not reflective just white as hell. A guesstimate of its size would be maybe 20 ft in diameter, maybe a bit bigger. I honestly thought it was a daytime sighting of ISS until it slowed down and stopped.

I speculate it was ours. I speculate that it wasn't supposed to be seen and that it may have been broken. Its moved as if on a rope. Very precise and steady, no jittery bouncy bobbly movement at all, like a rock and seemingly exempt from gravity and wind. Anti-gravity? Maybe, or possibly something more exotic like quantum isolation or the like. It eerily reminded me of how superconductors behave when they are being super.

I wholeheartedly agree with the tenet that says our technology is typically 20-40 years beyond what the general public knows and considering how mindnumbingly fast we have advanced in the last 100 or so years, would lead me to accept that humans quite probably have mastered and made real some of what we now consider science fiction today.

I dont like to get into motivations or theories behind what people are seeing because its just myth making to me. I don't know and I am OK with that.

a reply to: ConfusedBrit
Yes they built a saucer but it was inherently unstable in hover and hard to fly..

originally posted by: framedragged
a reply to: Jukiodone

Never claimed I was, and I certainly wouldn't touch this thread with a 10 foot pole if that were the case.

But it didn't take a comprehensive understanding of the weak force, or even any knowledge of the strong force at all, to take advantage of fission.

They simply observed it and brute forced an engineering solution to amplify it within 7 years, using nothing but naive quantum physics models and manpower.

If there is any truth to the topic of this thread, I have an extremely hard time believing its development didn't follow a similar pattern as that.

An odd observation was made, someone connected a dot, and 'they' brute forced a solution to exploit it using nothing but toy physical models, without any real understanding of the underlying principles. Then over the decades it was iteratively improved upon, the physics were unraveled, and the warp factor grew larger. No doubt hand in hand with improvements in computational control systems and material science.

If I had one guess about why that observation hasn't been made since then, it would be that it occurred at a size scale impossible to replicate in the lab and which requires more resources and more personnel than one researcher has access to. The kind of thing that is only available with direct military involvement, just from a basic support base level.

Or, if it has been observed since then, but the dot hasn't been reconnected, I might speculate that there is a slight misunderstanding in special relativity which has become accepted as a universal truth, a misunderstanding which is used to explain the observation away as something else entirely.

But again, hard to say...

I don't need to understand how it works to speculate about what could be accomplished with adversarial metric engineering. And those possibilities are frightening.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

Good to see you around BP