ufo tech vs human tech

so i was thinking the other day that there are alot of new comers to the ufo field especially since the dec 2017 ny times article and i feel sorry for them in the sense that they come into this complex and confusing topic where many people want them to believe that there are no such things as ufos that its all drones and secret human tech, ive seen so many confused people fall for that nonsense, these same people yell at us who believe in the et, id, ut, possibility, they say stop speculating and stick to the facts and yet they constantly speculate that its all secret human tech without evidence btw, so we need to stop speculating all the while they get to speculate all they want, typical hypocrite

here are some reasons why ufos and human tech are different

1. there are certain signatures that technology gives off to identify the propulsion and ufos are very different than regular propulsion

2. ufos can hover for hours or even days at a time thats unusual

3. ufos are locked into such a strong gravity force that it can hover and or fly into heavy winds or weather including tornados and hurricanes

4. if this was all human tech the govt wouldve said so and moved on, instead it finally admitted ufos are real and they been real for at least 70 years minimum

5. the govt wont risk losing secret tech over the ocean or hurting pilots and sailors and theres just no evidence that there are working proto types available anywhere of such secret tech and the point of secrecy is not letting anyone know about it ie dont show it to anyone anywhere

6. for decades many ufo researchers have found out that govt scientists kinda know how ufos work but they cant build one because many of the materials needed dont exist on planet earth and they would need to create certain engineering tools and tech and then supposedly put the vehicle together in outer space vacuum

7. human propulsion is very primitive, push oneself from point a to point b using earthly energy methods, ufos seem to use gravity to manipulate the fabric of space time once again very different

anyway these are just some points of contention imo, i keep hearing people say we cracked this and we cracked that without any evidence whatsoever and dont you like how they say we, theyre just sitting at home, the only thing they been cracking is beers

whats interesting to me is that everytime i come to write something the universe leads me in another direction oh well at least i have another topic for a future post

question of the day and seriously someone please try to answer it, you all joke around too much, writing the crazy things you write but i know its joking, its got to be, anyway are they popping in and out of dimensions or just cloaking and uncloaking or depends on the species?

I would try to perceive if there is an innate organic consciousness to the phenomenon.

If the phenomenon is innately conscious, that suggests the phenomenon is not of modern human origin. Mainly because I doubt modern humans have the ability (yet) to engineer a purpose designed organic based independant intellegence to control a probe or flying saucer.

a reply to: saskwatch

Perhaps we have not invented it..... yet

a reply to: saskwatch

Yeah... see the BT's have a device that can open up so called tunnels in front or in their direction of travel,rendering clouds and wind resistence null. they also use this in water apparently but to a lesser degree.
They can also hover for long periods of time silently,and with optical cloaking technology. They are not under strong gravity. they have a mass reducing field that doubles as air resistence reduction.
The Tris are mostly crystaline graphene and are vat grown till their ready to machine into workable air frames.
Power source IS NOT human created though. they are black boxes so to speak as payment by the aliens living on or around earths sphere.

This is information from a former member named Astro,who was in the know.

I agree with pretty much everything you are.saying, and I do believe a
Most of the sightings are ET , but we have developed more.simple.versions of some craft like the TR3B which we got the idea from alien tech, our propulsion is nowhere near the ET crafts but we have made similar propulsion that is not as efficient. There was a letter (or maybe a speech) Ben Rich from Lockheed skunk works said "we have the ability to take et home) or something along those lines. They have also said they are 50-100 years ahead what we could think even think of in our imagination.

This is very secretive to the govt but we did steal all the ideas from crashed or shot down craft. But I do agree most sightings are.likely Et, interdimensional, and even ultra terrestrial. Think about all the millions of species out there that have millions of different craft, we have barely scratched surface. Most are benevolent species that want to help us and are very compassionate, its like 95% good ET's and 5% negative. Also I don't think we have made organic conscious craft like most ET's make through transmutation physics and thoughtforms.

Such a huge field that we barely know and many species of different densities we have yet to discover, I hope in the future all of us have the opportunity to experience and maybe have jobs in these fields of working with ET's and craft and their other odd tech like medical, visual, materials tech etc. I believe this will be part of the golden age we have been heading into.

S+F thanks for your OP

originally posted by: saskwatch
1. there are certain signatures that technology gives off to identify the propulsion and ufos are very different than regular propulsion

What if some of the UFOs are not technological but biological?

2. ufos can hover for hours or even days at a time thats unusual

Unusual but not impossible with today's (or XIXth century) technology.

3. ufos are locked into such a strong gravity force that it can hover and or fly into heavy winds or weather including tornados and hurricanes

That's speculation, you don't know if they are locked into a strong gravity field or not.
If they aren't material (like a hologram, for example) they aren't affected by wind.

4. if this was all human tech the govt wouldve said so and moved on, instead it finally admitted ufos are real and they been real for at least 70 years minimum

Maybe, maybe not, that's speculation and not really related to technology.

5. the govt wont risk losing secret tech over the ocean or hurting pilots and sailors and theres just no evidence that there are working proto types available anywhere of such secret tech and the point of secrecy is not letting anyone know about it ie dont show it to anyone anywhere

They have done it before, so I wouldn't be surprised if in some cases that's what was happening.

6. for decades many ufo researchers have found out that govt scientists kinda know how ufos work but they cant build one because many of the materials needed dont exist on planet earth and they would need to create certain engineering tools and tech and then supposedly put the vehicle together in outer space vacuum

There's more speculation than real evidences of that.

7. human propulsion is very primitive, push oneself from point a to point b using earthly energy methods, ufos seem to use gravity to manipulate the fabric of space time once again very different

Speculation are not facts.

anyway these are just some points of contention imo, i keep hearing people say we cracked this and we cracked that without any evidence whatsoever and dont you like how they say we, theyre just sitting at home, the only thing they been cracking is beers

That's the problem, the lack of evidence works both ways, that's why we are still in this situation in the UFO field.

whats interesting to me is that everytime i come to write something the universe leads me in another direction oh well at least i have another topic for a future post

And that's why I don't think we should limit the possible explanations to what sounds "better" to out preconceived ideas. If we want to really understand the phenomenon then we should start by accepting that we do not know if we are talking about one or several different phenomena for different cases, as some cases are so different from the rest that I do think we should not classify all of them in the same category without more evidence.

Are they unidentified flying objects (or unidentified aerial phenomena)? Yes.
Do they all look the same? No.

question of the day and seriously someone please try to answer it, you all joke around too much, writing the crazy things you write but i know its joking, its got to be, anyway are they popping in and out of dimensions or just cloaking and uncloaking or depends on the species?

I don't have the slightest idea, obviously, and that question is limiting the possibilities.

originally posted by: Spacespider
a reply to: saskwatch

Perhaps we have not invented it..... yet

That comment was right on time.

Cheers

I had heard that as late as the 1970s, there was a joint program by ETs and the U.S. Government to build advanced craft (still not equal to ET's) using Earth-available materials and cutting-edge Earth (but not ET) fabrication technology. The program was managed by the ETs. It was as much a challenge to them as to us. Then some sort of rift developed which caused the ETs to abandon the project.

Some have proposed that the absence of welds or rivets or seams in the retrieved ET craft suggests that they were "grown" (like crystals) rather than manufactured in the conventional sense. UNITEL (www.stealthskater.com...) was going to use “fiber bundles” and synthetic blue diamond to create a "smart skin" which would allow their patented quantum laser lens to operate. The lens had 3 sections which rotated individually (much like Lazar's gravity amplifiers). It would take 1.7 years to fabricate the one-atom thick lens assembly using molecular beam epitaxy at the University of Chicago's MicroPhysics Lab. I was told that special machines would have to be first built before actual fabrication could begin.

Others (including Ben Rich and Corso) said that controlling actual ET craft involved remote mental abilities like ESP. Perhaps that is why so much genetic research is being done at top-secret labs like Brookhaven and Hanover) that only used to strictly nuclear stuff. Can you change human DNA to make it more amendable to these? (Pitkanen's TGD-physics [www.stealthskater.com...] offers a mathematically-robust explanation of how dark energy photons and "dark DNA" act.)

We may be currently limited not only by unique materials (e.g., E-115) and manufacturing technology but also by human genetic biology to duplicate ET craft. So the next best thing would be to "approximate" them as much as possible. It would have been as much a challenge to the ET overseers as to us.

originally posted by: saskwatch
here are some reasons why ufos and human tech are different

Pseudoscience vs. science

"Perhaps the sharpest distinction between science and pseudoscience is that science has a far keener appreciation of human imperfections and fallibility than does pseudoscience." (Sagan, 1996) This is why conclusions based solely (or even mostly) on eye-witness testimony are not acceptable in science, however harsh that may seem to the layman.

Either you have greatly underestimated human imperfections by taking eyewitness accounts at face value, or, you have some good evidence other than eyewitness stories you need to share.

question of the day and seriously someone please try to answer it, you all joke around too much, writing the crazy things you write but i know its joking, its got to be, anyway are they popping in and out of dimensions or just cloaking and uncloaking or depends on the species?

Again, human perceptions are one thing. People may see things pop in and out of existence, in fact here's an example from the recent JJ Abrams documentary, where what looks like a solid object appears to be emerging from nothing.


That's the Oldfield UFO, showing an illusion that fooled people, they even have it on video so it's not an hallucination, it's human misperception to not understand what they are looking at. People were trying to explain how that UFO was using maybe some kind of electrogravitic propulsion system, speculating on UFO technology, like you are doing in this thread, when they have no idea what was actually being observed. Instead of making useless speculation, an enterprising BBC cameraman figured out what that UFO is, but we never hear about that case any more because the UFOtainment industry like that Abrams documentary is about entertainment, so even if they knew what it was, they didn't tell us, they just posted that mysterious image which looks like it's a UFO maybe coming out of another dimension.

question of the day and seriously someone please try to answer it, you all joke around too much, writing the crazy things you write but i know its joking, its got to be, anyway are they popping in and out of dimensions or just cloaking and uncloaking or depends on the species?

Regarding the "interdimensional" hypothesis for UFOs, here's why it's completely useless.
Someone sees a UFO like that Oldfield UFO, even gets it on film, and says something like "maybe it's interdimensional"

They don't know what the UFO is, then take something they don't understand and try to explain using something they understand even less. That's really no explanation at all, which is why it's a silly thing to do. A much more rational thing to do is to actually investigate the UFO like the enterprising BBC cameraman did, who figured out what it was, and now we can say for sure what technology was being used for propulsion, it wasn't "electrogravitic" as some people speculated.

While there are some scientific hypotheses for extra dimensions, the people who understand those models wouldn't use them to try to explain UFOs. They are typically used by people who know little about math or science to explain UFOs to other people who know little about math or science or else by science fiction writers who may know it's complete speudoscience but want to make an interesting story line.

Higher Dimensions in Physics and Mathematics!

Pseudoscientists lean heavily on the assumption that their readers will know absolutely nothing about science or math. This is a pretty safe assumption, alas. And it requires no effort on the part of the pseudoscientist, because he also invariably knows no science or math either.

It is worth summarizing the ways in which the various concepts of "higher dimensions'' gradually diffused out from legitimate math and science, through hundreds of increasingly distorted, confused and muddled journalistic presentations and sensationalizations...

Higher dimensions in pseudoscience are often even further confused with then-unrelated scenarios, such as "coexistent worlds,'' "parallel worlds,'' the "worlds'' reached in dreams and drug-visions, not to mention Heaven, Hell, and even other planets. Mindless journalistic publicity for string theories has over the past two decades touched off yet another wave of science-fictional and fantastical delirium involving "multiple universes," a delirium owing a lot to late 19th Century Theosophy, but essentially nothing whatsoever to advances in physics.

Pseudoscientists and fiction writers have always loved "higher dimensions.'' Almost any fantasy can be motivated by appeal to the "mysterious 4th dimension,'' or the famous "15th Akasic dimension.'' But it is important to realize that such concepts are not borrowed from either science or mathematics, and have no basis whatsoever in the verified descriptions and observed phenomena of the world we actually live in.

a reply to: saskwatch

One must also take in to consideration that the human race, whatever that really means, have multiple planets,in multiple systems, and possibly even in multiple dimensions.

We are just living in a matrix/trueman type situation here on earth.

Humans might have dominated reality for millions of years already. We, here on earth might be just bad copies, like drones, missing great parts in our genome.

a reply to: saskwatch

I'm all for the "cloaking an uncloaking" concept for ET alien starships.

a reply to: saskwatch

Your post is ironic. You call out everyone for speculating and then you go on presenting your own speculations. You say you feel sorry for newcomers but provide no substance for them, other than blank statements. Most of the conclusions you make can't be drawn from recorded footage, so there is absolutely nothing useful for anyone interested in the topic. Just your opinions that don't matter for someone who is cynical, but at the same time are directed at a cynical person.

A bunch of theories to feed other people with the same mindset as yourself, and distance a skeptic even more. Creating an even bigger flow of speculations right below your post, which asks to stop speculating. One big contradiction. That is what this post achieves. Was this the goal?

originally posted by: iknowyou
A bunch of theories to feed other people with the same mindset as yourself, and distance a skeptic even more.

Not this particular sceptic, I don't give up that easy.