Was "Bob Lazar's" Area 51 technology related to Fravor's 2004 UAP sighting?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Case solved!... maybe.

Clandestine reflectors could be used to facilitate OTH coverage as they feature in a couple of "real" SDI proposals and would explain long loitering radar tracks.

I'm a bit TTSA'd out so havent revisited but seem to recall any alleged radar tracked movements were made by inferring Position A at start time and Position B at end time- not actual radar tracking of the transition between.

This would be entirely doable (as I think you've already pointed out in this/another thread ) by having 2 or more manifestations.

originally posted by: Jukiodone
I'm a bit TTSA'd out so havent revisited but seem to recall any alleged radar tracked movements were made by inferring Position A at start time and Position B at end time- not actual radar tracking of the transition between.

This would be entirely doable (as I think you've already pointed out in this/another thread ) by having 2 or more manifestations.

Correct, at the end of Fravor's sighting in 2004 he asked the other pilot who was observing from above what happened to the Tic Tac, and the other pilot said it disappeared, and there was no radar tracking between there and where another radar signal appeared. So logically there's no reason to conclude it traveled between point A and Point B at a high speed when there's no visual or radar trace of anything between A and B.

I'm not even sure you need a reflector for that because either a second source could be used in another location, or possibly the same source just turns off the beam at point A, re-aims the beam at point B and presto, it could match the visual and radar data that way. The written report doesn't give the distance to the CAP point, it says this:

thenimitzencounters.com...

CDR Fravor commanded the radar through the Short Range radar set and asked for a picture from Poison. Poison initially reported that the “picture was clean” (no contact) but then stated “you’re not going to believe this, its at your CAP” meaning that the AAV had flown to their training CAP, which was located in the southern end of the training area and had climbed to approximately 24,000 feet.

So I don't know what the distance was exactly and how possible it is to make the plasma re-appear at the CAP point from a single source by just turning off the beam and re-aiming it somewhere else.

You might even get a result like that without turning off the beam if the plasma was so dispersed while being re-directed, it wasn't concentrated enough to make a radar reflection. But obviously when they report “picture was clean” that's not a good basis for assuming an object flew from point A to point B as they seem to want to assume. I don't assume that because neither radar nor visual reports support such an assumption.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I wouldn't say Fouche was writing fiction, per se. If you believe what folks like B****m have posted here, someone obviously told him something. I'll readily admit that Lazar's story sounds especially ridiculous, but some things do seem to fit.

In regards to particle beams, I personally don't think this is that. There would have to be a coordinated effort between multiple platforms for the multiple beams needed to create the plasma bloom. Unless we're going into the far out realm of things like using exotic optical mediums, phase conjugation, and photon time-reversal for instantaneous beam correction, it would have to be rather powerful and very close to avoid atmospheric distortion/dispersion. Also, what point would this serve if it really were a LIPC plasma ball? Radar decoy, maybe, but you would want it to show up on radar if that were the case. Then there's the timeframe. 2004 seems to have been a happening year for all things military technology. The Navy has stated that these objects were detected using "classified upgrades to the AEGIS radar system".
Folks like Ronald Meyers have been hard at work with LPI/ZPI quantum radar for a long time. Maybe this is a surprise field test of a new capability? There is also the significant speculation in other threads about other particle beam-related happenings in 2004. Seems like a proton beam would be a waste of time when a better alternative was already operational.

originally posted by: DirtyBizzler
If you believe what folks like B****m have posted here, someone obviously told him something.

Even if that's true, I think there has been research along those lines where "promising" results have been obtained but it doesn't mean it actually works. Those experiments can deal with things near absolute zero which can cause experimental errors with things as trivial as air currents related to thermal flows because of the extreme temperature gradients that can be misinterpreted as positive results, so even if someone told Fouche something I don't accept that means anything more than another false positive test due to experimental error. Even NASA seems to have fallen into the experimental error trap when claiming positive results for their tests of the "impossible" EM drive, so if that was classified someone could tell Fouche something about the EM drive, but that doesn't mean the EM drive works!

In regards to particle beams, I personally don't think this is that. There would have to be a coordinated effort between multiple platforms for the multiple beams needed to create the plasma bloom. Unless we're going into the far out realm of things like using exotic optical mediums, phase conjugation, and photon time-reversal for instantaneous beam correction, it would have to be rather powerful and very close to avoid atmospheric distortion/dispersion.

Somehow we are not communicating.

Someone else brought up the multiple laser beam theory which as I said can be discussed here but is not the topic of this thread and wasn't even mentioned in the OP. Personally I do not refer to laser beams as particle beams, I call them laser beams. The OP of this thread has links to Tom Mahood's posts which refer to a single particle beam made of protons, in the area 51 test. (He didn't comment on the 2004 incident that I know of, so he's only talking about Area 51. The 2004 question was mine given the similar observations that witnesses provided like "jittery motion" and motions which which seem to defy inertia for a physical craft but not for a particle beam generated plasma at the point where the Bragg curve kicks in).

I too am skeptical of the multiple laser theory, not saying it's impossible but only saying that I don't have a model handy to calculate the laser power/frequency/luminosity required to generate plasma bloom at the intersection of lasers. If you or anybody else does have some technical details on that, I'd be interested in them.

But there is no intersection of multiple beams required with the single proton beam, since the plasma tic tac is the result of the Bragg curve. Look up the technical details linked in the OP if you're interested, since you seem to have some tech knowledge but don't seem to understand at all what Mahood is talking about in his description of the area 51 test of a proton beam since you're still talking about problems coordinating multiple beams, and he's talking about a single beam, no coordination with other beams required.

There is also the significant speculation in other threads about other particle beam-related happenings in 2004. Seems like a proton beam would be a waste of time when a better alternative was already operational.

Any kind of particle beam would make more sense than a solid, physical craft, so I'm open to other types of particle beams besides protons. What kind of particles do you think are possibilities if not protons?

By the way, the same software linked at Tom Mahood's links in the OP can also model other types of particles besides protons, so the physics behind the interaction of particle beams with the atmosphere doesn't have to be so speculative when Tom has given us a link to some free software which models the interaction.

a reply to: DirtyBizzler

Some interesting points....and connections.
So... you suspect physical craft?

a reply to: Jukiodone
Why not? You hear lots of talk about plasma sheathes and their 'potential' applications in the aerospace field like drag reduction, virtual wing surfaces, and broad-spectrum radar wave absorption. Tales have been bandied about here by certain folks would allege we've even fielded these systems in certain composite airframes for flight tests. It's funny that the uptick in sightings correlates with the announcement of Space Force, our recent bad blood with China, the escalation of tensions in Syria/Iran/Turkey, and other more subtle things like the formal start of operational testing of the LRSB. Could this be the maturation of a system experimentally tested on something like a B-2? Maybe even that was simply a more "pedestrian" application of a derivative technology utilized by some of our far more interesting craft? If your the type that believes that we stuck plasma emitters on B-2's a Kirtland decades ago, why we wouldn't want the a perfected version of the sams trick on the latest and greatest version? It even looks like there's a glowing 'corona' surrounding the craft in the FLIR footage. Also, if you believe certain things you read in here, why field a proton beam when we have something WAY better and more tactically useful in our secret arsenal?

a reply to: DirtyBizzler

www.sacred-texts.com...

Arb is a good thinker on this issue, but he is incorrect in his hypothesis.

1. Paperclip produced significant knowledge with regard to several programs within the US and Britian
2. Lazar was not "protecting" some kind of plasma beam technology by "lying" about observations on physical craft, as hypothesized.

Here is your key takeaway:

" Speed measurements of UFO's made with the use of radar have
been reported up to 5,000 MPH. Others move so fast that speeds
can only be calculated by using time over distance between related
sightings indicates speeds up to 12,000 MPH.

Glowing spheres, cylinders and lens-shaped objects (most
frequent) are the forms which UFO's tend to take. The use of
Plasma as a propulsion method would obviates aerodynamic
requirements up to certain speeds since the plasma would cut
through the atmosphere like a hot knife through butter.

However, above certain critical speeds, dependent on the
shape of the craft, the plasma would not fully protect against
wind resistance. This would justify the use of the "frisbee" lens
shape most commonly seen. In addition, gyroscopic stabilization
would further assist navigation."

------------------------------------------------------------------

As you can see, the Vesco article opens many cans of worms.

If the Germans combined the Schauberger Implosion principle
(vortex "whirlwind") with the grisou (fire damp gas) and added the
Klystron exciter for the plasma drive system, then the Kugleblitz
is indeed possible.

In addition, another type of drive could be achieved by using
Tesla principles (available years before WWII) for such Tesla
turbines driven by liquid oxygen produced by Tesla Mechanical
Oscillators.

There is also Magneto aeroshells that are part public knowledge and much more is classified still today.

A while back Stanton Friedman did a survey on magneto aerodynamics and discovered 90 percent of that subject was classified.

NASA released some information about that AFTER Stanton Friedman did that survey. Probably coincidence, but still interesting.



IMO this is the same kind of concept NASA is basing this on.

Main stream science should have been all over this NASA proposal, but instead the community goes NOWHERE with it. Silence and nada.

This technology is the reason that objects can go from stop to incredible speeds without G-force causing crushing conditions.

And no physical laws are being broken.
Hey this just my opinion based upon personal experience with several facets of this issue.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

This technology is the reason that objects can go from stop to incredible speeds without G-force causing crushing conditions.

And no physical laws are being broken.
Hey this just my opinion based upon personal experience with several facets of this issue.

Huh?

Plasma can be used for boundary layer interaction with the atmosphere (as demonstrated in your atmospheric braking example)- but it has zero effect on the mass/inertia (and therefore g-forces) of the object within it.

Hi - Thought I would chime in with a couple of comments and questions.

First, it seem strange that Lazar's video doesn't pick up anything in the background like stars, planets. Below is a screenshot of the moon phase for March 29, 1989 as well as a screenshot of the sky in Tonopah, Nevada which is close enough to Groom Lake. The weather report was clear sky, clear atmosphere. If you notice in the video there are a few streaks of something passing in the background occasionally. This suggests to me that there's some time lapse photography at work here. Just speculation but...





Second, a still image of the object isn't that different than a proton beam used in medical therapies. Below is an image from this paper: iopscience.iop.org...




This is a still shot of an aerial laser weapon experiment:



As far as radar is concerned, my other half who flew F4 Phantoms and was a Top Gun instructor says that the radar in conventional fighters had a 3 degree aperture and was calibrated to a very narrow frequency. Today, of course, the F35 and other new aircraft have IR detectors and other devices which supplement the conventional radar systems. After reading the article about Fravor's observations, I would question the instrumentation and measurements made from that video. It's an anomaly, but their results and conclusions are still speculative. What do you think about their conclusions?

I uploaded the video from YouTube to one of my programs and used a stabilization app to remove some of the shaking. It looks like at least some of the movement was from the camera itself. And as I mentioned previously, I think there was a time lapse element in the final video that made the object appear to be moving around very fast. The polynomial mapping appeared layered but that's what the technology does - map layers of an object. So nothing new there either.

I think Lazar's video is a hoax. I could make a list a mile long of questions about that video starting with where exactly were they positioned relative to the object when filming? The data he provides, even in the polynomial mapping video, is ridiculously absent of any content or context. The guy isn't a rocket scientist.

The website that you linked had some good information as well:





Another question I had was the object appeared to generate a purple section on the bottom. Purple is the shortest wavelength that humans can see as it actually is in the UV range. The rest of the object appeared as white light with some transparent cross sections. The polynomial images didn't show any layers at the bottom. However they edited the image, they did a lousy job.

Anyway, just my opinion. It ain't a flying saucer, however. Of that, I'm sure.

originally posted by: Phantom423
Hi - Thought I would chime in with a couple of comments and questions.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

First, it seem strange that Lazar's video doesn't pick up anything in the background like stars, planets.

It might seem strange using a modern video camera which has much better low light sensitivity, but back in the 1980s low light sensitivity of consumer grade camcorders was poor, so I don't find it strange, I just presume the UFO was a lot brighter than the stars. Also recall the whole moon hoax theory that claims you can't see stars in the photos or videos so the moon landing must be a hoax, but it wasn't a hoax, so photography is not that simple.

Second, a still image of the object isn't that different than a proton beam used in medical therapies. Below is an image from this paper: iopscience.iop.org...

Interesting, thanks.

As far as radar is concerned, my other half who flew F4 Phantoms and was a Top Gun instructor says that the radar in conventional fighters had a 3 degree aperture and was calibrated to a very narrow frequency.

I didn't know it was 3 degrees but that might explain why Fravor's fighter didn't pick it up on radar but maybe the dedicated radar plane which wasn't limited to 3 degrees apparently picked up something, actually about 9 somethings that day.

After reading the article about Fravor's observations, I would question the instrumentation and measurements made from that video. It's an anomaly, but their results and conclusions are still speculative. What do you think about their conclusions?

I am not sure exactly which article you are referring to, but one of the huge problems in this case is the unwarranted assumption that the video is the same object Fravor saw. The radar plane radar picked up about 9 objects that day, possibly one thing that Fravor saw and maybe 8 or so other UFOs. Then Fravor and his wingman (wingwoman?) left the area, without having made any video. Fravor had a camera ready to go with a helmet mounted switch which he could have easily turned on, but he didn't think of that, so he left without getting any video, and both Fravor and the pilots on the other plane lost track of the UFO Fravor was investigating. The other pilot remained at 20,000 feet so they could get a "birds-eye" view of what was going on below and Fravor asked them what happened to the UFO and they told Fravor that the object "disappeared".

Then some time later, another pilot went to the same general area but not the exact same location and recorded a UFO on his FLIR, but it could have just as easily been one of the other 8 objects that was being tracked on radar that day. Since the UFO Fravor investigated disappeared it makes no sense to me to assume the object in the video is the same object. By the way, a complete disappearance of the UFO is consistent with being able to switch off a particle beam, and not so consistent with a physical craft such as a drone.

I uploaded the video from YouTube to one of my programs and used a stabilization app to remove some of the shaking. It looks like at least some of the movement was from the camera itself.

You're absolutely right about that, however listen to time index about 38 seconds when you hear them say "Did you see that move it did?". That does not appear to be camera shake and the audio suggests real movement. I don't see any particular reason to doubt that they could be video recording a proton beam test, in the unedited beginning of the video.

However the latter part of the video claiming to prove something is laughable since it doesn't prove anything, there are only a few pixels of resolution. So the only two things I take away from the video as meaningful are:
1. The sudden movement right before 38 seconds "Did you see that move it did?" which could be consistent with a proton beam but not a physical craft.
2. The "TicTac" or oblong shape is apparent. Even though the resolution is poor, you can tell it doesn't appear round but rather oblong like a TicTac with it being wider in the horizontal direction than in the vertical direction. However if it was aimed more directly toward the viewer I'd expect the appearance to become more round, when viewed from a different angle, which the same thing can happen with a TicTac from an end view, it too can look more round from that angle.

And as I mentioned previously, I think there was a time lapse element in the final video that made the object appear to be moving around very fast. The polynomial mapping appeared layered but that's what the technology does - map layers of an object. So nothing new there either.

I think the resolution of the video is a bit low to be doing much further analysis other than the two points above, and I am not convinced about any time lapse where you can hear the audio, since the audio seems to sync with what is being observed, such as at the 38 second mark. After the audio disappears it's no longer the original video, it's the same thing being replayed at different speeds, talking about this video:

I think Lazar's video is a hoax. I could make a list a mile long of questions about that video starting with where exactly were they positioned relative to the object when filming? The data he provides, even in the polynomial mapping video, is ridiculously absent of any content or context. The guy isn't a rocket scientist.

No doubt there are some utterly ridiculous "analyses" of the video, but I'm not even sure it's Lazar's video exactly, I suspect it was made by one of his friends, possibly Gene Huff, or else John Lear, and I don't get the impression they were in on Bob's hoax about it being a flying saucer, only that they were victims of it since they were told it was a flying saucer even if Bob Lazar knew it was a particle beam test.

Another question I had was the object appeared to generate a purple section on the bottom. Purple is the shortest wavelength that humans can see as it actually is in the UV range. The rest of the object appeared as white light with some transparent cross sections. The polynomial images didn't show any layers at the bottom. However they edited the image, they did a lousy job.

Once again I don't think over-analyzing a video with such low resolution is going to tell you much and there are some poor analyses available which make lots of bad assumptions.

Anyway, just my opinion. It ain't a flying saucer, however. Of that, I'm sure.

I have a lot more reason to believe it could be a proton beam test than a flying saucer, that's for sure. I can only hope if it's a proton beam test, someday that might get declassified so they can admit that what it is. There's no way I can believe what Lazar says when he's obviously lying about so much.