A UFO soon in your Garage

Some people and agencies like to call UFOs, by an new name, the UAPs. The name change reflects the slow realization that those craft do not fly through the air, or use it in any aspect, but simply move through it. Air is a minor hinderance for such craft, as is their moving through water. Their enveloping fields of masslessness give them that capability outside the bounds of our usual, textbook way of looking at physics. Which is to say that OUR acceptance and understanding (and use of physics) was beyond reproach.

Since the US government (and its agents) want to discard the old meaning of UFO (Unidentified Flying Objects) that came from their own Project Blue Book in 1962, and, of course, the old jerry-rigged “flying saucers” tag that began in 1947, evidently, they have come to some new determinations they want to slip on (some of) us.

The reason for the name shift is that they want us to accept the acknowledgement of this new side-stepping procedure of scientific manipulation of the very basic features of mass/inertia/gravity without upsetting their whole world built upon their formerly unalterable rules about mass. In truth, such procedures are nothing more complicated in principle than the fact that birds can defy part of physical nature because they developed wings, a simple, side-stepping of the cardinal rule, to defeat our bedrock and rock-headed belief about physics.

Of course, the knowledge that UFOs defy conventional views about physics has been known since the very beginning of the “flying saucer” era. Why the denial? Well, deny the apparent truth of a UFO hovering there in the air in front of you, camera or radar, and you are denying the method of that ability.

As a government, you can protect a lot of territory with blanket denials. …And it did for decades, all the while as secret, various levels of programs were brought into service to control the inevitable. Well, folks, the inevitable is yesterday’s news! The only problem is that we have antique principles and equipment that are already gathering dust on drawing boards. Can we see our way forward to using nullmass transportation equipment for general use in our world? What are the challenges?

Can we quickly revamp our entire R&D industries and show that we have such capabilities AND start churning out prototypes if nothing else? Are we doing that now? Of course! But what will happen eventually to our entire aerospace industry from manufacturing to utilization?

--You wanna buy a Boeing 777 cheap? Invest in a chemically-fueled space rocket company? This new paradigm is not confined to the mere mode of revolutionizing the manner of moving equipment and bodies. Basically, it accelerates the abilities and advancement of the entire human civilization in directions toward levels of practicality only dreamed of in Star Wars type of movies.

Could this brave new world that we can glimpse with forward thinking be the reason why in some quarters the thinking is that we can eliminate fossil fuels in a couple of decades? Caution! While politics may be a factor it is merely a tool to acquire the goal sought by the Deep State masters.

a reply to: Sundog1

I still want a George Jetson flying car.

How does this apply to the original Buck Rogers flying belts? That is what I want. It would be so much fun with a gargoyle costume, or a flying monkey. A flying car would be nice in bad weather though.

a reply to: Sundog1

by an new name, the UAPs

Hardly that new. The British Ministry Of Defence have been using that terminology for about 30 years.

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: Sundog1

by an new name, the UAPs

Hardly that new. The British Ministry Of Defence have been using that terminology for about 30 years.

Not disbelieving you, but can you show a 30 year old document or link to that effect?

originally posted by: TechnoAssassin1

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: Sundog1

by an new name, the UAPs

Hardly that new. The British Ministry Of Defence have been using that terminology for about 30 years.

Not disbelieving you, but can you show a 30 year old document or link to that effect?

Well we can start with this from 20years ago, i will see what else i can find.

webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk...:/www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/EBC81730-9FFF-4384-B9E0-C3679B5F0C8D/0/uap_vol3_pgs1to9.pdf

Edit.

Having a problem trying to link some of the MOD archive documents for some reason.

The MOD conducted a report on UAP's back in the 1990's. It was known as " Project Condign " Here is a Guardian report from 2007.

Material that was held back from the original FOI release of the Project Condign report, but which was published in October after an appeal, suggests that the MoD suspected that this scientific knowledge came from studying UFOs - or unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) as the MoD prefers to call them. "Russian, former Soviet republics and Chinese authorities have made a co-ordinated effort to understand the UAP topic. Several aircraft have been destroyed and at least four pilots have been killed 'chasing UFOs'.

www.theguardian.com...

a reply to: Sundog1

The term "UFO" has acquired a lot of baggage over the years so Using the term "UAP" makes sense if you want Unidentified objects to be taken seriously.

UAP has been used for years by those who want to break away from the stigma attached to UFOs.

A rose is still a rose.

Here’s a working link....

UAP acronym usage

Even at 20+ years back....UAP Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon term was used by the UK

Some don't bother to comprehend what they read or won't because they want to change or derail the main issue to get their two-cents/pence into the discussion.

There is a reason why the term UFO is discarded as it CLEARLY indicates that those craft are nothing like our conventional vehicle for venturing into the air AND they also displaying features that we have denied since day one of the coming of the "flying saucers."

--Part of the social engineering, don't you know, or maybe just too subtle for some quick readers and responders.

originally posted by: Sundog1
The reason for the name shift is that they want us to accept the acknowledgement of this new side-stepping procedure of scientific manipulation of the very basic features of mass/inertia/gravity without upsetting their whole world built upon their formerly unalterable rules about mass.

It's not really so much a name shift, as an abbreviation shift. Even the US has used the term "unidentified aerial phenomena" as far back as 1952, and that is interchangeable with "objects" in this 1952 reference:

UAP Means UFO – A Terminological History


I'm not sure I believe anything coming out of the pentagon these days, but even so, the explanation given by the pentagon spokesperson sounds about 1.3 trillion times more credible than your proposed explanation:

When Navy spokesperson Joseph Gradisher was asked by Law & Crime he stated “That’s because we want to destigmatize the reporting for our aviators, so they don’t hesitate to tell us what they have seen. Our aviators are not above ribbing the pilots who have spotted something that cannot be identified.”

So does the UAP term have less baggage to "destigmatize" reports by military personnel? I don't know. I'm skeptical of that, but technically when we look at the 90% or whatever percent of unidentified whatever you want to call them are eventually unidentified, what we find is that some of them are not really flying (I don't think of Venus as flying, but it accounts for many UFO reports), and some of them are not objects (the official explanation for Kenneth Arnold's sighting that kicked off the saucer mania is that what he saw was not flying objects but mirages). So UAP may be technically more accurate since that would include things like reports of Venus by someone who didn't recognize it as such, or mirages.

Getting back to your fantasy though, the Navy did publicize some "UFO or UAP" -like patents on superduper technology that all sound like hoaxes to me, maybe China is the intended victim in a strategic perspective:


If you happen to fall victim to the hoax along the way, so be it, maybe China will fall for it too, but I'm not buying it.

The Navy Finally Speaks Up About Its Bizarre "UFO Patent" Experiments

Despite every physicist we have spoken to over the better part of two years asserting that the "Pais Effect" has no scientific basis in reality and the patents related to it were filled with pseudo-scientific jargon, NAWCAD confirmed they were interested enough in the patents to spend more than a half-million dollars over three years developing experiments and equipment to test Pais' theories.

Maybe they had to spend some money on it to try to convince China to spend some of their resources on it? I don't understand the game they are playing exactly, but, I do understand they are playing games, even if I don't know the purpose of the games.

a reply to: alldaylong

Awesome thanks.....interesting that its been used a lot longer than people realise

a reply to: Sundog1

In the Larry King interview with Bob Lazar not to long ago, that was Bob's theory.

Bob said he really didnt understand the secrecy.. He said he understood that it can easily be weaponized and that probably had to be kept protected... but the whole notion of being able to control gravity would change the world and change energy as we know it and that is dangerous.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: Sundog1

The term "UFO" has acquired a lot of baggage over the years so Using the term "UAP" makes sense if you want Unidentified objects to be taken seriously.

UAP has been used for years by those who want to break away from the stigma attached to UFOs.

A rose is still a rose.

"UAP" makes me think that they're talking about stuff like strange weather or meteorites or something. But, yes, UFO certainly implies aliens.

originally posted by: Lucidparadox
a reply to: Sundog1

In the Larry King interview with Bob Lazar not to long ago, that was Bob's theory.

Bob said he really didnt understand the secrecy.. He said he understood that it can easily be weaponized and that probably had to be kept protected... but the whole notion of being able to control gravity would change the world and change energy as we know it and that is dangerous.

Still... I can't think of one advanced technology introduced over the last century or so that didn't end up being a huge boon for mankind by expanding and creating new markets. Yeah, some of the old stuff is pushed out of the way. The buggy whip market tanked when cars were invented. But look at what computers did. Pushed the world economy into such a high level that we can print trillions of dollars and it just keeps chugging along like nothing happened.

Anti-gravity? Bring it on. Imagine incredibly fast transport to practically anywhere on the planet. That is NOT bad for business.

a reply to: butcherguy

who doesn't?

and a jetpack.

Everyone “should” agree that a basic definition for a what a cloud is, goes something like this...

“A cloud is made of water drops or ice crystals floating in the sky”, if we can all agree on this...then can we all agree that a cloud, as temporarily as it is in the atmosphere, is proof of Natural Anti-Gravity existing.

If not, why not?

Without me looking into a school text book for the answers concerning lighter than air topics, it seems to me a cloud has mass and yet it floats.

a reply to: Ophiuchus1
The over-simplified answer to what holds the atmosphere up is pressure, not anti-gravity. The clouds are an atmospheric phenomenon, and don't forget, the air has mass too even if there are no clouds. Every square centimeter of Earth's surface has about 1.03 kilograms of air mass above it. It's not held up by anti-gravity but by gas pressure, what we measure with barometers.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: Ophiuchus1
The over-simplified answer to what holds the atmosphere up is pressure, not anti-gravity. The clouds are an atmospheric phenomenon, and don't forget, the air has mass too even if there are no clouds. Every square centimeter of Earth's surface has about 1.03 kilograms of air mass above it. It's not held up by anti-gravity but by gas pressure, what we measure with barometers.

Ok Arbi, I can understand all what you described, except for using the word “phenomenon” in the context you describe concerning “clouds”. Can you elaborate on why it is a phenomenon? Phenomenon can sometimes be ambiguous for some.

a reply to: Ophiuchus1
I'm using the scientific meaning but either of these definitions in Merriam-Webster will do:

Phenomenon
1. an observable fact or event
2. ...c: a fact or event of scientific interest susceptible to scientific description and explanation.

The process can vary. Just cooling the atmospheric water vapor (which happens as it rises) doesn't always easily make clouds. But what can help is to introduce non-gaseous particles into the atmosphere like dust blown up by the wind, or this is also the idea behind "cloud-seeding", to introduce a sort of solid material that can trigger the condensation of water vapor which forms clouds, at higher temperatures than would otherwise be required for condensation without any solid particles.

Got it! Thanks for the lesson....