TR-3B Anti-Gravity Spacecraft (our technology?)

originally posted by: Etathia
a reply to: Arbitrageur


You are right in a lot of what you are saying there.
Regarding video evidence and photographic evidence. I dont think you are quite clear in what you are saying regarding the phoenix lights case though. First of all it was supposed to have been a giant boomerang or V shaped craft. Are you saying all the witnesses claiming they saw that, mistook whatever was in that particular video for a giant boomerang or V shaped craft?
There are lots of witnesses who claim to have seen it flying very low and slow overhead. Certainly there seems to have been many different sightings that day. Flares, aircraft and something not explained imho.

The flares were at around 10pm.

The giant triangle was over an hour before that, but, many eyewitnesses were mistaken, it wasn't a giant triangle as confirmed by the video. People made videos but none of them show a giant triangle, but the 8:30-ish video does show a triangular shape that's actually a V-formation. There's an extensive thread about it here:

(Part 1) The Phoenix Lights - Laying To Rest The Myth

I raised the same question you did, which was the question, what if there was a third event that actually was a giant triangle? Part 2 was made to address that, which tries to show that there probably wasn't a third thing. There were cases where people were practically standing next to each other and one saw a giant triangle and the other saw a V-formation of aircraft, looking at the same place in the sky at the same time. We don't like to admit we are not reliable as eyewitnesses, but there is much scientific evidence to prove that we aren't. The saying "pics or it didn't happen" was not invented for no reason. It may not always be strictly true, but it does speak to our unreliability as eyewitnesses, and we really do need photographic evidence to get anywhere with an investigation.

(Part 2 with Map) The Phoenix Lights - Laying To Rest The Myth

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Yeah,heres the thing.. the BTs can DOCK in flight thanks to their advanced fly by wire systems.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

The problem with that is you pick and choose which witness to believe.

a reply to: LABTECH767

Thank you for this post. I was wondering what happened to her for years now. I couldn't even find the original thread about her. Super strange.

I become interested in this ever since Fermi Lab (which I live very close to) brought this giant magnet all the way from the east coast around to the base of the Mississippi River, then up the Mississippi to Illinois. They shut down the streets in Illinois in order to transfer it. Then there was a big party for it's arrival.

www.popsci.com...

originally posted by: Etathia
a reply to: Arbitrageur

The problem with that is you pick and choose which witness to believe.

What trumps all witnesses is the video, in which there is no mistaking the lights are separate. Eyewitnesses who claim otherwise are simply proven wrong by the video. So it's really not a problem as you suggest, I'm not deciding which witnesses are right, the video evidence makes that decision.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: _BoneZ_
By the end of the 43-second video, most of the lights have fallen out of formation, indicating that the lights are all separate vehicles, not one massive, single ship:

a reply to: Arbitrageur
Certainly in cade of the video. But its far from certain that is indeed what other witnesses saw.

in hindu and sanskrit tales.
once upo ago...
there were vimana flying vehicles, propulsed by mercury.

nothing is new.

a reply to: Arbitrageur


Formation flying perhaps?

a reply to: yuppa
The video shows the formation is not consistent, though it's roughly a V-shape, but the lights can't be connected like this image from the newspaper article:


Other people described a triangle shape, not that surprising since the "v" shape forms two sides of a triangle and the mind can "fill in the blanks" on the third side.

originally posted by: lux666
in hindu and sanskrit tales.
once upo ago...
there were vimana flying vehicles, propulsed by mercury.

nothing is new.

If one can associate Enoch, with Angels (who may have actually been Aliens with UFO’s and Mercury as a source for powering craft)…….then I submit, Mercury was in abundance even during Enoch’s long long life…..which may precede Vimana in the Hindu and Sanskrit tales.

Let me preface first with one of the earliest translators of the English translation of The Book of Enoch…….

Source: en.m.wikipedia.org...

…..” The first English translation of the Bodleian/Ethiopic manuscript was published in 1821 by Richard Laurence, titled The Book of Enoch, the prophet: an apocryphal production, supposed to have been lost for ages; but discovered at the close of the last century in Abyssinia; now first translated from an Ethiopic manuscript in the Bodleian Library. Oxford, 1821. Revised editions appeared in 1833, 1838, and 1842.”……

….” The belief of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, which sees 1 Enoch as an inspired document, is that the Ethiopic text is the original one, written by Enoch himself. They believe that the following opening sentence of Enoch is the first and oldest sentence written in any human language, since Enoch was the first to write letters.”……


Below taken from an online version of Richard Laurence’s Book of Enoch….notice what I highlighted……Mountain of Fluid Metal. My hypothetical theory is that it’s Mercury! Perhaps to use for Alien craft even in those ancient times.

In other subsequent translations from other authors/translators, it is mentioned as a Mountain of Soft Metal. “Soft” which is like Lead and Gold also mentioned as separate mountains. I like the earliest translation of Fluid Metal vs the generic “Soft” Metal as in other translations.




And then there’s this……
Source: arc.aiaa.org...


Lastly…..
Source: ntrs.nasa.gov...

A thread I posted a little while back about the utterly silent craft I saw at night that flew right over me...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I'm not satisfied with the answers from that thread. I've been under many low flying aircraft, while on landing and takeoff, and they all made noise except for this one.

originally posted by: Etathia
a reply to: Arbitrageur
Certainly in cade of the video. But its far from certain that is indeed what other witnesses saw.

I don't trust that any of the videos are not in fact videos of the flares (despite the time they claim to be filmed). I'm struck by the testimony of the whole family that came out in the street (with neighbors) and saw it so low they could almost hit it with a stone. The whole family claims that the stars in between the 'light wells' were NOT visible as the craft past over and through the valley.

Maybe that whole family and their neighbors are lying (I don't tend to believe this, though its possible the parents like teaching their kids to lie to the whole world). Alternatively, its hard for me to believe there is a prosaic explanation to show how they all honestly misperceived the stars being blocked out.

Also, it's not unusual for UFOs to appear differently to different people, so there's that too.

originally posted by: aairman23

originally posted by: Etathia
a reply to: Arbitrageur
Certainly in cade of the video. But its far from certain that is indeed what other witnesses saw.

I don't trust that any of the videos are not in fact videos of the flares (despite the time they claim to be filmed). I'm struck by the testimony of the whole family that came out in the street (with neighbors) and saw it so low they could almost hit it with a stone. The whole family claims that the stars in between the 'light wells' were NOT visible as the craft past over and through the valley.

Maybe that whole family and their neighbors are lying (I don't tend to believe this

Your failure of logic is noted.

It's not a binary option of telling the truth, or lying, That logic failure is called a false dichotomy.
The fact is we have well documented cased like the Yukon case where witnesses were truthfully saying the object they saw blocked out the stars, but we know for a fact it didn't. It's not a lie for them to say that, it's probably absolutely the truth as they perceived it, or should I say mis-perceived it. You can erither accept the proven fact that these type of misperceptions happen, or stick your head in the sand and take everything everybody tells you at face value like an ignorant fool. I don't recommend the latter option, but some people choose that option.

The option I recommend is familiarize yourself with the evidence, like this:

"Top Ten" UFO Case - Yukon, Canada, 1996 - BUSTED!

Report: "stars blocked out" by huge UFO.

Reality: the observers were viewing a long train of debris from the disintegrating rocket booster. It was not a solid object, and thus could not have "blocked out" stars. However, the light from the reentry may have made nearby stars difficult to see.

That "reality" explanation for the reason of the misperception is probably over-simplified, because there are probably more complex psychological and physiological reasons involved for that particular misperception as discussed in this thread:

(Part 1) The Phoenix Lights - Laying To Rest The Myth

You can see in the Yukon case proof that the "blocking out the stars" misperception happens and I don't accuse any of these witnesses of lying, I think they probably really did think it blocked out the stars, even though it didn't.

For some there is an outright belief that there is no such thing as Anti Gravity, they may are probably NOT right but what most other people are talking about is Gravitational displacement which is another kettle of fish entirely.

As for ANTI Gravity.

Well what would that be, well first of all if you have time flowing backwards you would also have gravity repelling instead of attracting.
nypost.com...


So IF some scientists at Nasa found evidence indicative that there is a parallel universe were time flows backwards then by obvious deductive reasoning gravity also flows backwards or is a REPELLING force in that universe.

The problem then if you want to use ANTI gravity ie the repelling force you would then have to figure out how to bridge the two universe without destroying them both? since obviously the two universe can not exist in the same plane or they would have mutually annihilating forced working against one another (hmm I wonder what NASA was up to and if this has to do with broader research into an anti matter alternative (To) generator concept).

But displacing gravity or finding some way to get the hypothetical gravitons and gravity waves to be artificially generated or manipulated into a useable medium is probably not so dangerous as that.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: aairman23

originally posted by: Etathia
a reply to: Arbitrageur
Certainly in cade of the video. But its far from certain that is indeed what other witnesses saw.

I don't trust that any of the videos are not in fact videos of the flares (despite the time they claim to be filmed). I'm struck by the testimony of the whole family that came out in the street (with neighbors) and saw it so low they could almost hit it with a stone. The whole family claims that the stars in between the 'light wells' were NOT visible as the craft past over and through the valley.

Maybe that whole family and their neighbors are lying (I don't tend to believe this

Your failure of logic is noted.

It's not a binary option of telling the truth, or lying, That logic failure is called a false dichotomy.
The fact is we have well documented cased like the Yukon case where witnesses were truthfully saying the object they saw blocked out the stars, but we know for a fact it didn't. It's not a lie for them to say that, it's probably absolutely the truth as they perceived it, or should I say mis-perceived it. You can erither accept the proven fact that these type of misperceptions happen, or stick your head in the sand and take everything everybody tells you at face value like an ignorant fool. I don't recommend the latter option, but some people choose that option.

The option I recommend is familiarize yourself with the evidence, like this:

"Top Ten" UFO Case - Yukon, Canada, 1996 - BUSTED!

Report: "stars blocked out" by huge UFO.

Reality: the observers were viewing a long train of debris from the disintegrating rocket booster. It was not a solid object, and thus could not have "blocked out" stars. However, the light from the reentry may have made nearby stars difficult to see.

That "reality" explanation for the reason of the misperception is probably over-simplified, because there are probably more complex psychological and physiological reasons involved for that particular misperception as discussed in this thread:

(Part 1) The Phoenix Lights - Laying To Rest The Myth

You can see in the Yukon case proof that the "blocking out the stars" misperception happens and I don't accuse any of these witnesses of lying, I think they probably really did think it blocked out the stars, even though it didn't.

I don't understand why you so uncharitably put words in my mouth? Was it just so you could knock down a strawman of YOUR own making?

1) they are lying
2) they misperceived
3) they observed correctly

How is that a false dichotomy? I didn't even say that these were the only options. But, what is the other option you are talking about that wouldn't be a subcategory of the 3 options above?

[SNIP]

a reply to: aairman23

I think you might be referring to a guy named Tim Ley, who i believe have been interviewed on a quite a few occasions, or Mike Fortson who might be the most public witness of one of the events. He passed away a few years ago sadly. He remained convinced for the rest of his days that he and his wife had seen a mile wide craft of unknown origin.